Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 29 August 31 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tennyson Whiting[edit]

Tennyson Whiting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Couldn't find many sources on this player whatsoever, and he hasn't had any success on the major circuits of professional tennis Adamtt9 (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Maggio[edit]

Roberto Maggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Sources provided are all of the promotional type (no byline, overly fawning, etc.). ... discospinster talk 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I'm not finding anything reliable: sources labeled "promotional item" or written by "News Partner" or "Brand Partner Agency" or "Featured Partner" clearly don't meet the mark. This is probably UPI, and regardless the notability criteria aren't met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 31 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. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Staner[edit]

Mike Staner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no actual clear claim to doing anything that makes him notable. The one source is a primary source, it is his recounding his life to someone else, who then lightly editied it. There are no secondary sources, let alone ones that would show notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I did find busied passing mentions to either his work or his existence, but nothing that seems to rise to the level of a substantial mention that would lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is a notable survivor of the Holocaust whose testimony appears in numerous works including Ordinary Jews: Choice and Survival During the Holocaust; Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia; Jewish Families in Europe, 1939-Present; The Holocaust: Europe, the World, and the Jews, 1918 - 1945; The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945; and plenty more in the Polish language too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe Staner would defiantly be considered notable as his experiences have been published in detail in at least two books and are considered part of Holocaust literature. His book was also referenced in Re-examining the Holocaust through Literature, but I do not have a copy to see to what extent. Weber1982 (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Austin[edit]

Stuart Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MMANOT criteria by only having 2 fights in top tier promotions. Also fails WP:GNG as fights are merely routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 23:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda (skyscraper)[edit]

Andromeda (skyscraper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This apartment building does not meet WP:NBUILDING criteria as it does not have historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, nor enough independent SIGCOV in reliable, third-party sources for WP:GNG. The coverage seems to be more about marketing the condos. Article was created by a COI/UPE editor, who has been indeff'd. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creation by blocked UPE. Not a particulalry attractive or standout building. scope_creepTalk 08:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Scope_creep. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It does have in-depth coverage in the form of a review by real estate website Think of Living[5]. The project announcement was covered by Khao Sod (and probably others), though the article appears to be mainly based on the press release[6]. Mentioned in a Bangkok Post piece about the company's operations[7], already cited in article. Briefly mentioned in an article about investing in Pattaya real estate by DDproperty.com[8]. Winner in the Thailand Property Awards 2017[9] (removed from the article prior to AfD). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I translated the "review" from Thai to English, it seemed like a press release and sales pitch to buy condos, not a serious architectural review nor in-depth coverage. Netherzone (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's a website aimed at condo buyers; it's not supposed to be a serious architectural critique. The article is certainly not a press release, though it naturally repeats some information supplied by the developer. (Are you looking at the entire thing, by any chance? There's a "Read more" button doesn't seem to work under the Google Translate website.) More could be discussed on how independent/reliable such websites are as a source (the industry in Thailand is not always transparent about sponsorship), but the writing approach seems comparable to the gadget/video game review websites commonly known throughout the Web. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Paul 012, I'll go back and try to find the "Read more" button. Netherzone (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was able to click on "Read More" and manually translate paragraph by paragraph. Think of Living is a real estate sales site, it is not a newspaper, magazine nor journal. It seems to be an affiliate of realtor.com and propertyguru.com according to the links at the bottom of the main page. Several sections of Read More are about Pattaya and Pratumanak Hill, not about the building. Then one finds descriptions on how to find the beach or shopping mall. Then there is a very long, detailed and illustrated section on driving directions to the condo sales office. The info on the condo itself amounts to things like "the lot is rectangular", "good vacation venue", "nice views". 9/10th of the article is public relations sales promo. I don't think this source can be taken seriously as SIGCOV in RS as it's crystal clear it's "product placement" sponsored content or Native advertising. Netherzone (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough assessment, though I wouldn't say it's crystal clear sponsored content. The website carries plenty of critical reviews, though the author's holding back on giving the property a value-for-the-money score on this one does seem rather suspicious. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this building has won an award, Best High-Rise Condo Architectural Design (Resort) at the PropertyGuru Thailand Property Awards, organized by PropertyGuru, a company that descibes itself as a "property technology company". With 39 awards and 41 nominees, how can you NOT win? What the source (thephuketnews.com) doesn't make clear is that the organizer will let anyone enter the "competition" for free, but then requires all shortlisted entrants to purchases an Awards Marketing Package (or more than one). In other words, this award is a promotional marketing event, paid for by the developers of the buildings. Vexations (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Route of Ages[edit]

Route of Ages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncited article of plot information on a concept from two seasons of the TV series Andromeda. Doesn't meet the GNG. Only potential redirect target is List of Andromeda episodes which mentions some of this topic; a merge would be undue. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor plot element from a minor TV shows, no references, no suggestion of notability in the article. Pure WP:FANCFRUFT. PS. I'd encourage the nom to consider WP:PROD for such articles, this is really the proverbial bottom of the barrer we see at AfD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable and unsourced plot device. All I can find is mentions in plot summaries. -- Whpq (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Balde[edit]

Alejandro Balde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. BRDude70 (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft Might be one for the future, some info online. Govvy (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - the Goal.com source that just got added looks like good coverage. I can't see much else though so doesn't look to meet the multiple source requirement for GNG just yet. Plausible that he could meet criteria soon so draft space seems appropriate. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep passes GNG, even though he fails NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's GNG coverage out there. Here's another one. Nfitz (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Barely has enough to pass GNG, but there's surely a lot more sources that can be found online, considering the coverage Balde has received in the past year. @Nfitz already provided one source, at least it's a start. Oblow14 (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftifty: potential debut this season. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: there is a good potential that he could meet criteria soon. --Assyrtiko (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Although fails WP:FOOTYN, but he is too young, could possibly meet the GNG soon Mehmood.Husain (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep He has enough coverage to pass GNG, alas in Spanish-language media; that's not a reason to not consider them when assessing GNG. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 08:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ignoring the sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Whiteley[edit]

Conor Whiteley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A footballer who has never played higher than the eighth level of English football, four levels below the fully professional leagues, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence of GNG pass either - refs in the article as it stands are simply match results/reports from official club/league sites which only mention him in the context of the team line-up and do not offer any in-depth coverage.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Kranich[edit]

David Kranich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The unsuccessful Republican nominee for mayor of Washington DC in 2006, in which he received a whopping 6% of the vote. There are no sources for the subject that aren't just routine election coverage (WP:SIGCOV), and there is certainly no lasting notability. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find any sources outside of basic election stuff either. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, but this article neither claims preexisting notability for reasons other than an unsuccessful candidacy nor demonstrates any reason to treat his candidacy as markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. It depends mainly on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with a small smattering of purely routine and run of the mill campaign coverage mixed in, and that's not good enough to claim that he would permanently pass WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to hold a notable office under WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Jones (disambiguation)[edit]

Darryl Jones (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2 page disambig, can be covered by hatnotes CiphriusKane (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4 valid entries, easily meets dab guidelnies. Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except one of those is a red link for a footballer who played tier 2 football, which is now depreciated in terms of football notability. How is that considered valid? CiphriusKane (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:DABENTRY, MOS:DABRL, MOS:DABMENTION...dabs are indexes of where someone/something has an article or a mention in an article. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:25, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban first press conference[edit]

Taliban first press conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is not notable per WP:NOTNEWS. It is a news report, which violates criterion #2 of not news. The subject also fails the 10 year test and probably won't be relevant in the future. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 19:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 19:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. There is no indication that this press conference will be any more notable than future press conferences because it is the first one. KidAd • SPEAK 20:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP: NOTNEWS pure and simple. The information could be merged into an article about the recent Taliban takeover, but it is not notable enough for a stand alone article.TH1980 (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living prime ministers of New Zealand[edit]

Living prime ministers of New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Statscruft; with a WP:OR section about "statistics" and nothing to be found that supports that this specific grouping is notable in and of itself (and there's no encyclopedic information about the subject that couldn't be included in either List of prime ministers of New Zealand or Prime minister of New Zealand...). Also, except for some mundane references in the first paragraph of the lead, this wholly fails WP:V RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth, List of prime ministers of New Zealand by place of birth, Living prime ministers of New Zealand and List of burial places of New Zealand Prime Ministers. New to this area, but why are these not just one sortable table? Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Cruse[edit]

Susan Cruse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG, it's an unreferenced BLP and I couldn't find coverage of the subject. Subject fails WP:NACTOR because she only has 3 minor credits (single episode appearances) to her name. RetiredDuke (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I find HighKing's contribution the most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Centre[edit]

Vietnam Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable NGO that fails to satisfy WP:NGO. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows me google hits in primary unreliable sources such as this and this. Needless to say WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At first glance I was going to vote delete because this organization seems too new to appear on Wikipedia. I did some research on Google and was able to find quite many independent reliable sources about this organization. I think this is all sources one can find.
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article or posted above meet the criteria. They are either small mentions-in-passing or "in-depth" but only because they rely on information provided through interview or by the company. I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HighKing. — Băng Tỏa (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient independent sources. There is hardly any reporting of any organisation which is not informed by information provided by the organisationa and interviews with its people. Rathfelder (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A fair discussion here. It was identified that the individual does not seem to meet any one specific notability guideline. Those guidelines however expressly permit notability to be established via other means and there seems to be a consensus around the fact that the person maintained a local sustained notability and likely meets the General notability guideline. Seddon talk 08:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horace B. Griffen[edit]

Horace B. Griffen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unelected political candidate: fails WP:NPOL. WP:BEFORE shows a long career in journalism newspapers (see below), but not enough to pass WP:GNG. Ingratis (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update, from further refs added to the article: apparently not a journalist but involved in newspaper advertising and circulation. Ingratis (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems that Griffen never played Major League Baseball, but given that he won the Republican nomination for a state governor election and given the abundance of converge on the subject including an obituary picked up by the AP, subject passes GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweiss11 (talk • contribs) 01.12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - it now appears (above) that HBG never played Major League baseball, and when he was coach of what is now the Arizona Sun Devils team it was not a college or university team, but only a school side for the Tempe Normal School, which did not become a college until the 1920s, so he fails WP:BASEBALL/N, and I'll not after all withdraw the nomination. He also fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate. As for the coverage, most of it is from the Arizona Republic, which is not surprising since he worked for it, and the rest relate either to his short, modest and non-notable baseball career or to his failed candidacy. So my view remains that he's not notable. Ingratis (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have been trying to source his playing career... according to ASU sources [12] he signed with the White Sox organization in late 1914 and played briefly in their farm systems at the start of 1915 before joining the army.. however this is before farm systems were really a thing and baseball reference has no stats listed for him with the 1914 or 1915 Milwaukee minor league clubs and there was no "Green Bay" team in the American Association in either year... they had a team in the Wisconsin-Illinois League in 1914 but he's not listed there either... so if he was on a roster he never played. Spanneraol (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and to make an unelected candidate notable enough for inclusion you must demonstrate either (a) credible evidence that they had preexisting notability for other reasons besides a non-winning candidacy per se (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) a much greater depth and range of coverage than normal, marking their candidacies out as much more special than other people's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test.) But being signed by a major league baseball team does not pass our notability criteria for baseball players if the person never actually played in a major league baseball game, which eliminates option A, and there's no strong evidence being shown here that his candidacy itself would satisfy option B. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We have articles on failed presidential candidates, but not (I think) below that. A brief career in baseball is not enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep is where I'm ending up on this one. There's not really a specific "thing" that he's notable "for" in our guideline library, except that it seems he's gotten a whole lot of coverage for whatever he happened to be doing at most any given point in life. That, to me, points to a pass on WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am inclined to treat a normal school (an older name for a teachers college - in this context, "normal" refers to norms or standards) like any other post-secondary institution, even though it awarded a certificate rather than a degree.From the Normal school article: A normal school is an institution created to train high school graduates to be teachers by educating them in the norms of pedagogy and curriculum. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arizona State University makes a point of treating Griffen as an alumni of the university. Their media guide touts him as a legend, being the first ASU student to sign with a major league baseball team. BD2412 T 20:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • For our purposes here, Arizona State should be considered a top-level college sports teams even in its early days when it was a normal school. Ingratis's comment above about a "school side" is an inapt transposition of a Britishism onto American college sports. I have no idea what a "school side" is (although I can guess), and I'm surely no novice when it comes to American college sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, the the NCAA was only a few years formed at the time. There were no "divisions" to speak of until 1956.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: UserJWeiss11's bland assertion of significance requires independent corroboration, i.e., to the effect that a teacher training establishment had the same sporting status as a university, regardless of whether it was later incorporated into one. (I note the anti-British sneer in passing). The article is accumulating references, but still as above: either published by the newspaper HBG worked for, and of local interest only (like his golden wedding), or about his NN baseball career or his equally NN political candidacy, now topped up by trivia like his support for the Arizona Decorating Co. Despite a disproportionate amount of effort it remains clear that he is not more than locally notable: your goose is not a swan. Ingratis (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above --Paul McDonald (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Arizona Republic is a national newspaper and a longstanding highly regarded source, and I see no argument that this should be discounted in its reporting on this subject - particularly during periods when he was not employed by them, such as during his war service, and his obituary. Of course, a majority of references in the article are to other sources. BD2412 T 01:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ingratis, I'm not anti-British, but I am indeed against people wading authoritatively, and combatively, into matters of which they are ignorant. Here's exhibit A of hundreds that provide independent corroboration that athletics at normal schools were considered full-fledged college sports in the late 1800s and early 1900s: Template:1919 Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference football standings; see cited ref: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/55979342/the-wichita-beacon/. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see that disagreeing with you is combative. As above, other people have also thought this man NN on baseball grounds. You could have made this point earlier when you dismissed him as a player: I assume that his notability rests on his period as coach. Thanks for the source. Ingratis (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A focus on narrow topical guidelines misses the mark. Multiple news sources that discuss the person in depth meets WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Seems there was nothing in itself that would be considered notable. However, the media coverage from his many ambitions would seem to pass WP:GNG. Weber1982 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seddon talk 08:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standpatter Republican[edit]

Standpatter Republican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic is not notable and has little to not coverage in sources. Extensive WP:BEFORE and searches of other databases yield nothing. The few hits that do come up are usually using the term standpatter as an adjective (ie conservative) rather than alluding to a recognised faction or group within the Republican party that went by this name. Some hits just happen to have the words next to each other. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reads like a half-baked introductory paragraph to a college essay. KidAd • SPEAK 00:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But poor-quality writing is justification for improvement, not deletion. St★lwart111 01:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it's not really a "faction" in the sense that people gathered together and referred to themselves in those terms, but it does seem to be a part of common political parlance in that particular period. Here is someone being described in those terms in the New York Times in 1915. This book gives a fairly succinct definition of what those described this way believed. This book describes the effect those beliefs had on the politics of the day. This report in the Florida State University Law Review provides further detail. I do think that renaming the article to Standpatter (with explanation therein that it is a term related to particular Republicans) would be a significant improvement. St★lwart111 01:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the article is quite definitive in describing this as a faction rather just a descriptive phase. If this is just a descriptive phase then I am not sure it is notable either as you could make this argument for many articles using the formula Adjective + Republican. The sources presented are primary uses of this phrase rather than secondary explanations of it. I will go through the sources you presented as they demonstrate my initial point:
  1. [13] The article uses the phrase as follows: "He was the irreconcilable standpatter Republican". This is clearly just using "standpatter" as an adjective to present the conservatism of Cannon and the Republican party.
  2. [14]This books sole reference is as follows: "...the 'standpatter' Republican Party sought to maintain advantages for the patrician class, while the populist Democrats sought to...". Again this seems to use the term "standpatter" as an adjective to contrast the Republican's conservatism with the Democrat's populism.
  3. [15] Again the term is used once in this book. Is one of the more compelling sources but still really just means 'conservative'. And I'm not sure a single primary usage in a book about a film executive gives this term notability.
  4. [16] An incredibly obscure reference which uses the term once without any explanation. Strangely the text speaks about a report given to congress by Sereno Payne (d. 1914) but links to a congressional record from 1919 (five years after his death). I don't have the time or will to check this reference. Either way this seems unreliable or just plain obscure at best.
Standpatter already has a well established meaning so it would make little sense (and be confusing) to change the title of the article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly my point - our article gets it wrong and should be corrected. This was not a specific, organised faction, it was a way (in the common parlance of the day) to describe a particular type of Republican. And the definition you give comes from that common usage of the term to describe this particular grouping of like-minded people. As opposed to something like the Tea Party Caucus, or even the related Tea Party movement. I think we could safely rename it without it being conflated with something else. There isn't - from what I can see - some other common use of the term for it to be confused with. St★lwart111 04:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to sources that makes this argument? Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which argument? St★lwart111 05:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one: This was not a specific, organised faction, it was a way (in the common parlance of the day) to describe a particular type of Republican. And the definition you give comes from that common usage of the term to describe this particular grouping of like-minded people. Am I misunderstanding something, or is this only a view vaguely alluded to by Wolraich? Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, its based on the description from the Merriam-Webster link above. Following Hanna's use of the term, it became a common way to describe people with that view (mostly Republicans) and to "stand pat" (separately) has come to be used in a range of other contexts. So "standpatters" or "stand-patters" as a description of that group (like "stalwarts") or "stand pat" as a verb used elsewhere, and more recently (like "stalwart", which we disambiguate). But they still have the same genesis. St★lwart111 06:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A source! A source! My kingdom for a source! Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the ones in the article? St★lwart111 07:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I had some time and so cleaned the article up a bit. I need to work on the references but the two that provide a specific description of who and what the standpatters were is enough for me. And I'll proposed a name-change following this AfD. St★lwart111 05:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to be notable in my view. There are numerous contemporaneous news articles of Standpatter Republicans distincted from Progressive Republicans, and with significant coverage. A newspapers.com search of "Standpatter" with the additional queries of "between 1900 and 1930" and "in the USA" returns a whopping 191,000 articles. I browsed through the thumbnails of the first 50 or so, and all of them are referring to this faction, not some other use of standpatter. Additionally, another search for "Standpatter Republican" (with no additional queries bc I didn't think they were necessary with such a specific term) returns over 1,000 articles. And yeah many are simply passing mentions, but many others provide significant coverage that show this was a notable faction contemporaneously. The article does need work to better integrate it into the encyclopedia; however, it should be kept as it passes WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Number of search results does not give notability. There are nearly a thousand results for Pink Dog - should we give this an article? On a more serious note, "Standpatter Democrat" gives nearly 700 results. Of course any adjective + noun gives a lot of hits and an adjective alone will give many more. As I outlined above, many search results are literally from the two words happening to be next to each other without even being linked. Still waiting for a secondary source explaining the faction, it's history, members etc without that it is just primary uses of a phrase and WP:ORIGINAL. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vladimir.copic, A newspaper article is a secondary source... Regardless, I concur with Stalwart111 that a page move to 'Standpatter' or 'Standpatter (United States)' is a good Alternative to Deletion, as that would help contextualize and include Standpatter Democrats and the historical meaning and relevance of standpatters, instead of just having multiple itty-bitty stubs on standpatter factions within various American political parties. Curbon7 (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's already covered here. Remember WP:NOTDIC. In this context the newspapers certainly are primary sources considering we are dealing with a descriptive term that the media used. They are not quoting others in most cases or, as far as a I can see, writing about the term. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah totally. Just waiting for significant coverage by reliable sources on this phrase to change my mind. Usage of a phrase does not make it notable - that's what dictionaries are for. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on new sources as usual Stalwart111 has done a valliant job attempting to bring an article from a dusty corner of history up to scratch. I just want to address the new sources provided. I realise that actually reading sources often doesn't have any weight in these discussion so I'm just going to be brief.
  • Michael Wolraich's book is probably the only source I can find that gives significant attention to this idea. He extensively speaks of Standpatter Republicans but this is just a single work and therefore does not provide notability.
  • The rest of the sources fall into the trivial category. Singular or breif usages of the word in much bigger works without any explanation of the term and mostly using it as an adjective . [17] uses the term twice in 370+ page work with no explanation of the term - once to refer to republicans, once to refer to the Supreme Court. [18] uses the term once in a 400+ page book to refer to conservatives with no explanation of the term. [19] a few sentences in a 240 page book - gives a brief description of the meaning of the term in how it was applied in a single usage.
Some of the usages of the sources in the current article amount to WP:ORIGINAL. Drawing on primary sources to make assertions (particularly the "It is said that the term was so commonly used between 1901 and the 1930s" section).Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's... not a traditional dictionary. Its a collated history of words and their political contexts. It's what William Safire did and he was pretty famous for it. It won't reference a standpatter faction or group... because there wasn't one. St★lwart111 07:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok…so why are you defending this article. We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here. I am talking about an article called Standpatter Republican you seem to be talking about a new article called “Stand-Pat”. I have throughout acknowledged that stand-pat is indeed a political descriptive term. I am disputing the crux of this article that it was a group. Stand-pat was used up until at least the 60s to describe republicans and democrats. Make a stand-pat article if you believe it warrants an article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was clear what the article was driving at, but it was clumsily written, sourced and named. But those are fixable and none of those are reasons for deletion. It was clearly about the parlance, in a specific political context, and not a simple dictionary definition of "stand pat" (which arguably does warrant an article of its own). WP:BEFORE is about more than just doing a google search to see if that particular set of words is notable. Is the subject of the article notable? AfD isn't a venue for disputing current article content, or titles. You aren't nominating a set of words for deletion, you're arguing that a subject isn't notable and that we shouldn't have an article about it. So when you demand sources for what was in a previous version of the article, you do yourself and AfD a disservice. Because we aren't (ever) discussing whether a specific previous version of an article should be deleted. St★lwart111 11:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you are right. I just didn’t realise the point of AfD was to change the subject (and hope to later change the title) of an article while divining the intention of the original author. I simplistically took the article at face value seeing as it spoke about a faction and a list of faction members. Will bear this in mind going forward. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nobody changed the subject but yep, that's exactly what WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD are about. St★lwart111 11:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you're probably looking for is William Safire's Political Dictionary, and its variant editions. Yes, in an effort to transcribe information into the article, primary sources were interpreted and that all needs work, refinement, and improvement. Its a work in progress. The "its badly written" argument has been addressed already. St★lwart111 07:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is badly written. In fact it is a well written WP:SYNTH. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now that has been addressed also. St★lwart111 08:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the subject is not notable, and all we're talking about here is a term, so this is a WP:DICDEF, not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. The use of WP:PRIMARY sources speaks to a valiant attempt to beef up the DICDEF to look like a sourced article (and an even more valiant attempt to argue down all comers here at AfD), but it's actually a clear case of WP:OR by synthesis. Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange way to characterise a civil discussion between two editors (one part as a result of my comment, and the other after a comment in which I was tagged). And given that the use of primary sources and synthesis have both been addressed, and most of the references are clearly secondary, I have to wonder which version of the article you're referring to... St★lwart111 02:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some source material seems to have been found, but if the scope of the article is changing, it isn't clear whether all the material is applicable, and if therefore a standalone article is justified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 09:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for the sake of clarity: the scope of the article hasn't changed (isn't changing), it was poorly expressed to begin with and that has now been resolved through editing. Multiple sources have now been included in the article, several of which give the subject substantial coverage and none of which have been deemed unreliable. This is about a group of people, clearly well-known to their peers, who were described using this term. In addition, they were well known enough that the term has had a lasting impact on political diologue and has since been used more recently. The original article's use of the term "faction" was a bit of a red herring as none of the reliable sources refer to this group by that term. But the article is still about that group of people and the sources are still about that same group. St★lwart111 12:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:HEY. Sourcing looks good now. The Tidwell article is a nice round-up of usage. Suriname0 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seddon talk 00:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Elliot[edit]

Kings Elliot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the only source provided "SRF 3 honors aspiring musicians from Switzerland. One act is in focus every month." She is one of a number of people to be named best talent and the description itself notes she is "aspiring" which means she doesn't meet WP:NMG yet. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some additional sources. I believe this singer is notable per 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works'. Math1985 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A voter above added several sources but I find them to be generally suspicious, using terms like "classic" for a song that was just released or "rising" which is a typical term used by an artist's promoters rather than journalists. Those sources are overwhelmingly promotional and only show that she has a management team that knows how to get PR releases onto fancy looking websites. That does not equate to the significant and reliable coverage from impartial journalists that is necessary here. If her songs hit the charts that may change. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TOOSOON and @Doomsdayer520. She is in the early phase of her career and there is nothing noteworthy or significant about that career or its coverage at this time. If her career actually takes off in the future, the article can be recreated, but most aspiring musicians go nowhere so that is WP:CRYSTALBALL for now. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jonah Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no reliable sources for the information within - any sources it may have had may have been deprecated and considered unreliable. Without any citations, the whole article is purely unsourced and no longer meets with WP:V, regardless of notability. GUtt01 (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Article has had citations added in of late, and most comments seem focused on keeping the article (albeit, with some information removed that is unsourced or original research), thus see no further need to continue discussion based on input given and action taken to attend to issue I laid out.GUtt01 (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If that was the case, such references would have been placed into the article after that AfD over five years ago! Despite this, those sources only cover a fraction of the information in the article, mostly the lede and the involvement in AGT - they don't cover the sections for Education, Early Career (Boston 1998–2000), Career (Brooklyn 2000–2013), Los Angeles (2013–present) and Discography. If those sections aren't covered, not only would WP:V be in serious doubt for the information in these areas, the nature of WP:NMG, particularly WP:MUSICBIO, would be in question as well. So despite there being some references, there is not enough to cover the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No offense to anyone putting forward citations to argue "Keep", but it beggars belief that when no citations were given to the article for over a decade since the notification was made, that it takes a second AfD for someone to realize to find such sources. If you find such citations, not only show them here, but put them in where they are needed, even when this discussion is over. It's hard to understand why five citations in the previous AfD never got put in when that discussion ended.GUtt01 (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that notability is concerned with the existence of sources, and not whether they are cited in the article? We don't delete articles simply because the available sources haven't been added yet. If it bothers you that much, you can add them yourself. --Michig (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For most articles, yes, but in biographical articles, its a bit different. When the article has information put in without citations for so long, verification becomes a serious issue, and then notability may be placed in question if the other information have to be deleted. Thus I said the nature of WP:NMG would be in question, if the other information could not be verified, reducing the notability of the article's subject as a result. In addition, it's agreeable we don't delete articles if sources haven't been added in when available, but if they have been around for so long, one must question why it took so long to do so. I would have, but this is the first time I saw the article in my life, so I wouldn't have had reason to source the information. GUtt01 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the article needs improvement (in the form of citations) the sources do exist out there to confirm notability WP:GNG, per Eastmain and Michig comments above. AfD is not cleanup WP:DINC. I understand the nominator's point about the problem with the quantity of long-standing unsourced material, however the article could be trimmed of excessive detail and unsourced biographic content and exist as a stub until someone jumps in to improve it. I'll add a few sourced listed above and do a little trimming. Netherzone (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appreciate it. Wouldn't have nominated this for AfD again, if some people had used a little common sense considered thinking carefully about avoiding this by ensuring citations had been added in after the previous AfD. GUtt01 (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Maybe the nominator would consider following WP:BEFORE and attempting article improvement themselves before making similar nominations in future, as it would use less of the project's resources. --Michig (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No offense, but as I stated above, perhaps some common sense by others people involved in the previous AfD could have avoided this; I would have if I had checked properly, but even then it may not still have happened, because I might have questioned the citations put forward in the previous discussion. If those citations had been put forward after that discussion, we wouldn't have had this matter crop up. GUtt01 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio Municipal de Pasarón[edit]

Estadio Municipal de Pasarón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reynolds–Sorgi incident[edit]

Reynolds–Sorgi incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "Reynolds-Sorgi incident" seems to be exclusive to Wikipedia. The coverage that I found was just WP:ROUTINE from around the time of the incident, and there doesn't seem to be much WP:PERSISTENCE from reliable sources. Possibly could redirect to Robert Reynolds but does not appear to be a searchable term. Fails WP:EVENT Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as failing WP:EVENT. I don't think there's a good way to retarget it as a redirect. The info should be in the Reynolds and Sorgi bios. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm not seeing good sources for the event. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TAXI (website)[edit]

TAXI (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for news aggregator. Previous versions didn't have independent third-party coverage of the site itself either. No evidence of notability under WP:CORP, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG or any other guideline. RS coverage in a WP:BEFORE is passing mentions. Flagged for bad sourcing since 2012; no reasonable prospect of organic improvement - David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Three Doctors (motivational speakers). czar 15:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bond (book)[edit]

The Bond (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It only has primary sources and it isn’t notable. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article on the authors. Much of the coverage I'm finding discusses the book in relation to the authors, so I think a section on their books (other than a basic bibliography) could likely cover most of their writing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RotP with no prejudice against unmerging as more in-depth sources about the individual books are found. (Also note that New York Times and Publishers' Weekly are certainly not primary sources.) pburka (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think the article demonstrates enough notability to be included on Wikipedia, but as a subsection on the Author's page would work better than a standalone piece.
LukeWWF (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall talk 16:50, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Farrell[edit]

Ryan Farrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former amateur footballer who is now an academy coach for Bradford City A.F.C. and manager for the Yorkshire football team, none of which is covered by WP:NFOOTBALL. All of the cited sources show just passing mentions or a single brief quote, which is insufficient for WP:GNG. In addition to these sources, I found Esquire, Cornwall Live and Jersey Evening Post but none of that coverage is any good either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. I have a season ticket at Bradford City and have never heard of him... GiantSnowman 19:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I updated the infobox to try to provide as much information towards NFOOTY as possible, and it's still a strong fail. While the college season at Scottsdale CC obviously fails NFOOTY, so does his entire career in the English non-league game. [27] [28] [29] are good examples of his playing coverage: passing mentions in programs and game recaps, fails GNG. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 02:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jhanjh Lobongo Phool[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jhanjh Lobongo Phool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For references about a Bengali-language soap opera, I think we need the Bengali equivalent of Soap Opera Digest. I can't find much by googling. Perhaps the company that compiles television ratings in India has published ratings numbers for the show. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of managers and coaches who have qualified for the UEFA Pro Licence[edit]

List of managers and coaches who have qualified for the UEFA Pro Licence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is indiscriminate, does not get updated, and only has sections for a few countries, never mind the fact that it's largely unsourced for most inclusions. If we were to try and make this article correctly, it would be absolutely huge, considering the amount of professional football managers there are that could have gotten this licence. The best option is to delete; this article has little to no purpose. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is almanac content and I'm pretty sure the only reason it was originally split was to fix the article it was split from, but UEFA Pro License is a terrible little stub now. That said, it's not clear how retaining this fixes the other thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Lists of qualifications serve no purpose. GiantSnowman 19:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a pointless list. In most European top division football leagues (and some lower leagues), the managers need to have this qualification. So this is just a list of all managers in those leagues. No need for a list of everyone with this qualification, in the same way as you wouldn't do so for everyone with a degree in e.g. maths. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Joseph and pretty much want to echo what he says here. There is little to no encyclopaedic value to an exhaustive list of everybody that has obtained this qualification, it is not an exclusive enough club and there is little evidence that this group of coaches are discussed as a group, as is one of the general requirements of WP:LISTN. For similar reasons, I would also oppose a list of all people that have obtained a CeMAP, PGCE etc. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: needless, especially when the top leagues all managers have it or else they wouldn't be managing. its only notable when they dont have it like that one guy in the PL recently who had to leave after a short while due to not having one.Muur (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Georges Castex[edit]

Pierre-Georges Castex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear that this subject passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:38, 30 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 15:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lee Evans[edit]

Simon Lee Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability 3 years ago. I can't really see any indication of notability here, referees are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL so do not automatically warrant an article just for officiating an international fixture. The best coverage I can find is Radio1, L'Express and Kerkida, all of which is routine coverage and not WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:38, 30 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 Robert William Davis#Post-Congressional career and life where she's mentioned. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Davis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marty Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems a straightforward example of WP:BIO1E. Further, its not clear that one event is even notable itself. Perhaps a mention in Robert William Davis's bio instead?

Ive included some potential sources if anyone wants to take a run at expanding this bio.

Also note user:Martycdavis [30] has edited this page in the past. Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:30, 30 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 15:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Agnes A.F.C.[edit]

St Agnes A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

They have played in the Cornwall Combination and St Piran Football League (according to FCHD but both of these are below the cut-off point for notability established at WP:FOOTYN. They get a bit of coverage in the Falmouth Packet and other local papers but not enough for WP:GNG in my view. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:14, 30 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. Seddon talk 08:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit (video games)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Time limit (video games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The concept of a time limit in general is widely covered in reliable sources, but it hasn't when it comes to video games. Only results I got in my searches weren't about this concept, but rather about parents (and even the Chinese government) setting time limits for how long kids can play games. Just because a trope is repeatedly used even in the most notable game does not make it notable. The only cites this article uses are to user-edited entries about specific games and never non-trivially covering the article's subject. Easily fails WP:GNG. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but possibly Redirect to Glossary of video game terms where the basic concept could be mentioned. It already mentions the related Time attack. Over all the general concept of a "time limit" specific to video games is unlikely to have any direct in-depth reliable secondary coverage. -- ferret (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In video games, the phrase "Time Limit" has exactly the same meaning that it does in other contexts. There isn't a "Video game terminology" specific meaning or definition. The sources in the article are just examples of time limits being used in a way that you would understand completely even if you were learning about video games for the first time. If the article is kept, it should be renamed "Time Limits in Video Games" to avoid the implication that there's a new concept under discussion here. ApLundell (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Fails the GNG. As pointed out above, the concept of time limit in a ivdeo game is no different than a time limit for anything else, say a test or a project.Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per others, there is no specific video game definition for this phrase.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The concept of time limits in video games originated in arcade games (obviously to keep players from staying on a game indefinitely on one continuous play/one quarter). This concept leaked over to console games, where they eventually used it as a filler, but in some cases to provide a challenge to players. If a viable article should exist on video game time limits, one needs to start with arcade games. --MuZemike 03:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The real bitch here is that it is WP:COMMONKNOWLEDGE to even casual gamers that time limits are a frequent video game component, as much as enemies, extra lives, final bosses, and continues, yet for some reason I couldn't find coverage on it. I'll admit that I didn't get very extensive with my WP:BEFORE searches, so if someone wants to tell me what I'm doing wrong, I'd like to know. However, the fact that not even a self-published blog about the concept instantly appeared when I searched "time limit video games" should show you the severity of the topic's lack of notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Time limit There is pretty good academic sourcing to support an article:
  • von Ahn, Luis; Dabbish, Laura (2008-08-01). "Designing games with a purpose". Communications of the ACM. 51 (8): 58–67. doi:10.1145/1378704.1378719. ISSN 0001-0782.
Specifically, the "Increase Player Enjoyment" section, there are additional in-line references as well, which I have not evaluated
Possibly this could be all be discussed in the main Time limit article in a "In gaming" section, but I feel that is more of an editorial decision. Jumpytoo Talk 22:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest ruling leaders by population[edit]

List of largest ruling leaders by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Interesting topic but may not meet WP:NLIST. Cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this topic in general. The list is presently made up of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Huh??? No, totally ridiculous synthesis. If you're combining current and former populations, you'd also need every former Chinese and Indian leader too.... It's merely a coincidence that Aso's one year in office was also when Japan's population peaked, no relevance to the others listed whatsoever. Reywas92Talk 14:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. The title is also ridiculous, these are not the largest leaders, but the leaders of the largest countries. If they meant what they said the Kings (and Queens: remember Salote in 1953?) of Tonga would be right up there. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NLIST: reliable sources have not taken note of this rather arbitrary grouping. And, of course, it's pure WP:SYNTH, which is an independent reason to delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SYNTH, and consequentially woefully incomplete: for example, Joko Widodo of Indonesia (pop. 2.71×108, fourth biggest in the present-day world) is not listed, and the listing of Li Keqiang instead of Xi Jinping for the People's Republic of China is questionable as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You might as well just have a list of largest countries by population, which we already do, but with the countries' leaders' names by them. Completely redundant list. --MuZemike 02:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear example of WP:OR. In practice, it is a (woefully incomplete) list of countries by peak population with an additional column for the head of government (which is not necessarily the "correct" choice of leader, as LaundryPizza03 noted above). One suspects that e.g. Kublai Khan would qualify for inclusion, but historical population figures are of course notoriously difficult to estimate and the margins of error are huge. Estimates from different authors often vary significantly (see e.g. here). The practical upshot of this is that collecting estimates from different sources and using them to create a ranked list inevitably results in a WP:SYNTH mess; the only way to construct an article like this properly is to use a high-quality source which has collated the information in a systematic way (i.e. something along the lines of what The Oxford World History of Empire does for ranking empires by population as a percentage of the world population). Absent such a source, this is fundamentally a non-starter. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IFit (brand)[edit]

IFit (brand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, with pseudo-references that are PR pieces and/or passing mentions. I note the declaration by a paid editor in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and they have contributed via edit requests. Nonetheless I conclude that this is WP:ADMASQ, the more so since my WP:BEFORE only revealed similar sourcing FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with the related IFIT Health & Fitness -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFIT Health & Fitness. -- it's essentially the same company; there is no possible justification for two separate articles except the desire of the company or the paid editor to advertise as widely as possible. A I have no confidence from discussions with the editor over several articles that they will make improvements The only other way they'd get improved is if I or some other charitable editor here did it, and I certainly am not going to work on articles other people get paid for, at least not unless it's an article so important and so interesting that I'd work on it of my own accord-- and this one is neither. I am not just willing, but eager, to teach volunteers how to edit--it's one of the main satisfactions of WP. I have sometimes as an exception been willing to help a basically competent paid editor who does not know the WP conventions, if they actually take my advice. That's not the situation here--the AfCs on which I and Timtrent have commented are no better for the advice we've been giving. I don't think I should be the admin who does it, but we should also consider a block for NOTHERE. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I endorse DGG's comment about the editor, who does not engage with advice despite appearing to engage with advising editors. I support at the very least a warning for WP:NOTHERE, with consideration for a block. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the original creator of the article back in 2015 and thought this was going to become a new standard like Fitbit. This never happened. Some of the information in this article may be saved and merged with IFIT Health & Fitness, if appropriate.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (Anjora)[edit]

College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (Anjora) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists. Though we tend to keep secondary/tertiary education providers, they do need to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. I couldn't establish that it does, but am aware there is a language barrier. I couldn't identify a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 30 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 13:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HIV Cohorts Data Exchange Protocol[edit]

HIV Cohorts Data Exchange Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 30 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. Passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Taylor[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marlon Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note, prior AfD's were not about this individual. This particular college athlete meets neither WP:COLLATH or WP:NBASKET. Onel5969 TT me 01:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 01:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Though this is 3rd nomination of this title, this current page is for the basketball player, while the earlier ones were for the actor.—Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bagumba, thanks. I mentioned that in the nom, although not as eloquently as you. Onel5969 TT me 16:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 30 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 deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bawn[edit]

Anthony Bawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG lacks coverage on reliable sources Zackdasnicker (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zackdasnicker (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see several good references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the article deleted while there is an ongoing discussion? Weber1982 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icche Dana[edit]

Icche Dana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghore Pherar Gaan[edit]

Ghore Pherar Gaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nominator's argument is not convincing. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tapur Tupur[edit]

Tapur Tupur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

don't have enough reliable sources ,fails WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I found an additional source here [37]. As a nationally broadcast TV show, it is highly likely that sources exist. A Bengali speaker may be able to do a better job locating them. matt91486 (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 30 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. Seddon talk 08:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitest Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Qualitest Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, lacks reliable coverage Zackdasnicker (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zackdasnicker (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:52, 30 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 13:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ander[edit]

Martin Ander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG lacks significant coverage. Zackdasnicker (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zackdasnicker (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zackdasnicker: When you say "lacks significant coverage", what do you base that on? A couple of the sources I mention above are more difficult to find if you don't speak Swedish and have access to the Swedish media archive, but others were already in the article. Please explain your source review that led to this nomination. /Julle (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep several museum shows, while not listed as a criterion at WP:NARTIST demonstrate that Ander has been the subject of significant critical attention. Vexations (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a link from the prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Art_Vinyl#2009_Winners (third-best in 2008 and the prize seems correctly delivered in 2009) VisbyStar (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This artist who works in the niche field of skateboard art has received enough coverage of his work, and has been in enough museum exhibitions (including one retrospective show) to pass WP:GNG and probably WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG thanks to significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 20:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurie Dwivedi[edit]

Gaurie Dwivedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A possible undisclosed paid article with zero reliable sources. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 08:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 08:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 08:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per the nomination. No reliable sources found. --Sreeram Dilak (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. She seems to be well-known enough as a journalist, and is the author of a seemingly notable book, Blinders Off, which was reviewed in the South Asia Monitor and (briefly) in Strat News Global, but I'm not familiar with either source. Renaming the article to focus on her book might make sense, and it could still be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the book was only published days ago. pburka (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep She has been a famous anchor, writes regularly for many news papers and currently authored a book on China. All these are available on a simple search on Google. Her leaving NewsX was a news User:sidhari 01:37, 23 August 2021 UTC

Not True. I have created the page and I don't know her personally. I generally try to make wikipedia of famous pages once in a while. Couple of times I have created pages in past of Jharkhand political leaders, one of which is of my local MLA and other of youth leader. Such people don't care for Wiki pages but they deserve greater presence. In case of Gaurie Dwivedi, she recently authored a book on China, I read the review and that is what prompted me to create Wikipedia page for her. She is a famous TV anchor. Most information is from public news links. Couple of information, like her husband name is from her Facebook page. sidhari 01:37, 23 August 2021 UTC

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage is cited. Multi7001 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significant independent and reliable coverage. MarioGom (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Valley, Delaware[edit]

Heather Valley, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable subdivision, fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Newspaper coverage consists entirely of advertisements, promotional pieces and home sale listings. –dlthewave ☎ 12:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 12:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 12:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very disappointing the first prod was removed with the reason "rm prod, finding sources on Newspapers.com" when all of those sources are advertisements or real estate listings for the housing development like [39], [40], and [41]. There is one 1965 blurb [42] in the "Real Estate Notebook" section mentioning its construction and a preview opening event but this place is undoubtedly not notable. Reywas92Talk 14:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It was copied into GNIS from the same commercial map from which a long list of other developments were also copied, and there's no evidence that contradicts that it is in fact a development: the topos and aerials in particular all but document its construction. Given that the newspaper results validate this, unless there is strong evidence that it meets GNG, it needs to go. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Firsfron and Mangoe both failing to find anything (will skip my usual ten minutes of dicking around with USGS topo maps on this one). jp×g 23:38, 31 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. WP:LISTPURP compliant, valid navigational list. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died in traffic collisions[edit]

List of people who died in traffic collisions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NLIST suggests that for stand-alone lists, the list as a collective (though not necessarily its individual items) should have been discussed by sources that pass GNG.

As far as I can tell, such sources have not done so for this collection. I have found sources discussing sub-lists of this list, specifically "Celebrities", but I have found no list where the collective is discussed - the vast majority of the results are duplicates of our list, or road death statistics.

The article cites a significant number of sources, to the extent that I have been unable to review even a small fraction of them, but as far as I can tell they merely confirm the individuals death in a traffic collision, and don't discuss the collective. BilledMammal (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:12, 30 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 11:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All City Affairs[edit]

All City Affairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. A one-man band that does not appear to have achieved commercial success or to have done anything else of note. Sourced only to blogs and my BEFORE search does not find significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:01, 30 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 11:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiuse Model View[edit]

Multiuse Model View (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:25, 30 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 11:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two Dark Birds[edit]

Two Dark Birds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:30, 30 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 11:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SWIV 3D[edit]

SWIV 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this is notable. A possible ATD is merge/redirect to SWIV if this is found non-notable. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now get an answer. Boleyn (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment plently of reviews according to [43] MobyGames. And possibly more information at the Wayback Machine. I guess possibly keep? Timur9008 (talk) 14:57, 30 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. Noting that the 'keep' argument was posted by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Wagner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Abe Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MMANOT for only having 2 top tier fights. TUF fights are exhibition, and do not count. Also fails WP:GNG, fights are routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 06:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listings in MMA databases and routine sports coverage doesn't show he meets the GNG. He also fails to meet any notability standard for MMA fighters.Sandals1 (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons listed in the nomination. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was on the fence after looking at guidelines and the criteria for notability for MMA fighters and Wagner's fight history. However, after looking through the references, I think he does pass criteria for WP:GNG. Multiple articles, his interview linked on YouTube, and his coverage through The Ultimate Fighter on television meets significant coverage. Weber1982 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GNG requires coverage on mainstream websites, not websites specifically dedicated to MMA. Coverage on TUF also wouldn't be enough, look at all the fighters who have competed on TUF that don't have pages on Wikipedia. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 00:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA. I looked at the article's references and did my own search for sources. I found fight results and listings in MMA databases, but not the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 21:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delic Holdings[edit]

Delic Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Drug company does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is largely interviews and puff-piece articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suchatvee Suwansawat[edit]

Suchatvee Suwansawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep. I believe Rector to be the top administrative position at King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang. Probably is a pass of WP:NPROF C6; citations look a bit short to me of WP:NPROF C1 in what I believe to be a medium citation field, but help support the notability case. Weakish because the small size of the university might make it arguable whether it is a major academic institution. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets NPROF#6, as head of KMITL, a major university in Thailand, as well as President of the Council of University Presidents of Thailand and President of the Council of Engineers of Thailand. An outspoken and highly visible individual, quoted a lot on urban infrastructure and education issues, profiled and featured by a plethora of sources including Isra News[51], Krungthep Turakij[52], A Day Magazie[53], The Standard[54], and The People[55]. For English sources, this Bangkok Post article includes a profile of him.[56] --Paul_012 (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The standard ref proves he is the Rector. scope_creepTalk 12:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Vreeswyk[edit]

Mike Vreeswyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Played at college level - doesn't appear to meet notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Played professionally internationally and was named to assorted halls of fame. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG with sources such as [57] [58] [59]. I didn't even look in the archives, bet you there is plenty there as well. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets GNG in my estimation. Looks like plenty of sources available on Newspapers.com. I added one but will go back and find more later. Rikster2 (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - Vreeswyk also meets WP:NBASKETBALL. He played in the EuroLeague, at least during the 1993-94 season where he is among the league single game points leases. Rikster2 (talk)|
  • Keep as passing NBASKETBALL for playing in the EuroLeague. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. At the original AfD 14 years ago, the consensus seems to have been that this band met WP:NMUSIC, but the article at the time had verifiability issues. Those verifiability issues have since been fixed, and the band meets WP:NMUSIC. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single File (band)[edit]

Single File (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the same reasons this was deleted before - they do not meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single File. Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 30 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 Single File (band)#Discography. czar 15:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Best Defense (album)[edit]

My Best Defense (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted at previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Best Defense. The band were previously deleted as non-notable too. Some coverage, but not enough to convince me it meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Possible ATD would be redirect to Single File. Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 30 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. Fails to meet WP:PROF. Given this is a BLP, this deletion not preclude the possibility of this article being recreated in future should the individual meet any of the requirements of that guideline. Seddon talk 08:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Jurišić[edit]

Aleksandar Jurišić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG, but I may be missing something. This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years, so hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article is a stub, but a simple Google search reveals he meets criteria - currently he is a Full Prof., head of a lab, member of editorial board for Ars mathematica contemporanea, has impact outside academia (works with Def Min),... Regards, Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think when the NN tag was placed in 2009 he was certainly non-notable, but now he is a full professor at a major university in Slovenia. A solid keep. scope_creepTalk 14:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither of the above "keep" votes are based on policy: none of being a full professor, being head of a lab, or being a member of an editorial board of a minor journal are valid rationales for keeping an article. (Instead, we have related but stronger criteria: someone at a distinguished professor title, or something like that that is a clear step above full professor, someone who heads an entire university, or someone who is editor-in-chief of a major journal, are notable.) We also do not have the citation record necessary to demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and there is no evidence of any other WP:PROF or other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither the article nor the two votes above make any argument that any of the criteria of WP:NPROF is fulfilled, a search on GS indicates that he likely fails NPROF#1 due to low citations. --hroest 15:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing a C1 pass here, but maybe another combinatorics professor in Slovenia would have a better gauge of impact... JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since I was mentioned, I'll say that I'm not seeing much of a hidden case for notability that others have missed. I agree that full prof, head of a lab, and membership on an editorial board (short of editor in chief) fail the average professor test of WP:NPROF. He's mentioned in a Delo (newspaper) article [60] in the context of a successful class contest to decode a WWI-era note. I'm doubtful that the article is enough upon which to hang notability, however. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Jurado[edit]

Marc Jurado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like another WP:TOOSOON article, he has only played in underage leagues and so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Neither is there any sign of WP:GNG in this case. JW 1961 Talk 08:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 08:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 08:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 08:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:34, 30 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. Deleted as unambiguous advertising. Also created by a user engaging in block evasion. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sellbeta Shopping[edit]

Sellbeta Shopping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a newly launched company that fails to meet WP:NCORP. The sourcing is entirely to press statements which are neither independent nor reliable. A before search does not bring up any better sources. Princess of Ara 07:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 07:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 07:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not completely a new company as it is almost 2 years old so I suggest the article should stay on Wikipedia. CeoChibuzor (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Del Pepper[edit]

Del Pepper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a long serving council member and several times vice mayor of Alexandria VA. Her political career does not amount to a WP:NPOL pass. She may be a GNG pass but the Washington Post coverage here is really “local” so this is doubtful. Bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. The articles about her retirement are particularly persuasive and go well beyond routine campaign coverage. WaPo pieces are acceptable whether or not they're local: WP:LOCALINT was rejected. pburka (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails notability guidelines for politicians and the fact that the local paper is a notable national one does not change the fact that their coverage of this subject is an example of local political coverage that does not lead to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the original author I still think that she has had quite a few pieces written about her over the decades, is mentioned in dozens of news stories, has been recognized by the VA legislative branch (just added to the article). Some of the articles, particularly the AIDS-rights bill seems to go beyond just local even if written by the WaPo. Browsing through other city council members who have active, long standing pages hers seems at least middle level notable (and above average for most city council members who don't go on to hold higher office). Skynxnex (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete local coverage (even from the Washington Post) does not suffice to establish notability. The AIDS-rights article was focused on the policy itself, not Pepper's role in enacting the policy. Edge3 (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "local coverage" criterion as applied to people was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2019#Local sources, again where it was advocated in relation to "write ups in very obscure sources, like city-wide or parish-wide magazines". The criterion was not included even for that very limited scope. If it had been incorporated by analogy with WP:AUD it would be the narrow circulation of the newspaper, not whether the person is only known close to the place of publication, that would matter. WP:N and WP:NPOL are guidelines and people are free to disregard them if they like but to claim that references by the Washington Post are to be discounted is firmly against our guidelines. Thincat (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm not aware of any applicable guideline in this area that prohibits the use of local coverage: NPOL is quite clear that meeting the GNG is enough, and WP:AUD-style restrictions on the GNG have been rejected numerous times. And coverage like this and this is certainly enough to meet the GNG. There's thus no guideline-based reason to conclude that Pepper is non-notable: after all, we're not paper, so there's nothing preventing us from including well-sourced articles like this one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, She has received a significant amount of coverage in the Washington Post, and it is not our job to arbitrarily declare that it does not count since she is from the D.C. Metro area. Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A notable topic; can be improved via the suggestions for clean-up made by the participants. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Kurds[edit]

Persecution of Kurds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There article treats an issue on which several more specific articles already exist. Examples would be: Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey, Arab Belt, Anfal campaign, the several Kurdish rebellions in Turkey, Persecution of Feyli Kurds under Saddam Hussein. I then thought it could be the name of a category, but categories on the Persecution of Kurds by country also already exist. Therefore, delete. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis it is undoubtedly a notable topic. It would be a good article to act as an umbrella to gather the various sub-articles in one place. Sionk (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iran Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Turkey Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iraq Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Syria Shadow4dark (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I agree with Sionk on general basis, however with the current status of the article it serves no extra information upon the topic compared to specific articles. It has a potential to give extra information within the topic as a general article, however it is not convenient with its current situation as an encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Where we already have good coverage of a topic in existing articles, properly categorised, a new general topic like this adds no clarity and acts as a POV-magnet. Nothing will be lost by deleting this. Mccapra (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC) striking my !vote Mccapra (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What the nomination seems to be telling us is that this is a notable topic because there are already several pages and categories which cover it. The issue then is the title of the page. This seems quite clear and consistent with numerous other pages including:
  1. Persecution of Ahmadis
  2. Persecution of Buddhists
  3. Persecution of Christians
  4. Persecution of Germans
  5. Persecution of Hazara people
  6. Persecution of Jews
  7. Persecution of people with albinism
  8. Persecution of Sufis
  9. Persecution of Yazidis
  10. Persecution of Zoroastrians
These are all full page titles and there many other persecutions which are redirects such as Persecution of Gypsies and Persecution of Uyghurs.
Now the alternative titles offered by the nomination such as Persecution of Feyli Kurds under Saddam Hussein seem comparatively obscure and unhelpful for navigation. As the Kurds seem to have had more than their share of persecution, a general title seems appropriate per WP:BROAD. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly a notable topic and does not seem to be covered fully elsewhere. I concede the article is in need of improving but what articles are not? I don’t accept the nom’s arguments that other articles already cover this topic - they are very different articles. We would not think of deleting Persecution of Jews just because articles exist on the Holocaust, Pogroms etc. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All these pages can be merged in one page Shadow4dark (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agreed that the article is in a very poor state, but so are many articles which come to AfD. Please see WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and note how it links in a hatnote to a more detailed essay called Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. This is precisely what Persecution of Kurds needs: each of the articles enumerated by the nominator should be summarized in a different section of the article, each time with a {{Main}} section hatnote linking to the main article. Any editor with a bit of background knowledge on the topic should be easily capable of doing this, and it would be very much worth reading if that happened. Or just stubify it to one paragraph and give 'See also' links to the main articles. In any case, not improving the article on a (very) notable subject is not a valid reason for deleting. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (answering Paradise Chronicle's query below) Don't blow it up: if you don't want to put in the work, either stubify it (the preferred option, but still some work) or leave it be really bad, as a great many WP articles are. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment, For the ones who argue keep. Would you also want to expand the page accordingly? If not, how about WP:TNT?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify a bit more, just to come up with the name Persecution of Kurds, and not describing the many examples of how Kurds were persecuted for being Kurds is probably not even a stub. I for now added an example of such an event in the article in relation with the Konya massacre, but I must admit that it is not very well sourced (own account of a family member).Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:34, 31 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 The Whisperer in Darkness. Seddon talk 08:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuggoth[edit]

Yuggoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A place from the Cthulhu Mythos. Content is mostly plot summary and list of media this term appears in. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Note that there is some coverage of the Lovecraft's work known as the Fungi From Yuggoth. Therefore I suggest merging and redirecting this there, unless someone can find some WP:SIGCOV of this fictional place? (Note to closing admin: since there is some referenced content here, although frankly limited to the tiny 'Links with Pluto' section; all other refs are to works of fiction), I volunteer to merge this once the discussion closes with the merge verdict). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not yet reviewed sourcing sufficiently to decide if this should be kept or merged, but if the latter, then I think that Piotrus has the correct target, as the only alternative I've run across, Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos#Fictional locations, seems to be far too terse per entry to accept the sourced content from here. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with much of the Mythos, Yuggoth appears in the work of numerous other authors besides Lovecraft and so it's best to keep it separate. It's easy to find more sources such as The Lovecraftian Solar System and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice, this article does contain an in-depth discussion of this planet. The question is, is the Lovecraft Annual reliable? It seems like a one-man initiative (run by the editor, S. T. Joshi, who receives submission by snail mail, no evidence of editorial board, no evidence of peer review status, not indexed in any academic journal indice I can find, not in MIAR, not in SCOPUS, no ISSN even?). This may be a good reminder than not everything in JSTOR is automatically reliable. Btw, this 'journal' is published by Hippocampus Press, which is a new publisher, founded in 1999, that specializes in "the works of H. P. Lovecraft and his literary circle." So it's not an academic institution. And S. T. Joshi is not an academic. Sorry, I call 'not reliable' on this source which seems like a fanzine that just gets republished by JSTOR (feel free to take it WP:RSN for a second opinion). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fungi from Yuggoth. Even if both sources above are deemed reliable, all discussion on the topic could easily fit into the parent article. TTN (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Whisperer in Darkness which is where the H.P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia categorizes it under, rather than the original poem. It is the story that fleshes out both Yuggoth and the Mi-go. It does not seem independently notable outside the context of that story.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Whisperer per above, maybe some light merge. Artw (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this inappropriate removal of sourcing during the Afd. From 22-27 August, the vast majority of the content in the article was removed by a non-AfD participant. While clearly some material was removable, the removal of sourcing (no matter how disputed) during an AfD is either against policy, or it should be. As such all three of the above redirect opinions should be revisited. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll ping the users who voted redirect: @TTN, Zxcvbnm, and Artw:. That said I don't think a procedural keep is warranted here, the article hasn't been improved to address the issues I raised (GNG fail). It was made a bit worse, but not by much, removed content was very WP:FANCRUFTy. I do agree, however, that User:Susmuffin should not be gutting this article during AfD - we can afford to wait a few days and see how this discussion evolves. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I'm still seeing this as material that would be stronger de-crufted and merged into Whisperer. Artw (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stopping by to confirm your opinion was unchanged. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say I lean slightly more towards keeping some of it, so that's a slight change. Artw (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing that extra material, it seems mostly fancrufty in nature. My opinion on redirecting it has not changed. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Whisperer in Darkness - Even with the restored content, there really is not much here outside of plot summaries, and no real reliable sources covering non-plot elements. Of the restored in-line citations, only one of them is not a piece of fiction, and that one does not even mention the fictional planet - its basically being used for a bit of WP:SYNTH. I agree with the above that The Whisperer in the Darkness is the better target for a redirect than the Fungi from Yuggoth article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Rorshacma, TTN, Zxcvbnm, and Artw: How about a disambig instead of a redirect? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be fitting for a disambiguation - since the Yuggoth remain basically the same entities between each work, there should be some target. If there were two discrete species called Yuggoth between 2 different works, a disambiguation would be more apt. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with this. Of course, having two reasonable potential targets is sometimes reason to keep a topic as a standalone article... Jclemens (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Whisperer, where is the main place this plot element is addressed, per above. No need for disambig. czar 15:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johren (gaming platform)[edit]

Johren (gaming platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Video game platform of unclear notability. The third-party sources cited are [61] (not listed on WP:VGRS) and [62] (a porn news website). I can't read most other sources, but at a glance most don't appear reliable or independent. Google searches produce mentions of the site in the context of specific games, but no substantial coverage that I can see. Sandstein 06:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 06:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem notable, neither has any substantial info. -Vipz (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This page has been created both in draft space and in article space, which is sometimes done to game the system. As a result, it cannot be moved from article space to draft space, but it can be and has been nominated for deletion. The pages in draft space and in article space are almost the same except as to references. The version in article space has been reference-bombed, mostly with Taiwanese references. However, the version in draft space has four references, which can reasonably be assumed to be the earliest and best, and have been checked. Only two of them check out, and they show that the platform is intended for erotic play with adult magical girls, but the references are more about the animated characters than the platform.
Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant
1 Gamespress Discussion of a game and of magical girls played on the platform Maybe No - About the game and the magical girls
2 Lewd Games Discussion of erotic magical girls on the platform Probably not - Appears to be an advertising outlet No - About the adult girls
3 Noisy Pixel Has 404 error
4 Google search result Google search result No No

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seddon talk 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Capozzi[edit]

Louis Capozzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Oleaginous CV, dubiously referenced, for somebody who doesn't appear to meet WP:PERSON. -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fast work, McMatter! -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A few cites on GS but not enough for WP:Prof. Notability as a journalist looks marginal. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Note: I'm surprised to see a mention of journalism (immediately above); but because of it, this discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions too. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, I found this article but took it to a Teahouse question as I wasn't experienced enough to know what to do; @Hoary kindly brought it here. My feeling is that Capozzi is probably only marginally notable once all the publicity traced to himself and PRSA (of which he served as president) has been stripped away. But in any case, the article is so awful in its current form of a congratulatory CV that I'd go for complete deletion and start again even if he is notable. Also the article was written by an editor whose sole work was this article and that of the PRSA, suggesting the whole thing might have a big conflict of interest. Elemimele (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Ideally, the article should be blown up and started over, but there appears to be a kernel of notability. Cleaned it up a bit. Actually there were TWO editors (Himehdi12 (creator) and Eagerbeaver150 (2017-19)) who did not declare COI or PAID, but had a focus only on Lou or PRSA Foundation (the latter not being the same as PRSA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:BASIC; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP, such as PRWeb etc. The industry award is not meaningful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers. RL0919 (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Awasthy[edit]

Rohit Awasthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposal deletion got objected without addressing the concern. The article still lacks notability and reliable sources. JETH888 message me 04:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JETH888 message me 04:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. JETH888 message me 04:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JETH888 message me 04:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I stated, if you wish to have further eyes upon the article, or for people to find further sources, prodding or sending articles to AfD is not the way to go about it. Tagging articles you find at random after five years of searching does not help the project. Bobo. 04:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I still believe that this lacks the notability to have their own biographical article. As per the basic criteria for notability, it has to receive “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”. The article has been tagged 9 years ago as having issues regarding its sources, or the lack thereof. The only reference that the article has is an external link, which is also paywalled and does not contain sufficient information on the subject. JETH888 message me 09:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers Technically passed WP:NCRIC at the time of creation with 1 FC match, however sourcing seems to be limited on a simple internet search. Sources may exist offline or in Indian language sources though. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above - agree: this is the best option here. I can't find anything at all beyond CA and CI. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers Nitesh003(TALK) 03:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Boyd[edit]

Leah Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested with no reason given. In fact, the subject fails WP:GNG - there is one and only one source with significant coverage: the Christianity Today article. The subject also fails WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants). StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. I'm going to adapt what I previously argued on Holidayruin's page when they questioned the notability (tagging them so that they can voice their concerns here): Being profiled in the flagship publication for American evangelicalism is certainly significant and notable. That feature alone I'd argue is enough to demonstrate notability in this case. The additional mention in The Economist, which is significant coverage, helps bolster that. The Madison Record is certainly a reliable source. That source also helps bolster the notability provided by the CT source. I agree that the pageant reporting itself would not provide notability, but those sources are being used to make verifiable claims about the subject, not support notability (although they might also bolster the notability of Boyd as supplements to the CT report).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world does the mention in The Economist constitute significant coverage? StAnselm (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually sure it does, I forgot about that sentence when I posted and in retrospect I think I was wrong on that point.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you created the article in good faith, but I think you a demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:GNG when you say that the CT article is "enough to demonstrate notability in this case." Rather, we require multiple reliable sources. CT is a reliable source with significant coverage; The Economist is a reliable source but clearly not giving significant coverage. So it all comes down to whether The Madison Record article[63] is suitable as a second source. This is a very local newspaper (which doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article, although it should), and I don't think the sort of coverage it is giving Boyd is significant by WP standards. StAnselm (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had this sentence in mind: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." The Madison Record certainly is reliable, but the question here is whether the information is significant. I'd argue that on its own, no, but given the national-level coverage in the biggest evangelical publication, it helps support notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should clarify: The Madison Record coverage is significant. That it is local news doesn't matter. But given that it's about a high-schooler, I'd want to see sources about the individual afterward, especially if they are more notable for what they've done subsequently. And that is what the CT source demonstrates. I'd argue that just the CT source alone might be enough, but with the Madison Record coverage, there is definitely enough coverage for it to be considered notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Epicgenius who reviewed this article for DYK, Maile66 who removed the notability and referencing tags from Holidayruin, Hartsseeks, who removed the prod tag, 2600:1011:b0e8:2f2c:d1d8:ddd0:17e5:6aa4, who placed the prod tag, and Magnolia677 and MB, who also edited the article significantly.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Remove article. Reposting my thoughts on the matter from my talk page, from July 31. I had added "Notability" and "More citations needed" templates which were swiftly reverted, and shortly afterwards the conversation on my talk page happened.

"The article is about an individual who is most notable for being a state-level beauty pageant contestant and running a Twitter account with 20k followers. She's probably a lovely individual but this does not meets the standards for WP:N. Regarding the sourcing and again per WP:N, only the Christianity Today source would be a reliable source to get information from for a notable figure. Going through the rest of the sources, one is a unnotable local-level profile on a high schooler, one is her own personal website which should not be used as a source, the The Economist article is unrelated to her and would be considered original research (WP:NOR), and the rest are simply beauty pageant results."

I think I mislabeled the Economist piece as original research, but its place in the Wikipedia article is still ill-fitting and inappropriate as giving a quote on an issue generally does not seem notable enough to befit the speaker's Wikipedia page (unless their word is widely important or the statement itself became an important issue). Holidayruin (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not every statement in an article has to be notable, but rather supported by a reliable source, per WP:NNC.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment significant coverage in Christianity Today. User:StAnselm are you prodding articles while logged out, and then nominating while logged in? would that be appropriate? --Hartsseeks (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - why would you think I am 2600:1011:B0E8:2F2C:D1D8:DDD0:17E5:6AA4? (And why would I bother doing that?) Anyway, everyone agrees there is significant coverage in Christianity Today - but that's not enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Spiderone as well since they rated the article for the requisite WikiProjects.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I agree with the nomination that the notability of the article stems exclusively from the one CT article and thus fails GNG. Her notability could be established down the road, but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Teemu08 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m not really seeing WP:GNG being met here, I tried googling to find additional coverage but I only found the currently present and more passing mentions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holiest sites in Sufi Islam[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Holiest sites in Sufi Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sufi Islam is not a sect, and sources do not contain notablity, for example: There's not a single source which indicates that all sites mentioned are holy in "Sufi Islam". Biskut Merry (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC) Comment: Half of the sources on the entire article are in the "Opposition to shrines" section which has nothing to do with Holiest sites in Sufi Islam Biskut Merry (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 30. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don’t see any evidence that this is even a topic, never mind a notable topic. It looks like the article creator just assembled a list of sites they’d heard of and thought were important. I mean there isn’t even a junk listicle to support the general topic. The article creator’s talk page is a grisly boneyard of warnings and blocks about adding unsourced content, removing sourced content, soapboxing and disruption. Many other editors have worked on this over the years but this mostly seems to have added to the bloat of unsourced “local knowledge” about individual sites. Mccapra (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article seems to be inspired by our already quite redundant series of articles Holiest sites in Islam, Holiest sites in Shia Islam, and Holiest sites in Sunni Islam (all of which are POV-hell and extremely poor). Except that this one really doesn't fit in the mold, simply because there are so many different Sufi sects, and because these would never agree on a specific set of sites as 'the' holiest (like mainstream medieval Muslim theologians over the centuries did agree on a traditional set of four holiest sites, to wit the Kaaba in Mecca, The Prophet's Mosque in Medina, al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus). To be sure, Sufi sites that are just holy are plentiful: it is precisely rather typical of Sufism (though neither exclusive nor inherent) to turn the tombs of holy men into shrines and to organize pilgrimages (Arabic: ziyarat) to them. Indeed, our List of ziyarat locations consists for the most part of Sufi shrines. Also, Holiest_sites_in_Islam#Sufi_Islam seems to focus on the largest Sufi sites, and Largest Sufi shrines or Most-visited Sufi shrines would indeed perhaps be a notable topic. But holiest Sufi sites, that's just not a thing. I briefly searched Google scholar and Google books, and found nothing. I would be thoroughly surprised if anyone could come up with a reliable source that specifically and significantly covers the subject of religious sites that would be regarded as the holiest by 'Sufi Islam' taken as a whole. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a quick WP:BEFORE reveals an abundance of reliable sources on holy sites in Sufi Islam that would certainly meet WP:GNG, or WP:LISTN if we treat this as a list. Here are some examples of articles and books: [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] - you get the idea. The current article might be poorly sourced and need improvement but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The title of the article could do with improving (how can you define holiest or holy?) but I assume this was done to keep with other similar articles as has been noted - maybe the is the crux of the argument here?. Holy sites in Sufi Islam are most definitely notable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the sources provided here are about Sufi shrines. As these sources indicate, Sufi shrine definitely is a notable subject, but it is simply not the subject of this article. If the article were to be renamed to 'Sufi shrine' it would also need to be rewritten from scratch: right now, it doesn't say what a Sufi shrine is, how and when they originated, what their function is, what role they play in contemporary Islam, etc. Rather, the article currently under discussion takes it for granted that the reader knows what a Sufi shrine is, and only endeavors to list the 'most holy' of them. Converting it to a List of Sufi shrines also would also serve little purpose, given the fact that we don't even have Sufi shrine and given the fact that the salvageable content on individual shrines in the current article is entirely unsourced. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to point to WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP again. I also cannot see the difference here between "holy site" and "shrine" - this just seems to be playing linguistics. Shrines make up a large proportion of holy sites recognised by Sufis - not sure what the issue with that is. Generally I don't like list articles and think they should be deleted but seeing as this is not being proposed with its sister sites (Holiest sites in Islam, Holiest sites in Shia Islam, and Holiest sites in Sunni Islam) I can't support a delete. No one has deleted this section due to lack of notability. The use of the superlative in article title for these is quite silly and WP:POV (holiest according to who). They should probably all be converted to "Holy sites in...". I could be persuaded to delete all of these articles though with the right reasoning but just singling out the Sufi one doesn't seem right. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it were acceptable to just pick a related notable subject, to claim that this is the real subject, and then to cite AFDNOTCLEANUP, it would be impossible to delete any article on any subject even distantly related to something notable. As I explained above, there is a sourceable 'according to whom' for "the holiest" sites in Islam generally: it is the POV of a significant group of medieval Islamic theologians as conveyed by modern sources. There is just no such thing in Sufism, and to create a 'sister' article out of concern for balance would be patently false (it's exactly the mistake that happened here, and that we should now correct). Agreed that the pages on the holiest sites in Shia Islam and in Sunni Islam should be merged into the one on Islam generally (and perhaps some lists of merely 'holy' sites in various branches of Islam, including Sufism), but that's really WP:OTHERSTUFF. The discussion here is about this article with this topic. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not notable at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamotHacker (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:POVFORK to draw attention to subjects who do not meet the WP:LISTN criteria. RL0919 (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of COVID-19 deniers who died of COVID-19[edit]

List of COVID-19 deniers who died of COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critics of COVID-19 safety measures that have died from COVID-19. Another one of these indiscriminate COVID death lists, based on WP:SYNTH and a likely WP:POVFORK. Curbon7 (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was unare this had been created and deleted before, if consensus is it shouldn't be here, the it should go. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AndrewRG10 above (the article's creator) endorsing deletion; furthermore, I echo the nominator's concern about this being a POV fork. jp×g 06:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. COVID-19 denial currently redirects to COVID-19 misinformation, but is a broader topic and deserves to be a standalone article (which I may get around to). If that had existed, I would have lvoted to merge some of the more vocal, adversarial critics who paid the ultimate price (not people like Herman Cain, who only passively flouted the recommended precautions).Clarityfiend (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critics of COVID-19 safety measures that have died from COVID-19 Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Most of the people listed do not have articles and not all of them were even actual full COVID deniers. The inclusion of a bunch of random local people who got limited or local press coverage is not only a violation of our policy against indiscriminate lists, it is needlessly cruel to their friends and relatives. That is a WP:NOTNEWS violation. The coverage of their deaths may have served the purpose of encouraging others to behave more responsibly at the time but there is no need to add them to a big list of people who died due to bad decisions in perpetuity. The section on the so-called "Herman Cain Award" is also unacceptable. This is not an award. This is just some people on Reddit doing what people on Reddit do. Nobody cares about that. A similar article on this topic has already been deleted, and that one had a slightly less egregious title, so this one has no hope of legitimacy. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NLIST suggests that for stand-alone lists, the list as a collective (though not necessarily its individual items) should have been discussed by sources that pass GNG. As far as I can tell, no such sources have discussed this breadth of list as a collective, and so the only sensible response is to delete. This is further reinforced by WP:BLP; while the individuals are, by definition, deceased, they all died within the past two years, and thus are still covered by the policy; I don't believe this list is in compliance with either the intent or word of the policy. BilledMammal (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into a new or existing section of COVID-19 misinformation. It's a notable sub-phenomenon of misinformation/impact of the pandemic, but probably not notable enough (yet) for its own list. (I think a list is not even a good format for this for now; plain narrative text is probably better until the number of people with their own Wikipedia page has surpassed something like 10 or 15). All people who are not independently notable should not be mentioned by name, but commonalities/patterns between their behaviour may be used to give some background information on why and how these people died. The people who do have their own articles such as Herman Cain and the presidents of Tanzania and Burundi definitely deserve a mention in this COVID-19 misinformation section. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This is no different than a list of non-notable medical professionals who are vaccine hesistant and then die of Covid, or firefighters who die in house fires. We don't have, for good reason, List of Cigarette Danger Deniers who Died Of Lung Cancer. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:LISTN. KidAd • SPEAK 19:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation and carry the blue-linked items over into prose form, as suggested by Nederlandse Leeuw. It's not implausible that this kind of thing will happen enough that RS will discuss it as a trend, thus making the set as a whole a wiki-notable topic. At the moment, this seems more like a "{{Redirect with possibilities}}" than a "no list like this could ever exist". XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that media coverage would make this an encyclopedic topic, since there do not exist objective criteria for what makes someone's death ironic enough to include. Similar articles would not fare well; I imagine we would be quick to delete things like List of gun control advocates who were shot during robberies, List of gun control opponents who were killed in gun accidents, List of bloggers who are un-American, List of movie stars who are jerks in real life, List of Wikipedia editors who have disagreed with XOR'easter, List of Wikipedia editors who make long lists of stupid nonexistent articles as an excuse to make lame meta-jokes, etc. jp×g
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as redundant to content in List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom and per consensus in similar discussions for other lists of living former heads of government. RL0919 (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living prime ministers of the United Kingdom[edit]

Living prime ministers of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stats trivia of no encyclopedic relevance. Fails LISTN, and also WP:V and WP:OR (a prime example being the whole of the "miscellaneous" section, which is an undignified collation of factoids without a single source to back them up. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:18, 30 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) 00:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Frutos[edit]

Bob Frutos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Municipal politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 01:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mayor of Burbank, California, which has a council-manager form of government. --Enos733 (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Once upon a time, the only notability standard we had for mayors was that the city had cracked 50K in population, and routinely kept all mayors of any city above that bar regardless of whether the article actually had any edifyingly noteworthy content or not. But that was deprecated a long time ago, and in 2021 a mayor has to be able to show significant reliable source coverage supporting a substantial article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is: two of the three footnotes are community hyperlocals that aren't WP:GNG-worthy coverage at all, while the third just glancingly namechecks Bob Frutos in the process of not being non-trivially about Bob Frutos, and the only real claim of community impact being made is that he created a pool party for seniors, which falls very far short of being important enough to pass the "political significance" test in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per sources presented during the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Code Corporation[edit]

Municipal Code Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, it has had a lot of work, but how does it meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite finding an interesting fact among the existing sources (of which only one is secondary), I couldn’t find any other non-PR releases to ascertain notability. ZsinjTalk 18:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That explains why a lot of Florida jurisdictions use Municode... – The Grid (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with sources I have been able to find and I removed all self refs/buzzwords on the article. It really is hard to search for the company about Municode because well...it is used by a lot of local governments so Google defaults to thinking you're searching for code of ordinances. I was more successful with searching for "George Langford" Municode as I got the history of the company. I'm going to continue looking for sources since I see a possibility here. – The Grid (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. For example, the reference from 850 Business magazine relies entirely on an interview with the president of the topic company and does not contains and information/data that is "clearly attributable to a source *unaffiliated* to the subject", fails WP:ORGIND as it does not have any "Independent Content". The Tallahassee Magazine reference is a single sentence and the article does not contain any in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the Orlando Sentinel reference also relies entirely on information provided by Langford and the company and has no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Martin, Mary, ed. (2005). Local and Regional Government Information: How to Find It, How to Use It. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. pp. 52–53, 178. ISBN 1-57356-412-5. Retrieved 2021-08-29.

      The book notes on page 52: "Codes are published by commercial publishers such as the Municipal Code Corporation, American Legal Publishing, or perhaps a publisher local to the particular municaplity or county. Municipal Code Corporation (MCC) is the nation's leading publisher of local government codes of ordinances. The company has published codes for more than 2,500 cities and counties in 48 states. Most of those cities and counties are still customers. MCC employs 11 attorneys who have on average over 12 years' experience in the specialized field of codification. For example, when the publisher contracts with a city, it sends consultants to the city to review legal issues and organize and compile the codes. A printed edition is created, with a loose-leaf supplement service. Most code compilations should contain features such as a listing of all sections at the front of each chapter and catchlines preceding each section that describe the subject of the section. Also included should be history notes at the end of each section giving the ordinance number from which the section is drived; cross-references, which tie related sections together; and state law references, which cite the applicable state statute. The organizational arrangement usually includes articles and divisions and allows for an alphabetical sequence of chapters by subject matter."

      The book notes on page 53: "MCC's Web site is very nicely designed. The links on the site are mostly of local government codes of ordinances from around the United States. The state of Florida is heavily represented at this site."

      The book notes on page 178: "MCC provides codification, indexing, and publishing services. Its Web site offers a list of freely available codes and minutes. ... Also, due to the broad scope of the site, the links are not limited to planning and zoning, and a user may be confronted with much extraneous material."

    2. Kozlowski, Ken (2001). The Internet Guide for the Legal Researcher (3 ed.). Teaneck, New Jersey: Infosources Publishing. p. 217. ISBN 0-939486-63-6. Retrieved 2021-08-29.

      The book notes: "Florida researchers will want to have this page bookmarked. The Municipal Code Corporation publishes a slew of Florida municipal codes. They also delve into other states, like Georgia, but their Florida holdings are definitely impressive. An interesting search capability is offered by MCC that allows users to combine city codes into a multiple search. Perhaps a research assignment requires finding similar code sections to one under review in a user's home city. MCC allows the researcher to combine 10 separate codes under the umbrella of one search. An impressive feat."

    3. Biehl, Kathy; Calishain, Tara (2000). The Lawyer's Guide to Internet Research. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. p. 100. ISBN 0-8108-3885-0. Retrieved 2021-08-29.

      The book notes: "The MCC, a nearly fifty-year-old business, posts a massive number of online codes from forty states. With more than 200 entries, Florida is the most heavily represented; Texas and North Carolina come in a distant second and third, respectively. It's possible to run a search query across some of the codes. Take the link to Multiple Document Query Request for the search engine and a scroll-down menu of codes available for this feature."

    4. Waters, TaMaryn (2018-05-09). "Municode completes acquisition of Texas-based company". Tallahassee Democrat. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.

      The article discusses the history of Municode. There is enough independent material to establish notability.

    5. Burns, Haskel (2021-05-07). "City of Petal turns website over to Municode". HubCitySPOKES. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.

      The article notes: "Currently, the company does work for more than 4,250 local governments, reaching more than 200 million people. It hosts one of the largest collection of codified law and original ordinances in the country, featuring more than 3,900 local government codes and 190,000 individual ordinances."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Municipal Code Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as there are enough sources for notability, thanks to Cunard's book sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: BOLDly relisting a third time for further consideration of Cunard's sources, which were presented less than twenty-four hours ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_August_30&oldid=1042993281"