Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 02	August 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Yu[edit]

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

This article fails GNG and has been updated since the last time or at least during the previous nomination. But what another user, who participated in the first AFD, added doesn't add notability as I stated in response to his keep vote. The majority of sources now used aren't really sources. They are links to books this person has written and the reviews of those books. An NYT article that's about her relationship with her husband. Not newsworthy nor does it establish or expand upon the person's notability. Two other sources, number one and number three, don't really add anything. A quick Google search will not find much on the person other than what's already stated in the article. This person is too local in the NYC area. Not well known outside or rather not well known within the NYC area. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is more coverage of Yu and Kan's work in sources such as this, this and this. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not known outside New York?? and lack of 3rd part links?? But as Phil notes she is referenced in this book as an example when discussing "Asian American Women's Popular Literature: Feminizing Genres and Neoliberal Belonging". I only made one spot check and Phil's ref undermines the nomination's rationale. Victuallers (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Author of notable books, as they've been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. pburka (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR, I also added a review from Kirkus Reviews to the article, and the sources found by Phil Bridger could be incorporated. Beccaynr (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does linking book reviews make the person notable? The article continues to look promotional than anything else. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews demonstrate that her books are notable. Authors of multiple notable books are notable by WP:NAUTHOR#3. At the very least, we could justify articles about her two notable books, but I'd rather have one article about the author. Can you clarify which part of the article is WP:PROMO? I don't see any puffery or even external links. pburka (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the author notability guidelines: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Don't see any of this in the sources unless you're counting the academic sources which reference her works.

Second, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." No evidence of this.

Third, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The last part of the reviews is what the two users are basing their keep votes on. However, the Kirkus Reviews page is actually published by the two authors and an unreliable source. And on the website of Kirkus reviews authors can buy reviews per their policy. Coverage of her work isn't enough in my view. There is very little information about her broadcasting and the start of her writing career. Majority of which is also unsourced.

Fourth, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Fails all four criteria under this guideline. You might add it qualifies under C "won significant critical attention." None of the reviews of her books are significant especially when there is a review written by the author itself and most likely paid for it to be on there. And the promotional feel come from this sentence, "China Dolls (2008) tells the story about the lives of three Asian American professional women in New York City and has been described as a 'Chinese American installment of the Sex in the City genre'." The last part is promotional when it states it has been described as, but that review starts with "This Chinese American installment of the Sex in the City-genre..." It's not it has been described as by multiple people or reviews, but just from the point of view of one reviewer. It feels this part of the article uses the some people say argument or statement. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The academic sources contribute to her notability as an author, and help show the work is 'significant or well-known.' And the authors did not write the Kirkus Reviews review, which seems obvious based on the content of the review, nor does this appear to be the kind of "indie review" that can be paid for. The article can be revised for promotional tone, e.g. a more clear attribution to a book review, but the sources already in the article and cited in this discussion appear sufficient to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did the nominator read the Kirkus review? It describes the writing as "painfully pedestrian" and the book as "an exercise in niche marketing." It's very obviously an independent and critical review. pburka (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Sorry, I worded it wrong. What I meant was that anyone can pay their way to have their work reviewed at Kirkus. We need to address the lack of sources of her employment at publications and TV networks. The SNY part is sourced twice with one source, but that source doesn't have a lot of information nor much depth/detail. The lead sentence states she is a journalist and news anchor. We need a source for that. And given the current status of the article, an article in the NYT about her relationship doesn't seem notable unless the article has improved. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The NYT article includes information about her work as an anchor and reporter that has been added to the article; I also added information about a NY Emmy award she won to the article. The link you provided to the option Kirkus offers for paid reviews emphasizes impartiality and appears to support the independence and reliability of a Kirkus review when assessing notability per WP:NAUTHOR, and perhaps especially this particular review, as noted by pburka. Beccaynr (talk) 19:22, 4 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 13:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lawton[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG/ Published author, but that doesn't make him notable. Boleyn (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- His views are distinctly FRINGE, though not notorious enough for an article to be needed because of that. Clearly not a reputable historian or theologian. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. No secondary sources discussing him or his work. Most of his books appear to be self published. Managed to find a review of his book but not from a reliable source and, even if it was, would not justify this article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just noticed that the creator of the article, User:Andy Tomlinson, appears to have some kind of personal connection to Lawton and is listed as a contributor to one of his books. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO and is written like an advertisement. FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:26, 4 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 23:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wabwire W. Emma[edit]

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

Non notable Ugandan politician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL contesting or being an aspirant doesn’t confer notability. They won a non notable award thus WP:ANYBIO isn’t met. All I can see from a before search leads me to press release and other type of unreliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep got various reliable sources as a socialworker Riderfuture (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but you haven’t provided any rationale, furthermore what criterion from WP:NPOL is met here? Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any notability criteria that I can see, whether WP:NPOL, WP:ACADEMIC, or WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as is generally the outcome for individuals whose notability is asserted to derive from losing consecutive election bids. BD2412 T 00:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Suonii180 (talk) 18:29, 10 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 13:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soltage[edit]

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

(PROD removed). I can't find a single non-primary source that isn't either explicitly a press release or plainly a regurgitated one. Fails WP:ORGCRIT/WP:GNG. ninety:one 16:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 16:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 16:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Soft delete not available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found an article in the Chicago Tribune, but it just mentioned them. All the rest seem like press release regurgitation. FiddleheadLady (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any secondary WP:RS to establish notability. They might be one day, but right now it's at the very least WP:TOOSOON. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd settle for just one article about them that doesn't look like a re-worded press release. They clearly exist, and they're clearly doing things. Just one article where someone's actually regarded them as worth talking about in their own right... But until then, Delete. I suspect this article will be re-created in due course, but for now we don't have enough support for "notability". RomanSpa (talk) 14:24, 7 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 13:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar Startup Policy[edit]

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

Dubious references with apparently no WP:SIGCOV, just run-off-the-mill and trivial coverage about the startup campaign. nearlyevil 665 19:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 19:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per norm. Riteboke (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are a mish-mash of coverage about various subjects such as the Bihar sector, an entrepreneurs' organization, routine financial and investment information, an argument and police action at some sort of Bihar conference, one article that is passing mention of Bihar Startup Policy and so on. There is no significant coverage of this topic in any of the available sources. Fails CORPDEPTH and GNG. Also this seems to be an attempt to cobble together unrelated subjects under the heading of this article title. This could be construed as WP:SYNTH. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Max Coyne[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Notability is not conferred by having a street named after you. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC local hero with no wider notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources available (at least on the internet). Part of me wonders whether this is a hoax (and a 16 year old one at that) but I suppose anyone who is interested enough can either reach out to someone in the local authorities at Bordeaux, who can explain the origin of the name's usage for the street, or check some library which has information on French local heroes. Tube·of·Light 06:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with all above. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources in the article, search in google found nothing. While his action certainly comes across as heroic, not reliable sources identify it. At the time of this event there was no internet so if there is newspaper or other sources that emerge or are added to the page meeting WP:RS guidelines a new page can be created. CosmicNotes (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Everything that can ever be said about the subject does not add up to encyclopedic notability. Perhaps if we had an article on street names in Bordeaux, this information could be included there. BD2412 T 00:43, 10 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. Geschichte (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Rowntree[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A soldier, one of many, who unfortunately died in WW1. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Changed to Weak Keep given new sources Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting the general notability guideline. The subject has been covered in Medicine in First World War Europe: Soldiers, Medics, Pacifists; The Times; Rowntrees: The Early History; and the York Press. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please add those in so that we can assess them. Rowntrees doesn't sound like its secondary. Mztourist (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that were mentioned: Rowntrees: The Early History, Friends Intelligencer, University of York... He is mostly known for dying and having famous parents, but his journals are part of a significant museum exhibit. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Medicine in First World War Europe, The Times, The York Press. Rowntree was a conscientious objector from a Quaker family (from what I can see, even going on the battlefield was an unusual step). The Rowntrees source was written by a historian this year, so I'd consider it secondary. I'll add the sources into the article, but thought I'd respond here first. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think there is a case for keeping this, especially with the additional sources noted above. I might feel more strongly if there was more emphasis in the article about the legacy of his correspondence and diaries, which are the real focus of much of what is written about him. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs expanding (especially re legacy), but is strongly notable and per WP:ATD "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 21:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per above. VocalIndia (talk) 04:15, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Ejoor[edit]

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

Ejoor has only played in the second tier of Nigerian football and an unspecified club in Ukraine so does not appear to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. My searches are only coming back with social media pages and YouTube videos so I'm not seeing WP:GNG either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is correct. Kindly visit https://themaksmedia.com/profile-ejoor-john All his social media accounts, stats, videos are all on the link given — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themaksmedia1 (talk • contribs)

This falls short on WP:SIGCOV and I'm also concerned about whether The Maks Media is a reliable source (per WP:RS) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Article was created by a user who has been indefinitely blocked for promotional edits and spam. Dougal18 (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The image on the article is taken from his Twitter and should also be deleted. I will be marking it for deletion on Commons. Kaffe42 (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. FiddleheadLady (talk) 16:59, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryszard Stocki[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. PepperBeast (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. On pl wiki his article will remain as habilitation is sufficient to pass Polish Wikipedia's WP:PROF; this however is not enough on English Wikipedia (as the proposal to recognize habilitation as sufficient has not passed). Here's his Google Scholar profile: [1] (h-index 5-9). While I am seeing him occasionally quoted in media, I am not seeing anything that would make him pass WP:GNG/WP:PROF in English. Our article is effectively WP:OR based on his publications; Polish is simply unreferenced. Nobody has written about his life or significance. Side note: both entries are written by WP:SPAs; the one on Polish used their real name and a cursory search suggest it is a junior scholar who probably was a grad student under Stocki and who did a favor for his supervisor. The odds are our entry was written by another grad... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Krans[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this local paper provides some good coverage but I found little else other than this routine announcement and a few passing mentions in match reports etc. Happy to reconsider stance if someone presents more sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 7 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 WP:SNOW delete. Consensus is clear and the snow has fallen. BD2412 T 00:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boomers Drive-In[edit]

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

Local restaurant with no coverage outside of the local area's newspaper. PROD was mistakenly declined. Sounder Bruce 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Drive-ins aren't very common, but still no indication what makes this generic restaurant notable. I'm confused why the article calls it a chain when their website only gives one location. Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree that there isn't any coverage outside of the local newspaper. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this restaurant is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One restaurant does not make a chain, and this one appears to be mostly local coverage and written in a promotional tone. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No plausible claim of notability and no coverage to establish GNG. Also written in a promotional tone. ♟♙ (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The location is colorful, but its notability does not extend beyond the local level.TH1980 (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about this restaurant: it's simply a restaurant providing food, with some references to this in its local press. RomanSpa (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should have never been deprodded. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:20, 9 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 delete. (Already speedied as G12, edit conflict in tagging.) Star Mississippi 22:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humrich[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN; cited sources are self-published or his own paid-for press releases. The creator makes a claim to notability through Spotify popularity but then he only has 17 monthly listeners on there so that seems like a weak claim to notability... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as well as the nominators concerns it is a copyvio (tagged) - over 80% (i.e, the whole article less discography matching spotify) JW 1961^Talk 22:18, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patterns of Civilization[edit]

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

Non-notable work. PepperBeast (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not meet WP:BK. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still learning here... WP:BK mentions that if it is taught in schools than it is notable for academics. This book was taught in schools and there are teacher's additions and cheat-sheets online for it. Does that count? FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:BK is that a book must be the subject of study as opposed to being a textbook used to study a different topic. For example when a Dicken’s novel is taught in schools it itself is studied. When Introduction to Calculus is taught it is being used to teach calculus not to study the text itself. I guess if you can make the case this is the subject of study then it meets WP:BK. Or maybe this is only my view point. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the one source I could find is fascinating; this piece of mind-bending hysteria from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. It does a good job of breaking down the textbook itself, and the manner in which the book presents information for students (its probably enough to be considered significant coverage of the book, rather than by the book). But hot-damn... it is so outrageously biased I'm having trouble seeing how we could ever consider it a reliable source, despite the manner of its publication. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:45, 5 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 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome B. Robinson[edit]

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

Non-notable author. I couldn't find any significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:27, 4 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. Considering a reevaluation of the first discussion after discounting the comments of sockpuppets, and the discovery of a likely paid editing operation, as well as drafts of the article being repeatedly rejected, there is an overwhelming consensus that this person is not sufficiently notable to qualify for inclusion. I am closing the discussion early per WP:SNOW. Owing to the disruption caused by the sockfarm, the title will be salted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bmcabana SF[edit]

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

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

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

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

Recently recreated article about an artist which does not meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Full disclosure, this subject has had a history of sockpuppetry in the AFC space see the history at Draft:Bmcabana SF to the point of the draft space being salted. If this subject is deemed not sufficiently notable for inclusion I do recommend salting this title as well. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) ~~20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)~~20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as per my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF, this is a restart of that discussion, which was badly disrupted by IP's, new accounts, single purpose accounts. I have recreated the AfD (as a 2nd nomination) using the original nomination statement, above; I have re-timestamped the comment in line with the creation of this AfD. This discussion page will be semi-protected, per my notes at the close of AfD1. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a neutrally-worded request for further input from administrators & experienced editors at AN, considering the nature of my close of the previous discussion. See diff. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition to the comments above: since salting Draft:Bmcabana SF, a draft has been created at Draft:Bmcabana-SF. This draft was twice turned down at AfC, followed by the article being created directly in mainspace. Fully support salting of all variations of this title. --John B123 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sondz.com/artist/Bmcabana-SF?gid=dc41a0a9-f76d-4dfe-89f4-091031cda058	? Page is leading to an error			✘ No
https://hypemagazine.co.za/music/upcoming-rapper-from-polokwane-015/			It's a single line	✘ No
https://reviewonline-epaper.products.caxton.co.za/wp-content/ftp/epaper_uploads/58/Bonus_Review_29_April_2021/Bonus_Review_29_April_2021.pdf			Feel good article about up and coming local artist not much for details.	✘ No
https://roodepoortrecord-epaper.products.caxton.co.za/wp-content/ftp/epaper_uploads/17/Roodepoort_Record_21_May_2021/Roodepoort_Record_21_May_2021-1.pdf			Feel good article about up and coming local artist not much for details	✘ No
https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/sebenza-live/2021-07-13-muso-reaps-rewards-after-using-nsfas-cash-to-fund-career/	It's an interview of the subject.			✘ No
https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/limpopo/pupils-protest-over-school-chairs-1917167			Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://reviewonline.co.za/58546/learners-left-in-the-lurch-at-luthuli/			Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://reviewonline.co.za/449228/talent-hunter-productions-presents-the-centre-stage-limpopo-talent-competition/		This is a reprint of a press release	Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://www.dailysun.co.za/News/thugs-hide-in-abandoned-house-20200623			Does not mention the subject at all.	✘ No
https://buckrollbeats.com/	This is a sales site.			✘ No
https://www.miramax.com/movie/Tsotsi/		This is the film site which does not list the subject or mention him.		✘ No
https://www.shapeslewisham.co.uk/badraccoonmedia/		Business listing		✘ No
https://www.sagoodnews.co.za/when-the-going-is-tough-the-tough-get-going/		This looks to be a personal blog by some guy named Steuart, lacking effective editorial oversight.		✘ No
https://briefly.co.za/49573-angry-seshego-community-members-burn-shop-anti-crime-protest.html			does not mention the subject at all	✘ No
https://hypemagazine.co.za/music/bmcabana-talks-partnership-with-tunecore-and-acting/		This site accepts content from anyone, no indication of effective editorial oversight.		✘ No
https://twitter.com/bmcabanasf	it's Twitter			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

This assessment table was not assessed on all source links provided, some of the links have been improved, The ASSESSMENT WAS BEFORE THE SECOND NOMINATION, I would advise to go assess the sources from the article, this assessment is was conducted by one user firstZefu zungu (06:44 PM, 05 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates I have added in the new references from the article to the table. If anyone disagrees with any of the assessments they are free to disagree and post the reasons as the table is meant to act as a gauge of consensus. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist did an interview with the south african news giant The Sowetan [1] and its a reliable source. the newspaper is also available on pressreader.comZefu zungu (11:01 PM, 04 August 2021 (UTC)

The WP:GNG requires multiple third party sources. An interview would be a single first party one. That's not enough. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it doesn't appear any of their music has noticeably charted, and most of what is documented on the article is minor, local stuff. (Performed a local show, was an extra in a TV show, etc.) I don't see how the WP:GNG is met. Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. I can't find sources to support any of the criteria at WP:SINGER. The filmography credits don't meet WP:ENT and there is insufficient independent coverage for WP:BASIC. Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly people who're willing to do an end-run around our rules to make this article exist, so after we've (inevitably) deleted it, we need to create-protect this title and all its likely variants.—S Marshall T/C 09:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly devoid of actual significant coverage in reliable independent sources. What coverage is significant is either not reliable or not independent, and vice-versa. Many references have no indication why they are connected to this person at at all. Garden variety WP:REFBOMBing to prop up a non-notable musician article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG at this point. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks to Mcmatter for the source assessment; it demonstrates the issue (the missing dead page is an in-house artist listing). There's not nearly enough here to satisfy either GNG or NSINGER. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mcmatter and because it doesn't appear that there are any other possible sources. casualdejekyll (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources found in the above table are notable locally. Article should be kept due to the local notability. TapticInfo (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability on Wikipedia is presumed if you have the ability to find 1. multiple reliable sources with 2. significant coverage of the subject that are 3. independent of the subject. That's just not a requirement this article meets, and no amount of "local notability" can change that, at least in my opinion. casualdejekyll (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor above just gave a very detailed review of how the sourcing isn't enough to meet our notability criteria. So it's not very convincing to counter that with a vague "it's notable" counter-argument. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. -Xclusivzik (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the source assessment table by John B123, pretty clear that WP:GNG is not satisfied. I would argue that the source from Sowetan is quite reliable though, but it does not change anything as it is just interview with the subject, and still does not count towards WP:GNG.SunDawn talk 07:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The table was the good work of Mcmatter not me. --John B123 (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Does not meet WP:GNG per the "Source assessment table" by Mcmatter to this point there are no keep votes with Wikipedia viable arguments. Jeepday (talk) 17:34, 5 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 Virgin Group. Clear consensus that this article shouldn't exist, and sufficient consensus here that this is a plausible redirect. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limobike[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per the outcome of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_26#Limobike. Editors have asserted that this topic remains non-notable, in which case either deletion or redirection to a related topic is called for. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:Use common sense. Nobody thinks this article should exist, per WP:PRODUCT, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG, and yet here we are, performing this procedural pantomime. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't satisfy anything to exist. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Virgin Group as WP:ATD. The product did exist, so it's a viable redirect title, or at least the Virgin Limobike title. Only found one source that seemed good enough for SIGCOV [2], and I found two others that I'm not convinced they are SIGCOV: [3] (opinion article, fairly brief), [4] (daily mail, deprecated) Jumpytoo Talk 18:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, re-redirect to Virgin Group. I'm not convinced there are enough sources to justify an article about this particular service. I concur with Jumpytoo in terms of the sources above, and the only other potential sources I could find were one-line name-checks and suggestions the service might be coming to this or that city. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:54, 5 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. There is a narrow yet sufficient consensus that this article does not meet the required threshold for sustained significant coverage. I note a number of comments suggesting incorporating mentions into various articles; if there is an editorial desire to actually merge the content in this article (as opposed to rewriting a summary, which wouldn't require history attribution to be preserved), let me know and I will undelete and redirect (as implausible a redirect as this may be) to facilitate that occurring. Daniel (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Kin Avia Let L-410UVP-E crash[edit]

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

WP is not a newspaper, and run of the mill all cover this aviation accident. The article's only source says crashes are very common where this occurred. IMHO it don't deserve an article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 20 July 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? 14:12, 20 July 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? 14:12, 20 July 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? 14:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Initially I was in the delete category but decided to dive into finding additional sources. I have added them to the article. There are more, especially when you search in French. I feel that the amount of coverage meets WP:GNG, even though there did not seem to be much in the way of coverage in English sources. As to whether or not crashes are common where this occurred, I don't know how accurate that is, it is mentioned in the Reuters article without support, and I also saw the same statement in one of the French-language sources, but not much more than that. However, an activist group in the country protested after the accident pointing to it as a symptom of the poor state of aviation maintenance at that particular airport, which to me nudged the article into the keep category, since it was coverage not relating to "a plane just crashed". The accident happened just last month, so it is too soon to determine how much additional information will be uncovered in the future. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage is mostly from around the crash in June. There is coverage in July. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PLOT. Nothing really notable in this accident to make a standalone article, maybe add a little entry in Kin Avia page?. A lot of pages about incidents that have been recently created would not require a standalone page, but users aren't able to read basic rules of Wiki.--Paolo9999 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep per RecycledPixels. I also help get some this accident aircraft photo and accident wreckage, this accident type enough big to be wrote an article. If Kin Avia not got banned for Europe, I think it may have Flight numbers.Wiki common no freedom (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The above Editor has been indefinitely blocked[5] for sockpuppetry....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to improvements since the nomination. The article appears to be well-written, has a photograph of the aircraft involved, and is a nice summary of an event that did receive sustained coverage (though only just, with one story in July!). NemesisAT (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Paolo9999-- WP:PLOT? Can you elaborate further? I'm pretty sure none of the listed bullet points at that link even vaguely apply here. RecycledPixels (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". We can't add every aviation accident and incident on Wikipedia, especially if it is a minor one like this.--Paolo9999 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not related, but for example this one too should be put on deletion in my opinion: how can a general aviation accident be considered encyclopedic just because there were 9 deaths?--Paolo9999 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A general aviation accident with 14 deaths was deleted here[6]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Striking my original keep opinion above. I'm not seeing much in the way of sustained coverage of the accident, although I think it's too early to definitively determine that. The coverage about the protests that I mentioned in my original response seems to have been limited to a publicity stunt and a press release, then the organization resumed its normal routine of criticizing everything about the government without much in the way of follow-through so far. I searched for more recent coverage and wasn't able to find any since the last time I looked. I think it's too recent to delete based on an overall lack of ongoing coverage, but I have a hunch that not more will materialize. Cargo plane crashes aren't known for long-lasting news coverage. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:HEYMANN. The article has improved since nomination and there are now several apparently-reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny Keep Already have some same-size article around Wikipedia, this article need to be written more longer. And Kin Avia page also need to be wrote, cuz it's a large cargo aviation company in DRC.111.71.213.202 (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking loutsock vote, see Special:Diff/1037075476. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the issue of sock puppetry in the article, this is a crash of a small (6,600 kg max take off weight) cargo plane. There was coverage back in June, for a news cycle, but there is no sustained coverage from July onward.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this as it is hard to determine whether some of the early contributions came in before the "improvements", and then subsequently, if these "improvements" have altered the consensus. I'm hopeful that another seven days will allow consensus to be achieved either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it remains a delete, even with the improvements it is a minor accident of a small plane (as Eostrix said above).--Paolo9999 (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and carry a summary into Kavumu Airport in the Accidents and Incidents section. A standalone article is not needed for reasons already mentioned by several folks above. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Kavumu Airport is a good place for this material. Geschichte (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is substantial as a result of significant impacts. Meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 00:33, 11 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 23:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed to this article more than a decade ago, but as I have not been active in wikipedia, I haven't seen the alert for deletion. For what is worth, the notability of this article should not have been judged by citation metrics, but by the extensive societal contributions of this muli-talented individual. If you decide to recover it, I would be happy to add independent and third party sources. Philosof66 (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yiannis Laouris[edit]

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

Sources other than perhaps the first one (which is a collection of sources) all seem primary or passing coverage. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would be a notable article, if there were independent sources. But right now, due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV and a lack of independent and third party sources, the article is not notable per WP:GNG nor per WP:NACADEMIC. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No GNG coverage has turned up, and his citation metrics are way too low to meet NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 10 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 23:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socioeconomics of the Ottoman reformation era[edit]

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

Basically two very biased accounts of the state of the 19th-century Ottoman Empire, one anti-Ottoman and one trying to be pro-Ottoman, although the pro-Ottoman one immediately jumps to some pretty strange assumptions about Western cultural superiority. Almost entirely unsourced and has way too many problems to be salvaged. In fact, an alternative could be to merge this article with "Socioeconomics of the Ottoman enlargement era" to make one "Socioeconomics of the Ottoman Empire" article, however, I'm not sure if this article's state deserves a merge. Uness232 (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Uness232 (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small edit: While I did not start an AfD for that page as it seems salvageable with enough reliable sources, Socioeconomics of the Ottoman enlargement era is in a way, a "sister article" to this, and it may not make as much sense to keep one and delete the other, but I'm not sure of the guidelines on that. Uness232 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of several problematic contributions from this editor. Doesn’t do what it says on the tin and looks like an abandoned draft of an article of much larger scope that was barely started. Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:42, 4 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) Itssheenabautista (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Salonga discography[edit]

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

Per WP:RS. The article/list does not cite a single source for contentious claims (e.g. sales claims, certification claims). Suggest to either delete or merge/redirect to subject's main article which already includes a discography section. Itssheenabautista (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I'm pretty sure there's plenty of sources out there. Salonga has been a singer for years. The discography section in the main article is only meant to summarise this article. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This has been sparsely attended to (or never at all). Just because the singer has been around for a while doesn't fully support asserting that unspecified sources exist, especially those that date back in the 80s. I don't see any difference between this standalone article's current state and the discography section of the singer's BLP. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:21, 4 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 23:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piney Grove, Delaware[edit]

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

Not finding any reliable sources which show this to be an actual town, and it shows up in topos as a few scattered buildings at best. Delaware Place Names calls it a locality, and I'm not getting any other significant hits, though there is a lot of masking from similar names. Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of a community here, and no coverage that would meet GEOLAND or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 12:17, 7 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 14:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Greenberg[edit]

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

GNG fail. Appears to be self-promotion. --- Possibly ☎ 17:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 17:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 17:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral Difficult to see the failed WP:GNG argument, as a published author and with a significant number of articles published in the media. Am I missing something? W C M_email 12:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am open to voting keep, but none of the sources cited in the article seem to satisfy all of the criteria of WP:GNG - they are all either interviews (therefore not secondary sources), not independent, or not significant. Also, simply being a published author is not grounds for inclusion under WP:AUTHOR. Were you able to find any additional sources that I might be missing? Niftysquirrel (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wee Curry Monster: In this version of the article, sources 2, 3, 4 and 5 are written by her. As Niftysquirrel says, being an author who gets published does not contribute to notability. It is independent writing about the subject that we are looking for, and there is not enough of it here. --- Possibly ☎ 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was basing my comment on a brief look at the find sources link, as I found references for her straight away. I don't think there is a strong case for notability but I'm seeing enough to convince me that this is worth a keep. But I'm not going to die in a ditch over it, if others disagree with me. W C M_email 06:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should list some if you have the time. Searches are often location-dependent, so when I searched I got things like "Jennifer Greenberg strives to create a comfortable and professional atmosphere for NAC clients when planning their events." I did not see good RS on her as a writer. --- Possibly ☎ 07:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems some of the ones I found were for a different person, my mistake. W C M_email 12:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources that meet WP:GNG, does not pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:MUSICBIO. Niftysquirrel (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I looked at the sources and I’m just not seeing WP:GNG being met. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 00:38, 4 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. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harm (comics)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be any particular coverage on the character. TTN (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage about real-world aspects to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of minor DC Comics characters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, now evidence of notability outside the fictional comic world he is from (all references are to the comic books). WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously fails GNG, and there seems to be nothing on this character beyond the first page of an online search for 'harm comics', so this specific combination of broad terms is not even worth a redirect. Avilich (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor comic villain that fails the WP:GNG. As the character is not currently included in the list suggested above, a Redirect would not be appropriate, and as the article has no reliable sources, there is nothing that should be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 16:33, 10 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 23:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Kermani[edit]

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

No apparent significant coverage available for this player, so fails WP:GNG. Please note that WP:NFOOTBALL does not apply to futsal players, even if they are professional. The two cited sources are both stats profile pages and, in my searches, I could find nothing better than a Tasnim News article, which does nothing more than state that he was his club's top scorer for a season, and this Imna squad list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG/NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 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 23:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bromley and District Football League[edit]

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

The general consensus is that all leagues within the top 11 levels of the English football league system are notable enough for their own article. This league is not part of the football league system at all and is comparable to the recently deleted Halifax and District Association Football League and Guildford and Woking Alliance League.

I searched Google Books, Google News, Google Images and ProQuest for coverage under "Bromley and District Football League" and "Bromley and District League" but found very little. Searches in British newspaper archives for Bromley and District Football League and Bromley and District League brought about nothing better than results listings in the hyper-local Bromley & District Times. Please note that the hits relating to Sporting Life appear to be about a different sport entirely.

Due to not meeting the benchmark for league notability and for not appearing to pass WP:GNG, I would suggest deletion here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:17, 3 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) 21:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Mester[edit]

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

Weak presumption of notability arises due to playing in one professional match 10 years ago, however, searches, including a Hungarian source search, and searches in conjunction with the clubs that he played for, did not yield any significant coverage or analysis of Mester. Coverage was largely trivial squad list mentions like Nemzeti Sport here. There is clear consensus that WP:GNG is far more important than any presumption of notability for playing in one professional match. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, but the musician of the same name is. :) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That explains an awful lot! Certainly was an interesting BEFORE search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately I ran into this many times: a non-notable person shares a name with a notable person, so many of the results are about the notable person. The unnotable person only appears in databases, listings and trivial mentions, or which is even worse, there is no coverage of that person whatsoever. Run into this so many times I lost count. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:10, 5 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. Also eligible for G5 deletion, first block in the sockfarm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orlaw66 was 19 July. MER-C 18:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grace June Cash[edit]

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

3 year old daughter of notable parents, but no notability in her own right. Fails GNG John B123 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Notability is not inherited from parents/grandparents. JW 1961^Talk 17:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wouldn't even redirect this title to any of her family members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, simply put a non-topic. Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no inherited notability, willing to revisit in 20ish years should she gain self–notability.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Child performers can be notable. See Chaz Bono, for example. One vocals credit may not be enough in itself to prove notability, but she is on her way to independent notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You citation is to a person who was 31 or so when Wikipedia was born. There are virtually no cases in which anyone under the age of 12 is notable, and we should apply especially scrutiny to any articles on people under age 18 and consider whether us having an article when they are at that age is a reasonable thing. In most cases it is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles cited as sources are about a baby being born (Grace) due to famous parents, not for anything notable they have done. I wish this person great success in their career, but not much you can accomplish at a few days old. Page can be created in 20 years with proper WP:RS sources if they make it. CosmicNotes (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dmnclefebvre (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to rid Wikipedia of articles on people only notable for who their parents are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 6 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 Man-Bat. RL0919 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francine Langstrom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be anything that'd qualify as significant coverage on the character. TTN (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Man-Bat as I would say the Francine character is primarily associated with Man-Bat, more so than The Outsiders. Another possibility is List of Batman enemies. Open to other ideas for redirects but I don't see this passing GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Man-Bat: Heavily tied to that character. Dark knight 2149 06:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, now evidence of notability outside the fictional comic world she is from (all references are to the comic books). WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classical guitar magazines[edit]

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

A list article that falls afoul of WP:NOT, specifically WP:LINKFARM, as it is essentially nothing but an unsourced collection of external links to random guitar-related websites. I had initially thought to see if it could be repurposed as a navigational list to the actual Wikipedia articles on the magazines themselves, but it seems that only one of these that are listed (Acoustic Guitar (magazine)) actually has an article. Additionally, going by our category on guitar magazines in general, there are not nearly enough notable magazines specifically dealing with "Classical guitars" that such a list would be needed. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems like a very slim niche of Music magazine.It's so specific and such an odd category to have its own page. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 09:53, 4 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. Geschichte (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangor Amateurs F.C.[edit]

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

No indication of notability as an amateur sports team. ... discospinster _talk 15:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FOOTYN Club has played in the Irish Cup including the 2020–21 Irish Cup.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comment - participation in a country's national cup competition is normally considered the cut-off line for getting an article. This club appears to have done that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Club clearly meets [criteria] as playing in national cup competition. Mooretwin (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - club has played in the national cup, considered a benchmark of notability. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - FOOTYN is a good rule of thumb but, ultimately, is an essay so should not be allowed to act as a notability guideline. That said, there is probably enough coverage in Northern Irish media to warrant keeping the article Belfast Live, BL2 Belfast Telegraph Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 7 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 23:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Skálagarð[edit]

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

An obscure painter. The page itself contains no information and I have been able to find few sources mentioning him. The few reliable articles about him do not give much description or information about him, and only talk about his death. I have found a few Faroese articles, though they likewise just mention that he died. As I see it, he does not meet GNG. Kaffe42 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Kaffe42 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Kaffe42 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kaffe42 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source is not enough to pass GNG and show notability, let alone meet the notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 6 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Gallardo[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here is that the music exists, which is not an automatic free pass over NMUSIC in and of itself, and the sourcing isn't getting him over WP:GNG at all: there's his own self-published website, the self-published Instagram profile of one of his collaborators, two YouTube videos, three glancing namechecks of Gallardo's existence in sources whose primary subject is the collaborator rather than Gallardo himself, and the self-published website of a directly affiliated organization, which means eight of the nine sources are doing absolutely nothing whatsoever to establish notability. And while the one remaining source is a piece of media coverage, it's a "local musician plays on the beach" blurb published by his local television station, which is not substantive enough to get him over the bar all by itself if it's the only piece of media coverage he has. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to me like a WP:TOOSOON case. A 22 year old drummer finding local success, looks like one song with a celebrity artist, minimal coverage in news, not to a level meeting WP:RS sources. Would change this vote if more news articles are identified, google search 8/2021 found nothing new. CosmicNotes (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I'm unable to find substantive coverage in reliable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:33, 10 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 page was still under development and I will appreciate a step-by-step guide for a non-develeper mode person - how to make a page about an artist at their early stage.

At this point is seems like you have to be a grammy award winner for the rules to be fullfiled.***

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arthur Maude. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One Good Turn (1951 film)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A basic WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage, only the basic information of release year, cast and crew, and so on from the BFI website and some trivial mentions in lists of actors' filmographies. Not to be confused with several other films bearing the same title (see One Good Turn). TompaDompa (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any reason to think this film might meet the notability guidelines for films. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with Arthur Maude~~: The film is mentioned in every edition of McFarlane's Encyclopedia of British film and Brooks' Directors and their films: a comprehensive reference, 1895-1990... so I think merge or incorporate into Arthur Maude is appropriate. Kolma8 (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything in particular you think should be merged there? The film is already (briefly) mentioned at that article, and we don't have any sources to merge. TompaDompa (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point ;)... Redirect to Arthur Maude. Kolma8 (talk) 21:51, 9 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 12:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LGFG Fashion House[edit]

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. References in the article are either based on announcements or are about the CEO (fails ORGIND) or are about the involvement in a bizarre lawsuit which doesn't by itself establish notability. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good catch, user:HighKing! This article was already deleted after first nomination, but after that newly created by an anonym. This company fails WP:SIGCOV--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Agree with HighKing. Fails, ORGIND and CORPDEPTH because sources fail to establish independent coverage and/or significant coverage. Also, salt because Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, and salting ensures anon editors cannot create this article again. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is not enough coverage and that that can be found falls way short of WP:CORPDEPTH, as it did when this was up for deletion the previous time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revista de Derecho de la Universidad Nacional del Altiplano de Puno[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "I request not to delete, be patient with the development of the scientific journal." PROD reason stands, therefore: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The journal meets most criteria and has independent sources (MIAR, Latindex, DOAJ), in addition, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals), it does not order to delete the page, and does not prohibits keeping the journal on a list of non-featured journals. I request not to delete the page and change its category to a corresponding one such as a magazine or similar. Micnous (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of these indexes are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. Changing categories to magazine does not change anything, as it does not meet any notability criteria for magazines either. This journal may become notable a few years from now, in that case the article can be recreated. --Randykitty (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, I reiterate the request not to delete the article, I invoke the application of the principle of flexibility located in the draft UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, this added to a human criterion of interest in promoting emerging open journals for that reason I ask to keep the journal as a lower level, to de-categorize it as a prominent or notable journal, but not to purge it because it is not part of a demanding metrics business circuit managed by companies not compatible with UNESCO. In fact Wikipedia should promote open science by incorporating developing journals, with the deletion it is only possible to discourage emerging journals, I rely on point 21.f of the aforementioned UNESCO document that says:

(f) Ensuring diversity in scholarly communications with adherence to the principles of open, transparent and equitable access and supporting non-commercial publishing models and collaborative publishing models with no article processing charges or book processing charges; Micnous (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what WP is not. --Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I suggest creating the category: journals without notable or Non-notable journal. Micnous (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, WP does not cover subjects that are not notable. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable per the relevant criteria, and no indication it meets GNG. Star Mississippi 16:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This journal has not yet met the criteria for notability per GNG and NJOURNALS. It is not listed in the required databases and there is no independent coverage in outside sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:22, 9 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) 21:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Angela Hammond[edit]

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

there is probably additional local coverage, but the event itself is relatively trivial DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS. As bad as I feel typing this sentence out, kidnappings are common enough to not be inherently notable with only local coverage. Mlb96 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mlb96. May well have had local coverage, however the case doesn't really seem to have gained any wider notability and wikipedia is not a newspaper. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an untypical (an adult kidnapping witnessed in which the witness gave pursuit in their car) kidnapping case reported widely in local newspapers at the time and on many anniversaries since. Several decades later it's nontrivial enough to be the subject of several different podcast episodes and featured on tv's unsolved mysteries twice with the creator singling it out as the most haunting.--Darrelljon (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the unnamed podcasts do you believe represents a reliable source? Nothing at the article Unsolved Mysteries suggests it would meet WP:RS. --JBL (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could several podcast listings at Apple be considered a reliable source?;
Who Killed...?

The Milk Carton Series

True Crime all the time

Trace Evidence 061

The Trail Went Cold

True Crime with Craig

Our True Crime --Darrelljon (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's seven links; which of them do you think meet any of the positive criteria of WP:RS? For example, does any of them have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or clear editorial oversight, or are produced by subject-matter experts? Are any of them cited repeatedly by unambiguously reliable sources? --JBL (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rewrite, better to remedy it than delete, since it potentially has notability and the details of the crime were too sparse, as well as the process of investigations and outcome should be expanded --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment To rewrite it, we would need substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or podcasts . Where are they? DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry: DGG, JayBeeEll, before a provide an !vote on this one, can inquire of the two of you (as the most established editors I can recognize in this discussion and also coincidentally the two understandably pushing the WP:RS angle the hardest here), why are we dismissing Unsolved Mysteries as a pretty significant mainstream source here? Is there a consensus I am unaware of deprecating it for this kind of use? I wouldn't say anyone would hold it up as having the weight of today's longform media on this kinds of cases, but it does have some degree of profile and my incidental experience of it is that the cold case segments are non-trivial in depth. Remember, we are talking about notability here and not WP:V, so while I won't go as far as to say that editorial controls are non-factor here, but the question of whether or not the coverage of Unsolved Mysteries can provide support for various assertions, but rather whether and how far that outlet's coverage goes to help and establish the degree of coverage, not the veracity of/consensus regarding the particulars. Combining the local coverage, the presumably somewhat detailed Unsolved Mysteries piece, and even discounting the numerous podcasts per reasonable RS concerns, I'm still kind of inclined to !vote very weak keep on this one, if only on an SNG-mediated basis. But I'd like to get your read on the questions raised above before I settle on a final position. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snow Rise, There is a large industry of sensationalist, fake-serious investigation of fringe paranormal silliness and old crimes. For example, I'm sure if I browsed the local grocery store tabloid shelves I could find the latest information about Jon Benet Ramsey, and there are dozens of books about the Legends of Alcatraz. Those sources are trash, failing to meet the basic requirements of WP:RS, and shouldn't be used as sources. The Wikipedia page for Unsolved Mysteries suggests strongly to me that it's part of that industry. (I am not otherwise familiar with it.) Sometimes (e.g., Ramsey) trash sources are written about things for which there are also good sources; but then our articles should stand only on the good sources. --JBL (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no doubt on the industry of salaciousness, but that's kind of a too-generalized argument to govern here, and (no disrespect intended, but) reading the Wikipedia article about a given outlet cannot suffice as the standard for the amount of information and context sufficient to argue for essentially deprecating a source. I think we'd at least need to get an opinion at WP:RSN as to that before we oppose the article on that basis. For the record, here is the source segment in question. Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about it as a source for the proposed purpose here. On the one hand, it utilizes subject interviews and presents documentation, but on the other hand, it has these clearly less than ideal dramatizations interspersed in-between segments, some of which are certainly speculative at least in some details. Still, even if we wouldn't use this as a source to establish the verifiability of particular facts, I think it probably suffices to outline the contours of the story and establish some degree of media interest, especially when taking together with the more local coverage--which local coverage is, in turn, probably more reliable for purposes of supporting certain factual claims about the disappearance. I'll grant you, it's a borderline case at least; I'm still waffling on which way to go.. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dismiss Unsolved Mysteries as a source , because it carries content like this and nothing ekse, and is therefore indiscriminate.We need some coverage in general sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is a difficult one because I for one enjoy a good article of encyclopedic value, in the end i find myself agreeing to the rationale by both DGG and JayBeeEll. Celestina007 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For me this is a well sourced article. The case has plenty of hits on Google. Article needs a rewrite and c/e but that is not a reason for deletion. Falls within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:39, 8 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, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Gush Etzion mayoral election[edit]

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

Lacks notability SecretName101 (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there's no indication that this election received the sort of geographically broad or temporally sustained coverage required to meet WP:NEVENT. There doesn't seem to be an appropriate target for merging and/or redirecting, either. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ, please see below. gidonb (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above there's no indication that this election received the sort of coverage to qualify GNG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable election. Number 5 7 11:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Number 57, INeedToFlyForever, and SecretName101, please consider the option to merge. gidonb (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge!!! The succession of the mayors and perhaps a line on the elections belongs in Gush Etzion Regional Council entry. The Gush Etzion local government article is horribly outdated while efforts unfortunately went elsewhere. We also need 2012 Gush Etzion mayoral election's refs in the unreferenced parent! gidonb (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as the main article could use more information about the elections, which can be found partially in this article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Main articles on small local jurisdictions like this don't typically have info on past leaders and routine elections either. Anyone can go ahead and do that without a formal merge close though. Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a reporter of every election that has taken place ever. Geschichte (talk) 19:07, 3 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. There's a lot of unhelpful argument, and precious little analysis of the sources. I am unaware of any convention that the mere existence of an obituary grants notability, and in the absence of written guidelines saying as much, that argument contributes nothing to consensus in either direction. The Times source is one reasonable source (with some questions about its substantiveness); the other sources have not been explicitly evaluated in a way that shows GNG is met. I could relist this discussion, but it is has already become quite unpleasant; thus I am closing this as "no consensus", explicitly with no prejudice towards speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "already some okay sourcing, perhaps could be improved?" That "okay sourcing" consists of 3, listings, a primary source, and 3 non-reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, and even if WP:NSOLDIER woud not have been deprecated, would not have met that. Created by a COI editor, delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I considered, before I created this page, whether the person would be considered notable enough - and I thought so given rank, DSO and sources.

I had no wish to 'memorialise' anyone - I am not related to the person. I wanted to create pages only for 'notable' people (because I didn't want any deleted).

Can I mention more about the sources - 'a primary source and 3 non-reliable sources' doesn't explain them properly.

1. A history of the family in which the person is mentioned (secondary using primary sources).

2. Rutland remembers, a website mentioning the person and grave location. (https://www.rutlandremembers.org/fallen/718/stansfeld-lieutenant-colonel-john-raymond-evelyn).

3. Website citing primary sources about the person (https://www.soldiersofthequeen.com/SouthAfrica-JohnRaymondEvelynStansfeld.html).

4. The person's Who's Who entry (https://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/10.1093/ww/9780199540891.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-191178).

5. & 6. Website on Craven's part in the War - citing primary sources about the person (https://kirkbymalham.info/KMI/malhamdale/servicemen/jrestansfield.html and https://cpgw.org.uk/soldier-records/john-raymond-evelyn-stansfield/).

7. Commonwealth War Graves Commission website (https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/167193/STANSFELD,%20JOHN%20RAYMOND%20EVELYN/).

The above sources (1, 3 and 5/6) use primary sources.

This person was notable enough in his own lifetime to be in Who's Who, was a Lt-Colonel, has a DSO, saw action in Boer and First World Wars and has a Commonwealth War Grave.

Sorry I don't have any more secondary sources to cite and cannot improve it any more but I do not believe that this page should be deleted.

Hiltpriam (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Who's Who is not the Dictionary of National Biography Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does it fail? I never said WW was the DNB. Is it not even a 'stub' level page - at least - to give others a chance of improving it? Even though there are lots of other pages for soldiers who don't even have the DSO?

If you're all desperate to delete it then that's that.

Sorry it's not good enough, I tried the best I could. Hiltpriam (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he should be kept as he has an entry in UK Who's Who which is used to determine notability and is one of the Wikipedia Library Partners https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/76/ Piecesofuk (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Piecesofuk, can you please point to the policy/guideline which says that? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ANYBIO "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)." links to the Biographical Dictionary article which states that a "biographical dictionary is a type of encyclopedic dictionary limited to biographical information. Many attempt to cover the major personalities of a country (with limitations, such as living persons only, in Who's Who, or deceased people only, in the Dictionary of National Biography). Others are specialized, in that they cover important names in a subject field, such as architecture or engineering." Piecesofuk (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who's who is not the Dictionary of National Biography which is the UK's standard national biographical dictionary as required to meet WP:ANYBIO 3. Mztourist (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added The Times obituary as a reference from 4th October 1915 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obituary in The Times (or another major national newspaper of record) has always been considered sufficient for notability. This consensus has been established over many AfDs and many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

During World War I there would have been many thousands of obituaries in The Times so without knowing what the obit says that argument is not in any way conclusive. Mztourist (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death notices, yes. Obituaries, no. Different things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, hi. Can you point to the guideline which says that a NYT obit is sufficient for GNG? My father had an obit in the NYT. And while I'm proud of him, knowing WP guidelines, he would not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: Not a guideline, but certainly longstanding consensus at AfD that an obit in a newspaper of record is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even an obituary is not sufficient without knowing what it says. As noted on another discussion there is a WP:GLOBAL bias on WP towards inclusion of every minor British noble. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we should not dismiss a source due to not being able to retrieve its contents. NemesisAT (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. And doing so when another editor has added it is tantamount to saying that you do not take that editor's word as to its existence or content, which is a clear breach of WP:AGF and a borderline breach of WP:NPA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Times obit is behind a paywall so not accessible to those who don't have a subscription. Spare me the sly accusation of personal attacks, which is explicitly what you are doing. A completely non-notable officer who died doing his duty, just like 744,000 other Britons Mztourist (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it is behind a paywall? Do you also discount citations to print books because you can't read them unless you own them or have access to a library they're in? Have you even read WP:SOURCEACCESS? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you and others claim that a Times obit is a pass on notability and so given the lack of SIGCOV in multiple RS I would like to see what the Times obit actually says. Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two things are worth noting about Necrothesp's contributions at AfD: (1) they always vote keep, and (2) they are chronically and systematically dishonest in their claims about consensus. I think that their votes should be disregarded by closing administrators in general, but particularly in cases like this one where the basis of their vote is a straightforwardly false assertion. --JBL (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JayBeeEll: You have just contravened WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Well done. Accusing me of dishonesty is not acceptable, exceptionally insulting and completely untrue. I have been here a long time. I know what is consensus and what is not. Where is your evidence that I have ever been dishonest in claiming consensus? I really have no idea what has provoked this attack on my integrity, but I would ask you to withdraw these allegations immediately and reconsider your attitude towards other editors. And yes, I almost always vote keep when I do contribute to AfDs. Simply because I believe in live and let live and usually if I don't specifically think an article should be kept (and there are many I don't think should be) I don't contribute to the AfD and leave it to the growing legions of deletionists to get it deleted if they so desire. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with a user always voting keep? I don't believe that should be held against them and am not sure why you're bringing it up. NemesisAT (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clearer. In the absence of dishonesty, (1) would not be important. But the dishonesty is more apparent in light of (1) -- someone randomly claiming false consensus for things would be behaving weirdly, but someone doing it systematically is doing something worse than being weird (in my opinion). --JBL (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again accusing me of dishonesty. Skating on very thin ice here aren't we! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FWIW, you almost always vote delete. Should we discount your opinion too? NemesisAT (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's ... not actually true. (You are being misled by the fact that I often, as here, contribute to AfD without voting, and the tool doesn't take that into account when computing percentages. You can see a moderately complete list of my AfD contributions here -- in the first section you'll see the 48 articles I have proposed or nominated for deletion, and in the second section you will see 52 delete votes, 15 keep votes, 34 comments (including this AfD), and 14 other votes (merge / redirect).) --JBL (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But, more seriously: if you believe that I am systematically dishonest in my votes, you should please point this out and ask administrators to discount my votes for that reason! --JBL (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, referencing has been improved since nomination with the Times obituary mentioned above. A well-written article with adequate sourcing, exactly the kind of content we should be encouraging on Wikipedia in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a couple of more recent references about his involvement in the Battle of Loos from the Scotsman and the Aberdeen Press and Journal Piecesofuk (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear they're newspaper reports of a commemorative display put on by his family and so inevitably self-serving. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They both appear to be WP:SIGCOV from newspapers. I don't think it's fair to dismiss them, IMO they help establish notale. NemesisAT (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this mention in a newspaper, and this in the Times, isn't significant coverage though. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that these obviously do not contribute anything to notability. --JBL (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also Piecesofuk would you mind pointing to me where that Times obituary is? I've looked over page 6 and can't find anything. I've uploaded the whole of that issue to the Internet Archive (direct). Is it possible you could say the column? Courtesy pinging Mztourist and Necrothesp — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's about half way down the fifth column, headed "COMMANDER OF THE 2ND GORDONS" Piecesofuk (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
God, I'm blind. Thanks. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berrely thanks for posting that, I think that very brief obit does not establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp do you seriously believe that Stansfeld and presumably everyone else listed on page 6 is notable because of these Times listings? What about those listed on page 1 or don't they count because they weren't officers? Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously can't tell the difference between death notices (just an announcement of death) and obituaries (a summary of the deceased's life). Or the difference between other ranks and officers (given all those who have death notices on page 1 are officers as well!). No, not everyone listed on page 6 is notable, because many are simply death notices. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that everyone on page 6 satisfies notability? Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not read comments before firing off an answer, do you? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify you acknowledge that page 6 contains a mix of death notices and obituaries, which just shows the importance of actually being able to see the relevant newspaper to determine whether the person's entry is a simple death notice, a more substantive obituary or something in-between. You claim a consensus that notability is established by an obituary in a major national newspaper, but what then amounts to an obituary? You claim that its "a summary of the deceased's life", well most of those listed in columns 3, 4 and 5 of page 6 would satisfy your definition, I cannot accept that they all satisfy notability. Mztourist (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare, you will see that Stansfeld's entry is considerably more substantial than most of the others, which may list parentage, birth, education and/or marriage, but little or nothing about their career. I would agree that the former are not sufficient for notability, but I believe his is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary is defined as "a news article". There is absolutely no possibility that all those listed in columns 3, 4 and 5 on page 6 were independently researched, verified and written by Times journalists. This is supported by the fact that at the top of column 3 it states "the Times would be obliged if relatives of officers who fall in service of the country would forward with the intimation of death any biographical details in their possession". So these are not Obituaries in the accepted sense. Such notices cannot confer automatic notability because they are not reliable and independent. Mztourist (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The obituary that illustrates the English Wikipedia article for obituary is of a similar length and of similar content to Stansfeld's obituary in the Times: who he was, how and when he died, and brief family and career details. Piecesofuk (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you know anyone can add a picture and caption to Commons and to a page, it doesn't prove anything. The second paragraph of Obituary states "Two types of paid advertisements are related to obituaries. One, known as a death notice, omits most biographical details and may be a legally required public notice under some circumstances. The other type, a paid memorial advertisement, is usually written by family members or friends, perhaps with assistance from a funeral home. Both types of paid advertisements are usually run as classified advertisements." Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thank you for providing the pdf, and the very specific placement on page 6. With that in mind, clearly this is not a very detailed NYT obit, using the rationalization above, there are dozens of soldiers KIA who would be granted automatic WP notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with that. After all, there is no size limit for Wikipedia. It is not a paper encyclopedia. NemesisAT (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:onel5969. That obit doesn't establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NYT? No, it's The Times! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His death was reported in the NYT and other US newspapers at the time, for example in the Washington Evening Star he was one of the four names listed amongst the "many prominent officers" who died https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1915-10-04/ed-1/seq-3/ Piecesofuk (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His name is mentioned and The Washington Star wasn't a national newspaper or the paper of record so that's not significant coverage is it? Mztourist (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per Necrothesp's fact per above discussion. VocalIndia (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the fact that's definitely a lie, or some other one? And which of these relate to our notability guidelines? --JBL (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

above comments clearly based on WP:IDONTLIKE. 😀 shame ! VocalIndia (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And also breaches of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Accusing another editor of lying? Shame, as you say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what do we call claiming a consensus that "obituaries" in The Times are the basis for notability when the "obituaries" do not satisfy the accepted meaning of Obituaries as is the case here? Mztourist (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said I disagree with that assessment. But in any case, I have only said that there is a longstanding consensus that obituaries in The Times are considered to confer notability, which is absolutely true and most certainly not a lie. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out above the "obituary" for Stansfeld does not satisfy the definition of Obituary as a news article. Your whole claimed consensus falls apart because these WWI "obituaries" aren't even Obituaries. Mztourist (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does the consensus fall apart because you don't agree that this one is a proper obituary? WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if such consensus exists, Stansfeld does not meet that consensus because his Times "obituary" is not an Obituary in the accepted sense of being a news article. Presumably most of the other Times "obituaries" from WWI also do not meet the definition of Obituary and so your claimed consensus falls apart as a basis for claiming notability for Stansfeld and anyone killed in WWI and memorialized in The Times. Now you can either explain why you believe that Stansfeld's entry is a news article satisfying the definition of Obituary or you should acknowledge that it is not an Obituary and so is not a basis for notability. Mztourist (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already fully explained. Not rehashing what I've already said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't fully explained why Stansfeld's notice is a news article satisfying the definition of Obituary, you've just decide that it is an obituary and hope that other Users buy your assertion that a mention in The Times satisfies notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether The Times piece counts towards notability, the other newspaper articles do IMO. I disagree with your analysis that they are "self serving". NemesisAT (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are reports of a display put on by his descendents, so of course the display and reports of it are self-serving. Mztourist (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper has chosen to cover it, so the reports are not "self serving", I believe they are independent, reliable, and meet the requirements for GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Local hero/human interest stories over 100 years after his death. Where was the coverage when he was alive or in the immediate aftermath of his death? Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't specify the time of coverage. You seem to be going to great lengths to try and dismiss valid sources, and moving the goalposts. NemesisAT (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The centenary of WWI led to renewed interest in the topic which resulted in numerous trivial stories, including those about Stansfeld. He had no sustained notability in his life or death or in the 100 years after. A couple of stories about a display by his family don't change that. Mztourist (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is "renewed interest in the topic" and journalists are writing about it, then we should cover it. And actually, there were multiple stories during his life and after death. There evidently is WP:SUSTAINED notability here. NemesisAT (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a subscription to The Times so if someone wants to provide me a link to whatever it is you're looking to verify, I can do so (and generate a non-paywalled link valid for 7 days). Please ping me if replying with a link as I am unlikely to see this otherwise. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle - there was a link provided above, just below the first relist, the second "Comment", and two lines below that is the specific location in the pdf was provided. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, those are not links to the Times, but something that has copied it, so I can't assist. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough detail with a suitably diverse collection of references — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The obituary in The Times plus the other sources signify a pass of WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC and so WP:N. Policies such as WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate. I am finding that there's plenty of scope to expand and improve the article and our policy is that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and for reasons cited above. WP:Preserve 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:19, 8 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. Those arguing to merge have not made a strong case for the existence of merge-worthy content, but I would be happy to provide a draftspace/userspace copy to anyone interested in developing content toward a merger. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transperth fare zone[edit]

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

The fare zone for each station is already at List of railway stations in Perth. The table will get more complicated under its current layout when the Airport railway line, Perth and Morley–Ellenbrook railway line open. Steelkamp (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transperth. Deus et lex (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a very peculiar ahistorical item that has a 2014 context and little understanding of the zones before or after the date - it could stand well if someone actually had a historical understanding and materials available - and could be developed in the complexity of the history of the zoning (which goes back outside the lifetime of most eds - Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust (1983), M.T.T. route map effective 1st October 1983, The Trust, retrieved 3 August 2021 ) - if the early transitions and developments are not adequately outlined here, there will have to be something similar to this article at some point. The List of railway stations has nothing to do with the issues that the fare zone title implies. I err on the side of doubt as to effectiveness of deletion, as the potential to adequately explain the geo-political developments of public transport in metropolitan perth are inadequately described so far, and this item could be utilised

In the event of editors keen on information that verges continually on the edge of WP:NOTGUIDE - I strongly urge against merging, or playing with the information in this 2014 oddity, keep or delete and very strong doubts that it relates to current zones exactly - they do change over time - either subtly or grossly JarrahTree 13:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merging is bizarre to say the least, the potential historical context, no one seems to get at all - better gone JarrahTree 00:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transperth, not the railway list. Not just relevant to railways but to all Transperth services. There could plausibly be an article about Transperth zoning, but this is not it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the train stations are summarised with their zones in List of railway stations in Perth. The rest of the content is just summarised from the zone map on the Transperth official website. A brief paragraph in the ticketing section of Transperth is all that is needed to describe zones, we don't need a comprehensive list of every station in every zone, we're not a travel guide. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic railway cruft that gives no substantial knowledge to our readers. –Davey2010^Talk 21:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note none of the above delete comments are consistent with WP:ATD (apart from Ajf773 who is suggesting a merge anyay). There is a clear alternative to deletion. The "historical context" cited by Jarrahtree in the struckthrough comment is relevant for merging too. Deus et lex (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the point in merging this article anywhere. Currently the article is just 1 sentence and a table. The same information in the table is in the table at List of railway stations in Perth, and there is already more information on fare zones at Transperth, so there is no point in merging there. Steelkamp (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Jarrahtree has explained (although struck his comment for some unknown reason) that there is a history in the zoning and sources for it - so there is scope to merge and better incorporate the information. Deus et lex (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Explanation - it could have been a useful template for a historical overview of the development of the zone system - however the research required appears to be beyond either the imagination or capacity the current set of editors, and it would be better to delete this item - and leave it out of the way of the whole set of the large amount of rail and bus information that is all so close to WP:NOTGUIDE items that accompany information about terminals or routes and so on... The history is required but not easily available - as you saw there are signs that there might be enough info for a history of - but there are aspects of the form that would be better based on a specific template - and not use this item as the base. Hope that explains. JarrahTree 11:41, 10 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 per WP:CSK #4: the nominator is a sock of a blocked user and no one else has commented. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Taylor (lawyer)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in RS. Pipsally (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 3 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) 21:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sher.pa (Company)[edit]

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

Appears to have been created as advertising by the company (SPA of same name as company). No evidence of notability under WP:CORP or WP:GNG. All sourcing is fundraisings. WP:BEFORE shows zero coverage. This would be a PROD, but it had already been PRODed previously. David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - It needs MOS and NPOV clean-up (WP:ATD) I don't understand what you mean by the sourcing is fundraising? --Excutient^Talk 10:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP - fundraising is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. The key problem is as I said in the deletion nomination: no evidence of notability under WP:CORP or WP:GNG. You haven't presented any either. Do any such sources exist? - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is arguably some coverage in El Pais (google "sherpa site:elpais.com"), but creation by a SPA means a delete !vote for me. JBchrch talk 22:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I conducted my own search and wasn't able to find in-depth coverage of the company / product in reliable sources. Routine reporting of capital-raising (based on statutory reports from the company itself to stock exchanges) is not significant coverage or independent coverage. The sources themselves are WP:RS business journals and the like, but nothing that I could find reached the level required to pass WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:52, 3 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 12:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALAFAA KARIBOYE-IGBO[edit]

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

Attempted hoax? This person was added to List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth, but removed as vandalism[7]. Meanwhile, the inclusion of this person in that Wikipedia list is used as evidence that he is wealthy in news articles[8]: "Oil Money is ranked as No.3 among richest Nigerians in 2021 and has also featured prominently on Wikipedia’s Nigerian billionaires’ list for 2020 and 2021." Bizarrely, for someone supposed to be one of the richest Nigerians in 2020, there seem to be no news articles about him from before May 2021 or thereabouts. His "business career" is "Oil Money Records", described as a British record label: there are no traces of this in any British sources it seems, and I can't find any evidence of major hit records or somethin similar.

Whether these news outlets were duped by this "billionaire", or are simply completely unreliable, is unclear, but this looks to be a series of big claims based on absolutely nothing, and not something we should repeat here. Fram (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This whole thing is just bizarre. Half of me says it's a hoax, but there are so many news articles that it just confuses me. His social media following is huge, sitting at 1.2 mil Instagram followers, but his posts begin very recently. The record label signed their first artist in very late April 2021. However, the subject's wealth seems to be inherited (note the line in the family section), so essentially this is likely a socialite who started a record label rather then some eccentric con artist. With the identity aside, it still does not pass WP:GNG. Every source that exists is either a direct interview or is so platitude-ridden it's unusable. Curbon7 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I moved the article so the title is no longer in all caps, I hope I didn't mess anything up. casualdejekyll (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G3 as this is clearly a hoax. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Declining the speedy. There may be a hoax going on, but the article isn't a blatant hoax. ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's pretty blatant. Additionally, it probably qualifies under WP:G11 and WP:A7 as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the claims about how wealthy this person is are fake, even if the person exists in some form, so this is a hoax and needs to be deleted. Wikipedia has come to be relided upon, and we need to start living up to that and deleting such rubbish with speed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — @Fabrictramp, that’s a good call, @Fram, GPL93, Johnpacklambert, Curbon7, It’s no hoax alright, I’m choosing my words as carefully as possible but if I were to make a hypothetical educated guess I’d say the PR team “rushed this” I’d describe this as “Too much, Too fast” but not as in WP:TOOSOON, but as a “hurried job”. They largely optimized reliable Nigerian sources but probably are oblivious that we can tell reliable pieces from reliable sources and know both aren’t one and the same, I did a google search, saw three “reliable sources” opened the sources and saw they were all unreliable pieces they either were written by a “guest editor” or were a sponsored post(a supermajority are sponsored posts) so yeah “Too much, Too fast” which is just poor PR(hypothetically speaking) Furthermore and still (hypothetically speaking) a good PR team should know to make someone's “rise to fame”(notability) to appear organic, prior to May 2021 I don’t see anything cogent about them. Not that it makes a difference to me, I know “them” when I see “them” . Lest I forget, the 6 billion dollar net worth part and the “wealthiest in Africa claim” is the ehh “(hoax)” that is a deliberate factual inaccuracy. As of Feb 2021, Aliko Dangote remains the richest man in Africa and that’s a researchable easy to get fact. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 7 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. Geschichte (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Thoma[edit]

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

Caps for Cyprus not covered by WP:NRU and coverage appears to be too weak to pass WP:GNG; the best I can find are Parikiaki and Cyprus Mail, both of which only provide a trivial mention.

I also tried searching "Αντώνης Θωμά" and "Τόνι Τόμα" but couldn't find any significant coverage under either of those. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU with no professional appearances, and international appearances are non-notable. As nom states, while there is some coverage, it is mainly trivial and not enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More Sources needed to show they are notable enough. TapticInfo (talk) 18:52, 4 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 12:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Agathocleous[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRU as caps for Cyprus are not covered by that guideline. In terms of WP:GNG, I'm struggling to find any evidence of a pass. The best I can find are Parikiaki, Cyprus Mail, Greek Reporter and Cyprus Mail, all of which only mention Agathocleous just once so fail to qualify as significant coverage, which must address the subject in detail.

I have tried searching "Γιώργος Αγαθοκλέους" as well with no significant results. Sportspeople are not exempt from our WP:BLP policy so I believe that this article should be deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU with no professional appearances, and international appearances are non-notable. As nom states, again while there is some coverage, it is mainly trivial and not enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 4 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 08:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rentathon[edit]

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

Looks like an advertisement. Lack of significant coverage and containing independent content. Also this is the case of COI too. One of the founders name matches one of article's contributor's name 'Ayush Pai' who is the key people in the company. Calliopejen1 and Umakant Bhalerao have already declined the draft. DMySon (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of the article (96.59.140.58) and User:John Sewasa tried to removed afd tag. DMySon (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 5 secondary news articles cited backing up the claims that are being made. There are articles from WFLA, Bay News 9, and the official Congress Website.

Cut to the chase, Delete as it's an app that's less than a year old, in a beta-testing phase, and on the Google App store as browsed from a PC claims to have been downloaded 10+ times, and reviewed once, by its own creator, who gave his own creation a 5-star rating; all the sources are non-independent or local news (and an app like this isn't notable unless it achieves at least some national interest). In detail, the references: the first two are non-independent and don't confer notability; (3) WFLA is denying access to the whole of Europe; (4) baynews is local; (5) is the award-site, confirming that they won a section of the competition; (6) is just the app on GooglePlay, not a source; (7) "Bizjournals" is local, and is a two-line statement that someone saw their booth; it says nothing about the product at all (except that it wasn't yet available at the time of the reference); this reference has been grotesquely puffed-up in the article - the article claims that they were selected as one of the top 7 out of more than 300 - if you read the article, it doesn't say they're the top anything, it says here are 7 start-ups you might have missed; (8) is Wikipedia and therefore not a reliable independent 2ndary source; (9) and (10) are the same local news clip, and (11) is access-denied. It is definitely TOOSOON. It would be kind to draftify, but as it currently reads like advertising copy, it'd probably be best to scrap the current article and start again if the app takes off. Sorry. Elemimele (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Elemimele. The point of a wikipedia page is to provide reliable information to the people searching it up as we are rolling out to production. Also, it does not make sense why local news stories don't work. Aren't they still reliable secondary sources? Can you give examples of news networks that would count? Because I can give a list of 5-10 wikipedia pages that I have seen that just rely on local news sources and they have never been removed.

Additionally, it was featured on a national Indian news network: India West: https://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/winners-of-2020-congressional-app-challenge-include-many-indian-american-students-across-u-s/article_8ef4c02e-c729-11eb-ac8a-13aff25c8f4c.html << from 96.59.140.58

I'm not trying to be unkind! The guidelines on notability are here [9]. For example, notability requires "significant coverage", i.e. the reference needs to make more than passing reference to the subject of the article. That's the problem with the India West reference: it is a one-line mention in the middle of a much larger article. No, Wikipedia isn't here to provide information as a product is rolled out to production; we can't vet commercial products to tell whether the producer's information is accurate, and this isn't a review or marketing site. We're not here to provide information about things that are going to happen, we're here to provide an encyclopaedic view of what has already happened, and been recorded somewhere else as having happened. The point at which Rentathon becomes appropriate for Wikipedia is when it's already spread across the whole country (or beyond) and become a significant product. That is what I meant by TOOSOON; some things will become notable, but aren't yet, and Rentathon may be in that category.

On the local references, you are right that some articles have only local references, and if they're about a local subject, that's fine. But an app like this isn't a local thing. It's a globally interesting app, on sale in 150 countries, so if it only attracts local interest, it probably doesn't meet WP's guidelines.

I also have to remind you that when you write "as we are rolling out to production" you're implying that you are associated with the company. If you are part of the Rentathon team, you must declare that you have a conflict of interest; if you're paid, you must also declare that you are paid. There's a template {{paid}} for doing so, but I'm not sure how this applies to an IP-address editor.

Another minor thing, could you sign your comments by adding 4 tildes at the end (~~~~)? It helps people see who's written what. Thanks! Elemimele (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt if they refuse to respect consensus as indicated in the declined drafts. The point of a wikipedia page is to provide reliable information to the people searching it up as we are rolling out to production. NO, no it's not, and there are no pages here. Creator also hasn't indicated which sources meet WP:CORP/ORG. Star Mississippi 17:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT There are so many red flags here. Draft declined twice [10][11] but then moved to mainspace anyway [12] by a user who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet (see SPI). The AfD message has been removed twice [13][14] and the AfD discussion has been blanked once [15]. Strong indications of WP:COI issues as noted in the nomination. Altogether, I am comfortable saying that this is more than sufficient evidence for deletion per WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia), specifically WP:NOTPROMO. TompaDompa (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bad faith article, undisclosed paid-for spam. Does not deserve to be considered on its merits for inclusion. MER-C 14:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with MER-C’s and others’ reasoning above. Zsinj^Talk 19:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be kept as a draft for now instead of it being deleted? 96.59.140.58 (talk) 04:42, 9 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 08:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oden Roberts[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Sources are weak and not inline. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Jain[edit]

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

As in the article she seems to have done few major roles out of which it says Krishnadasi (2016 TV series) and Saath Nibhaana Saathiya 2 out of which I found coverages mentioning her only work Saath Nibhaana Saathiya 2 and Thus i failed to find the previous one's independent coverages which technically makes her fail Wikipedia:NACTOR hence we need more prominent refs to make her pass NACTOR, I would want other editors opinion on this via a clear consensus Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 08:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 08:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 08:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 08:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 08:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The personality having its popularity through the television shows. Major sources on Google are entertainment news websites. So, having doubts about Notability. Unsure if it can fulfil the Wikipedia:Notability. Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: based on a google search I found several pages of news on her and she appears to be a major TV show star in India, with 200 episodes of one show. I have also added a few new sources. Peter303x (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of independent coverages Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 17:23, 10 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 detailed source analysis demonstrating an absence of substantive coverage has not been refuted. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taft Street Winery[edit]

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

no evidence of notability . The references available all are write ups in specialize publications that provide such articles on every winery in their area indiscriminately. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this stub doesn't fit the general notability guidelines as outlined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. I also have a conflict of interest as I'm part of the family that owns this winery. I added our brand as one of many winery stubs because I felt its 40+ years of success in the industry was on par with some of the others that are listed in the category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Winery_stubs. I am happy to update this stub as necessary, but would need guidance and would appreciate the support. We do have reliable sources documenting our tenure as well as a history in local Sonoma County politics and agriculture. Jake.martini

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to get plenty of coverage in the wine press and works which cover the wineries of California. The fact that these cover lots of other wineries too is not a reason to delete as that's the nature of all comprehensive specialist works. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson, and there does appear to be limited coverage in mainstream press too such as:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/california-to-impose-first-statewide-rules-for-winery-wastewater-marking-n/
https://www.sonomanews.com/article/lifestyle/past-winners-of-the-north-coast-wine-challenge-look-back-on-being-the-best/
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/01/23/california-winery-wastewater-rules/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/wine/article/Top-wine-tastings-Sebastopol-West-County-15662464.php

NemesisAT (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is adequately covered in specialized media --Rupertdonovan (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete this is a close call: the handful of independent industry sources do discuss the topic, but ultimately in far too indirect and incidental ways: an article on localized wastewater zoning issues includes a reference from a mayor who happens to be the founder of the winery, a couple of local lifestyle outlets include a one or two sentence about the business as an industry venue, some local wine awards include references to products created by the winery. But it just all does not quite add up the notability in my book. It's maybe starting to get close to the line, but not close enough to qualify any burden shifting rules of even the most permissive SNG applicable here, let alone the strong GNG argument that would eventually have to manifest here. Failing further sourcing, I think a delete is appropriate for the present time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HighKing is right. Google hits are not enough to pass WP:NCORP; the coverage presented is neither in-depth, full independent, or about the subject. For example, of NemesisAT's four sources, two are listicles that devote a short paragraph to this company, and two are general wine industry news pieces that happen to mention it in passing. – Joe (talk) 18:26, 10 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 07:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Takahashi (animator)[edit]

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

Fails BASIC, ANYBIO, and ENTERTAINER. Sources are primary, not independent, or passing mentions. There is no substantial coverage in independent secondary sources. This is probably a fan page. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 01:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:36, 3 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 07:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King's International University, Tonga[edit]

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

Fails GNG - no apparent media mention. Article already noted as potentially being written for money. --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 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. Though the article has sufficient sources, it needs to be expanded. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SamyGO[edit]

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

Non-notable project that resells "rooted" TVs – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 04:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom, this is a non-notable project with non-notable references. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Whiteguru Please also read WP:IGNORINGATD. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PhotographyEdits When I came to this article, some of the references were already marked seen. I was curious about this until I looked further and found I had in fact seen them before, attached to a previously deleted article. That is why I said, non-notable references. --Whiteguru (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference from The Irish Times, a newspaper of record. "Resell" does not seem to be correct here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Broccoli and Coffee @Eastmain The project is indeed not about reselling TVs, but publishing the modified firmware as far as I understand. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets the WP:GNG: the articles from LWN.net and the article from Hackaday and two other books are reliable, secondary, and give in-depth coverage of the subject. The article should be expanded, not deleted. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sources present now do not do enough to pass GNG. Outside of the LWN post, there are two books which cover the industry but do not appear to mention this project specifically; there's a brief post from Hackaday; an article from the Irish Times that doesn't mention SamyGO at all (am I missing something with this one?); and a brief post from Mambro.it that's not exactly reliable. All of these together look like 1, maybe 2 useable sources. Hardly significant coverage, hardly reliable. Does not pass GNG. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The Irish Times article had this text in a snippet: "Install UK and Irish apps on a Samsung TV (at the same time) by following the guides at www.samygo.tv. There are subscriptions available ..." I didn't notice at first that the text appears in a comment rather than the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Broccoli and Coffee Please do actually read the references. The book "Abusing the internet of things: blackouts, freakouts and stakeouts" writes multiple pages about SamyGO. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- PhotographyEdits, from what I can see on Google Books (here and here), it seems to have a few passing mentions. Hardly WP:SIGCOV. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  You should not look for literal mentions of the name, but actually read the pages from 134 to 137. The primary subject is SamyGO and the hacks they have implemented. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Irish Times source does not mention the subject, but the Hackaday and LWN refs both focus on it. I can not verify the contents of the books but if PhotographyEdits is correct above, these sources establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can verify it with Google Books, which the nominator can do too. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:01, 6 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 Admiral Group. czar 05:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veygo[edit]

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

Minor insurance subsidiary of Admiral Group whose sourcing is company websites and mentions in articles about car insurance. None of the coverage (either in the article or on my seraches) is significant, and therefore it fails to meet the bar of the notability guideline for companies or the GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have updated the link references to include website, date & author where possible. I hope that helps solve the link rot issue.

I have also found these references that might be more suitable as they include publish date and author. Would it be worth me adding these to the page?

^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

Thanks Jos J05Davies (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Savin, Jennifer (Mar 19, 2020). "All the major discounts for NHS staff, social and healthcare workers". Cosmopolitan. Retrieved Aug 3, 2021.
^ "How travelling just five miles more could DOUBLE your chance of passing the driving test". The Sun. Feb 20, 2018. Retrieved Aug 3, 2021.
^ Wait, Rachel. "Car Insurance And Driving Habits – Gearing Up For Change". Forbes Advisor UK. Retrieved Aug 3, 2021.

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

Comment Regarding the sources and question above from J05Davies: The Cosmopolitan one is a brief mention in a list of discounts on offer, the 2018 Sun article is quoting a study published by this firm, and the Forbes piece is the briefest of mentions - the 3rd name in a list of insurers. All of these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Admiral Group: There is no need for distinct articles on each brand which a firm targets on particular market segments and I am not seeing evidence that this brand is notable in its own right. The coverage of the brands listed in the Admiral Group article might be expanded but regarding this one, I think a redirect is adequate. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree with AllyD ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:14, 7 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. czar 05:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. White[edit]

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

BLP sourced only to IMDB and tagged for years. I am unable to find any sources for this person through the usual Google news/books/scholar/web searches. (Granted, it's a common name.) Levivich 03:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Levivich 03:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Levivich 03:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Levivich 22:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Levivich 22:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the more of the subject's biographical details you use to narrow down the search, the more problematic the search gets. There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of the subject, but (as noted) the name is a common one and there are plenty of obituaries, arrest records, and other WP:BLP landmines out there just waiting to be mixed up and mixed in for lack of any other sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:44, 5 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Doctor[edit]

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

Unsourced article, and the usual Google news/books/scholar/web searches are not turning up any WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Levivich 03:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Levivich 03:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich 03:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom, this is an unsourced article with no references and an external link to imdb. It is extremely likely this article has zero notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The series aired in the early 90's, which is just early enough that it is reasonable to believe that offline sources might exist. Further, searching for online sources is complicated by the number of business calling themselves "Computer Doctor", and by the development of AI's for use in medicine. However, in the absence of any reliable sources, our only option is to delete. However, if someone can find some evidence of notability by reliable sources, or solid evidence of broad syndication (the page claims that the program was syndicated across America), then I would be willing to change my !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a quick search of "Computer Doctor Gene R. Lowry" and there wasn’t much sources. 1 Sahaib (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Levivich 22:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Levivich 22:51, 4 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. czar 05:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marshtown, Delaware[edit]

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

Geolocates to an isolated house in a field, at least until someone in the maps department moved the label to the other end of the driveway. Delaware Place Names calls it a locality, and I find nothing to contradict that— nothing at all, in fact. Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 02:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can turn up a newspapers reference to Marshtown, a rural area off Delaware 24 between Midway and Millsboro, a creek named Marshtown Gut, and passing mentions of the Marshtown Road and Marshtown Hunting Preserve. I did find a reference to a Captain Marsh who had been given 600 acres outside of Lewes in 1680. A USGS publication from 1980 calls it a locale. I don't think this meets GEOLAND or GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 02:35, 3 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. After cleanups, any apparent MOS and other WP guidelines issues have been fixed. (non-admin closure) WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement of Polio vaccine success[edit]

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

Article written like a news story that only represents the US and duplicates a very specific topic covered at Polio vaccine and Jonas Salk. May also potentially be a copyvio which was detected by the page curation tool. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 02:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 02:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 02:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page should not be deleted because basically none of the reasons stated are true and accurate and are mere assertions. Nor is there anything wrong with using valid citations that may have been removed by editors from other related articles in years past or in restating some facts and sources used in some current articles. This is a new topic about a noteworthy historical event, with most of the sources from books or other reliable publications.--Light show (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Light show: Clarifying on my first claim, the article is written like a news story or documentary script and does not have an encyclopedic tone with section headers such as "From fear to celebration" and "Global acceptance and hope". Secondly, you removed the globalization tag with the comment "Removed globalization tag as inaccurate and not discussed. Article has many references to other countries." However, the lead section states "After preliminary results in 1954, when polio was killing more American children than any other infectious disease..." Furthermore, discussion is not needed for tag applications and they are applied by new page reviewers and other editors. Finally, there's other apparent issues with the article, such as in the lead section, where the article starts with no proper introduction. Since the article is such a specific topic, the title does not fit anywhere in the lead section, which it is widely accepted to be how lead sections start. This article is much better off just included as a section within the article of another, more wide topic such as Polio vaccine. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 04:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To your points: Anyone can edit the tone or at least discuss section headings. Unfortunately, this was an American event, with apparently no reporters from other countries present, including the U.K. Likewise, the only published figures about polio cases in other countries, if there were any reports about them at that time, are unknown or unpublished. The lead was rephrased. Again, anyone can edit, so there's no reason to take out a chainsaw to an article when simple conversation or edits can be made. As for seeming newsy, being that it was a news event, it relies on mostly published books and similar documents covering an event sixty-six years ago. In contrast, Covid pandemic is 100% current news.

BTW, I once changed my user name years ago. Have you likewise ever edited with another name? I'm curious, since your edits and deletion requests are pretty impressive for a 16-year-old. --Light show (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made further inspections and cleanups to the article and it appears to not have any more apparent MOS issues or any other guideline issues. I will close the discussion as keep. And in response the your second comment, this is the only account name I have ever used. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polio vaccine - This looks like it could be easily included in the Polio vaccine article as opposed to having its own separate article. --MuZemike 04:01, 3 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) 03:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sylva Åkesson[edit]

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

Current sourcing does not come close to meeting WP:GNG. Searches did not turn up enough to show she meets it either. Nothing in the article, on imdb (which is not a reliable source, but it does list 7 of the 10 films in this article, none of which she had a notable role in. Fails WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 3 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 01:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sussy[edit]

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

Created only for a meme. The three entries are the meme, one obscure person, and something with a different spelling entirely. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Remove the questionable def and we still have a pretty solid disambiguation page which just needs spelling from templates added. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @1ctinus: I did not create the article for the meme but rather because the meme introduced sufficient entries for the requirements of a disambiguation page. I've made over 60 different disambiguation pages for different reasons and one of them is because a trending topic is going to have people searching for it on Wikipedia. So in this case, a new or unregistered user is likely to search "sussy" in Wikipedia looking for some encyclopedic information on why it's a meme (since articles or sections for other specific memes exist on this site), and a disambiguation helps guide them to what they're looking for, in this case, "sussy". Since the meme does not have its own article or enough independence from Among Us to have its own, it is incorporated within the article courtesy of me, with references provided. A popular topic that does not have its own article or even just a section still can be entered into a disambiguation page as long as there's an actual mention explaining it. I also would like to point out that having a disambiguation page prevent new or unregistered users from going ahead and creating an article on such a minor, specific topic that may violate any guidelines and therefore prevents the worst case of the namespace from being blocked from creation. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 01:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meme's been nixed, and now we have a totally normal, albeit humourously named to some people, disambiguation page. casualdejekyll (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment' WaddlesJP13 restored it, but there are more important things going on than arguing about this. A redirect for the Among Us slang to Among Us#Continued popularity (where Sus (meme) goes to) might be more appropriate (and I note I haven't heard of 'susy' being slang at all until today). Nate • (chatter) 09:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've taken note of your comment and have created a better link for the entry (Sussy (meme)). WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The meme appears to be a valid entry (WP:DABMENTION), but even without it there are two eligible entries already. – Uanfala (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found a guitarist and a place where Theobald of Provins lived (and "hermitted") too. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid disambiguation page with legit entries. As for whether it was created because of the meme... inspiration comes from many places. Helen(💬📖) 23:21, 5 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 Moro Lorenzo. RL0919 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moro Lorenzo Sports Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moro Lorenzo. Not a great deal notable about the sports centre itself, can suffice a mention on the person who it is named after. Ajf773 (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moro Lorenzo. Fails WP:GNG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows only events held in the gym. SBKSPP (talk) 01:48, 7 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] Savin, Jennifer (Mar 19, 2020). "All the major discounts for NHS staff, social and healthcare workers". Cosmopolitan. Retrieved Aug 3, 2021.

[2] "How travelling just five miles more could DOUBLE your chance of passing the driving test". The Sun. Feb 20, 2018. Retrieved Aug 3, 2021.

[3] Wait, Rachel. "Car Insurance And Driving Habits – Gearing Up For Change". Forbes Advisor UK. Retrieved Aug 3, 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]