Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 10 December 12 >

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) 23:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Simone[edit]

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

Proposed deletion due to it being WP:PROMOTION and Conflict of Interest by the creator of the article.

"Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." - Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates

"JustACodeMonkey, known to his friends as Greg, joined WikiPedia to help his friend Nicole Simone (aka Late July)." The article's creator states on his own wikipedia page that he has a personal connection to the subject and created his Wikipedia account specifically o help her. This is an obvious conflict of interest. The creation of this article happened because Nicole Simone would like to use it as promotion of her music activities. Her notability as a musician is questionable, if anything there should be only an article about her charity "Redemption Paws" as the charity is notable, however I do not believe Nicole herself meets the bar for being notable for her music. NoSpamming (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant comment by JustACodeMonkey (the article creator) can be found here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG although I have doubts about the motivations behind this AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly just having personal insight into this situation I lost a lot of faith in wikipedia as a whole for allowing this obvious self promotion. If wikipedia or it's editors no longer care about the credibility of this site, so be it.

This is indeed a single purpose account, given the many people who have been threatened by Nicole for "libel" simply for presenting a critical view I find it necessary to protect my privacy. I have no conflict of interest other than having met Nicole in person, we are not associated in any way and I have no incentives here other than restoring my faith in Wikipedia. NoSpamming (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I haven't been coherent, it's been exhausting trying to make this point - first having JustACodeMonkey delete the discussion and attack me, and having my credibility attacked for what seems like a pretty black and white issue to me. Does it really matter who I am? We KNOW there is already a conflict of interest that remains with this article. If anyone can just make a page about their friends band then Wikipedia would be terrible.

I stumbled onto this drama after having briefly met Nicole and was troubled the violation of conflict of interest literally stated on the creators page. Seriously I used to have a lot of respect for Wikipedia, this has really damaged it seeing how easily a clear COI was overlooked.

Again, does it matter who I am? We know Greg has a COI and this should be fixed. How can I convince you I have no COI while maintaining my privacy - If this is possible I will happily do so.

The logic of ignoring a well established COI because of a suspected COI is hard for me to understand. I also would like to adress that in pointing out this obvious COI I have felt repeatedly attacked by wikipedia editors and the user it concerns. You must consider that this is extremely discouraging as a new user, and discourages people from reporting other know conflicts of interest should their motives (and by extension their character) be scrutinized so harshly. In my opinion this scrutiny is beside the point when the facts of the COI are so obvious. NoSpamming (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not convinced of the reliability of sources covering artistic efforts. The Redemption Paws efforts were covered by respected publications such as the CBC, Toronto Star and (well, recognized at least) Toronto Sun. But I looked at other references provided, especially what was published on their "About" pages:

  • Elicit Magazine [1]: "We work to give musicians the opportunity to be heard [...] Maximum exposure is great, quality exposure is better. [...] We’re looking for people who have a dream to succeed, to persevere [...] We want to get your name out there for you. [...] remember Elicit Magazine, someone who did everything in their power to make that dream come true."
  • Linger Magazine [2]: "directed by an illustrious vision and dedication to strengthening the independent publishing niche"
  • L.A. Enthusiast [3]: "The LA Enthusiast blog features the latest attractions and new releases from up and comers all over the city."
    Note: The article is almost word for word a copy of Linger Magazine’s article.
  • Essentially Pop [4]: "we will no longer be accepting unpaid PR agency work. [...] As always, we will write about artists who contact us – or who we contact – for free – but we can no longer work free of charge for PR agencies. [...] Contact us for our very reasonable rates."
  • Jansen’s Jamz [5]: "A daily dose of New Music and Music History and introducing exciting independent music in In The Spotlight."
  • Canadian Beats [6]: "Now we’re over 40 Canadian music fans [contributing editors] working hard to promote all the musical talent that Canada has to offer"
  • Digital Journal [7]: "recognized as a pioneer and leader in social news, blending professional content with high-quality user-generated contributions to inform our audience about what’s happening around the world."
    Note: identified as a press release
  • Soundtrack.net - an indiscriminate list of soundtracks
  • Adrian Ellis Composer [8] - article was only tangentially about Simone

So, I don't believe the sources adequately support notability here. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very early career, no social media or streaming coverage combined with analysis above. I think it is WP:TOOSOON. scope_creepTalk 16:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree, an indie artist that hasn't made it big yet. None of her albums/singles have charted, nor have received airplay. I'm currently waiting for Reve that sings "Ctrl-Alt-Delete" to get more coverage so we can create an article about her, she's had airplay in Canada and is barely scraping the bottom of the notability chart. This woman isn't there yet. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a quick GSearch shows the charity she established seems to be more notable then the individual herself. This almost feels like a sales pages for her musical career which seems to be dead/going nowhere. I'd support a redirect to the Paws charity thing she runs, but it doesn't have an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Lenders Association of India[edit]

Digital Lenders Association of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor company with no indication of passing WP:NCORP from a WP:BEFORE. The article has been deleted twice, first via G11 and then via PROD. PROD on this version was declined, as the recreation after the prior PROD was considered an objection. Vaticidalprophet 06:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 4 December 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article on a trade association, supported by routine coverage ranging from this DLAI's announcement of its initial formation (the Economic Times piece from 2016) to a piece based on a DLAI announcement (the MoneyControl item from 2021). I am not seeing evidence that the association itself has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Coaster (B&M model)[edit]

Flying Coaster (B&M model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is derived closely from Flying roller coaster which was split without discussion by User:Isaacwshearer without discussion. I don't think it's appropriate for this article to exist as information on here was copied and pasted from the original and supplemented with incorrect descriptions, and would like to further propose reverting Isaac's edit on the original article.

GWR 2019 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gbenga Oyebode[edit]

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

promotional article by obvious undeclared coi editor (presumably paid) for the firm. It's Principal of a routine lawfirm, and most of the work shown here is "advised so and so," rather than the major cases that usually lead to notable coverage. Almost all the references are from the firm's web site, or are case reports, or mere notices, or duplicate the refs for the bank, or are reports of minor honors. Part of a promotional effort for the firm's principals, see previous AfD request. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's the lowest rank ofthe order, Member, and the article on the order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Federal_Republic says it'sdesigned to be analogous to the British usage; MBE has been generally not considered sufficient for notability in recent years, though higher ranks are. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I vote weak delete. He's a well known lawyer just doesn't seem to have coverage.
Princess of Ara 19:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Schwarz[edit]

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

The only possible RS is Bild that is a tabloid and known to take cavalier attitude to truth to drive up readership RSN discussion. Otherwise just porn ecosystem non news. Fails Gng and Ent is is not sourced to the required level for a blp. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Bild piece is trivial and the trade sources are not considered reliable sources due to their close relationship with the porn industry, wordpress blogs are mainly unreliable and i haven't found any decent coverage in reliable sources so WP:GNG is not passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC; typical industry blotter and non-RS entries. Not much to go on here; BLPs require better than this. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usual porn biz unusable-for-notability sites, plus a pdf of an interview hosted on a wordpress blog. That is certainly novel. And useless. Zaathras (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-State tornado (disambiguation)[edit]

Tri-State tornado (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was hastily created based on news of a very recent tornado. The tornado from 2021 will not and has not been known as the "Tri-State tornado". Other tornadoes have crossed through three states and are not referred to as such as aren't mentioned here. The page is unnecessary as a whole. United States Man (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Creator - Well, I guess we are doing this now rather than waiting for later date. Technically speaking, as of this moment in time, there was a SECOND tri-state tornado. Of course, this will never be known as THE tri-state tornado, but nevertheless the term “tri-state tornado” can be used for that tornado. I asked that the deleted wait until it was confirmed tri or quad for a possibly speedy delete or perm keep, but since we doing this now, we doing it now. Basic terminology here, not implying that anyone will ever refer to this as THE tri-state tornado, just that the term “Tri-state tornado” can be used for both tornadoes. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Deleting this would go against the very reason we have disambiguation pages. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No such animal. There were tornado outbreaks in the tri-state area, but no individual "Tri-State tornado". Only one such animal. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: What about the 2nd box in the December 10 list, the one that went through Leachville, Arkansas. I know that is the "Quad-state tornado" but the quad hasn't been confirmed. So right now, it is a tri-state tornado. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Descriptive terms are not what dab pages are for. Otherwise, we'd have Pacific typhoon (disambiguation), California earthquake (disambiguation), etc. We do have List of earthquakes in California because they're a notable topic. I doubt that tri-state typhoons are discussed as a group, however. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if the recent tornado did impact three states, which as yet to be determined, the term "Tri-State tornado" is not being used to describe it. Nor is this tornado the only other example. SPC records list 10 three-state tornadoes from 1950-2019, but only the 1925 event is commonly called the Tri-State tornado. Furthermore, anticipating how this path might be broken up before the survey is completed, and what the tornado might be called depending on that, violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A three-state tornado has been confirmed (no quad-state tornado this time). Mentions of a Tri-State tornado, though, only seem to mention the 1925 event in comparison to the recent storm, rather than calling this a Tri-State tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a disambiguation page would be needed to distinguish between articles for tornadoes that are known as "Tri-State tornado". There is only one entry that qualifies so there is no disambiguation needed. -- Whpq (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global One Lending[edit]

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

This article survived a 2005 VfD (quite a blast from the past) but seems to fall far short of our modern notability requirements. No relevant sources are provided, and a WP:BEFORE search does not find the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required by WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to American Idol (season 8). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Rounds[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSBIO. Is not notable outside of her competing in American Idol. Babar Suhail (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grameen Vidyapeeth Girls Senior Secondary School[edit]

Grameen Vidyapeeth Girls Senior Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Just sourced with a related source.Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. A search point to listings and WP-forks. The Banner talk 12:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:PROD was declined previously, so not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community Catholic Church of Canada[edit]

Community Catholic Church of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The denomination does not meet the WP:NCHURCH criteria.
There is no reliable secondary source in this article despite it being more than 10 years. Moreover, I found nothing on this denomination apart from its website. The 2009 edition of Melton's encyclopedia of American religions (you can check it here) does not have any information on this supposed group. Veverve (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @StAnselm: It does not make it clear, it claims to. Veverve (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: As I expected, the only source given does not claim the church was previously called "Old Catholic Church of Canada". The information has been removed from the article. Veverve (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Sex Addict[edit]

Diary of a Sex Addict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and no RS reviews were found in a WP:BEFORE. Please note the Telegraph article is about Anthony Peck and not the film. The Film Creator (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You'd think a film with a title like that would at least get enough attention from the 50 Shades of Gray crowd to warrant more coverage, but I guess that's not the case. Only thing I found was a Digitally Obsessed review (a Diary of a Digital Addict, if you will), which I do not know if that's a reliable source or not. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment found a review at TV Guide [10] DonaldD23 talk to me 20:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the 1,800 word Telegraph article was reprinted in the National Post - Canada's second-largest national paper - available on Proquest as ProQuest 329829931, though the text can be seen (as presumably a copyright violation) here. Yes, there's more about Anthony Peck than the movie, but given the movie is semi-autobiographical, that shouldn't be a surprise - there's certainly a lot more about the movie than the nominating statement suggests; the depth of articles about Anthony Peck do make one wonder why one or the other isn't notable (or both). Nfitz (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TV Guide, Radio Times and a paragraph in this book (also printed in article form). There is also Digitally Obsessed. Geschichte (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The last couple !votes demonstrate that this film received enough coverage in secondary sources to meet WP:NFILM. --Zander251 (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Temple, Salem[edit]

ISKCON Temple, Salem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This temple fails WP:NORG. No indication why this temple is notable to have its own article. Lack of coverage in reliable media. On second thoughts I think this is suitable for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Venkat TL (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* ISKCON Temple, Chennai
* Temple of the Vedic Planetarium, Mayapur

And many more, so this is unnecessary. If you still want to delete this article, please move the article to ISCKON, if you delete this, it may affect my rights in future. Ram Dhaneesh (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Such an "other stuff exists" argument doesn't hold water. It is perfectly possible for some temples to be notable and others not. In those cases the temple in Chennai is larger than this one and the one in Mayapur is intended to be the world-wide headquarters of ISKCON. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ram Dhaneesh what kind of your rights will be affected in future if this article is deleted? Please clarify. Venkat TL (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to ISCKON. Content is insufficient for a separate article. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a pretty bad idea. Do you really think that our article on ISKCON should contain a paragraph about every ISKCON temple in the world? That would make the article very long and overwhelm the other content in it. Better to keep or delete this, or find another merge target such as "Salem, Tamil Nadu#Landmarks". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you object to that, why not start a list article of all ISKCON temples worldwide? There are other temple articles up for deletion. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion would be beneficial to determine consensus as it isn't currently clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom, for having no claim to notability. If a list page is created, it could be added, but there is really no material to save at this time. Ifnord (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Trevena (lawyer)[edit]

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

Lawyer does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is largely WP:PASSING mentions in the context of the individual court cases. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give this one more go. Further discussion of whether the sources mentioned are enough would be helpful for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per consensus, absence of sources, and no indication of notabilty. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Tomorrow (1999 film)[edit]

No Tomorrow (1999 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Costa Rica)[edit]

Leader of the Opposition (Costa Rica) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Term is not in use in Costa Rican politics, which is a extensive multi party system, so no single party/person could be denominated as a 'leader of the opposition', also, this list is a compilation of runner-ups/second places in elections, some of which had political power, but definitely not all of them. Roqz (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes about the cited references: [16] states that in the 2014 elections, the runner-up party self proclaims their candidate Araya as 'leader of the opposition', however in the next reference [17] the same party spokesperson states that Araya is too politically weak to be an opposition leader; therefore refs contradicts that any runner up of a presidential election is automatically an opposition leader as the article implies. Then, in the book at [18] the lawmaker Daniel Oduber is named by the author as the leader of the opposition, but then, in that legislative period (1958-62) in the article we have the runner up for president, José Orlich as the leader!, Similarly it happens with [19] that states that Otilio Ulate was the opposition leader, who again doesn't appear in the list of the article. Seems to me that the refs were cherry picked as just search results to support the use of the term, which in Spanish Wikipedia seems to have arised as a retcon after the 2014 source (first above) to try to apply to the rest of the candidates and elections, and then propagated here.

Granted, the term has been used in the past such as in those books as a figure of speech, for political adversaries of the executive power (which is important and should be added to each individual's article), but just sparingly and not automatically applied to the runner up of the presidential elections as this article states, which looks to me as WP:OR. In Spanish Wikipedia the article was already deleted, and in the discussion only two editors participated (full disclosure, myself included) agreeing on the misuse of the term in Wikipedia. --Roqz (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Certainly the term is used as an informal title, but is there significant coverage about this informal position? Beyond media reports and books just naming individuals as having this title, I cannot find any sort of coverage about the role and how it fist in politics in Costa Rica. To be fair, I can only search in English, and there may be Spanish language sources. However, none of the sourcing in the article is really of a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I stand by the reasoning of the nominator, incidentally the same as over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the Opposition (Norway). Oppositions are often multi-faceted, and at the same time it is possible to have a communist opposition, a centre-right or centre-left opposition, a far right opposition, etc. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Holy Paraclete[edit]

Church of the Holy Paraclete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This church (denomination? congregation?) does not meet the WP:NCHURCH notability criteria: none of the reliable sources given as references mention it. I have also made personnal research and found nothing apart from a page in the ISM directory on the church's alleged priest, Jakob Lazarus.
It seems the article was written by @JakobLazarus: almost 10 years ago; with such an user name, the user may possibly be the leader of this church. Veverve (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Roulette (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. There are no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a TV Guide link which shows no review and a Time Out link, which is a capsule review and capsule reviews are an example of what is considered "coverage insufficient to fully establish notability" per WP:NFSOURCES. The Film Creator (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trendspotters.tv[edit]

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

Non notable company failing WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Apart from a few press release type references mentioned in the article, nothing else about the company seems to exist as evidenced by a cursory search. Seems to be an obvious paid job considering the creation history of the primary author Jupitus Smart 18:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diiriye Guure[edit]

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

Most of the content in the article does not even cover who this Diiriye Guure is, and what he has done etc. Below is an inspection of all listed citations used in the article, in each instance the source either gives him a passing mention or fails to mention Diiriye Guure at all. The article tries to claim much bigger impact and importance than really exists, and the citations do not support the material, but have been added to puff up the article.

1 Only gives him a passing mention, listed among other senior Dervish leaders and commanders Haji Sudi and Deria Arale.

2 Likewise only mentions that him, along with other Dervish leaders like Deria Arale, Haji Sudi among others. An important thing to note is that the source is cited for this part: "Diiriye Guure (also spelled Deeria Goori or Deria Gure) was the 16th Garad of the Dhulbahante Garadate, who as Darawiish Garad was sought by British colonial administrators for apprehension via "unconditional surrender"". The source does not at all mention him as a garad nor does it mention a "Dhulbahante Garadate" at all.

3 This source does not mention this Diiriye Guure at all, yet is used for the following section: "During his tenure as successor to Garad Ali IV, thus becoming the Dhulbahante Garad, and as Dervish sultan, the Darawiish became among the most perseverant polities in the Horn of Africa during the period of the Scramble for Africa wherein European colonialists targeted Darawiish territories". Neither him nor this Garad Ali IV (who is actual mentioned in other sources) is mentioned in this source. (One thing to note is that this Garad Ali is mentioned in other sources, The Collapse of The Somali State: The Impact of the Colonial Legacy by Abdisalam M. Issa-Salwe mentions his assassination at the hand of Muhammed Abdullah Hassan at page 30.

4 This source does again give him a passing mention however does not mention him being the Dhulbahante "garad" or the "Darawiish sultan". All it does is mention that he was badly wounded at the Battle of Gunrburru and that he holds a position corresponding to the commanding Royal Engineer. While the source refers to him as well as other mentioned Dervish leaders as "heads" of their respective tribes, the source does not elaborate and a "head" is a very vague term. More on that here

5 First Footsteps in East Africa by Richard F. Burton (took the liberty to link the PDF btw) does not mention him at all, in addition to the first four paragraphs being irrelevant to this Diiriye Guure person. Most of the "Predecessors" section is unsourced as well.

6 Same source as 2, again no mention of Diiriye Guure or of Garad Ali. I tried looking far and wide (searched for "Garad", "Ali", "Garad Ali") however nothing popped up.

[7] I could not find the source for this one, which fails WP:VERIFY.

[8] This source hasn't been properly cited. After a bit of digging it turns out that the source is A Pastoral Democracy - A Study of Pastoralism and Politics Among the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa by IM Lewis, which does not mention Diiriye Guure, nor does it mention these other two Garad Mohamed the 4th and Garad Aardheel.

[9] It was a bit hard to find the Oral poetry and Somali nationalism : the case of Sayyid Maḥammad ʻAbdille Ḥasan source. After some digging I did find a link (a few redirects are to be expected) and per usual, no mention of Diiriye Guure or this Koore-baas.

[10] Could not find the source. The blockquote fails to mention Diiriye Guure as a sultan or garad and mirrors source nr. 2.

11 No mention of Diiriye Guure, same source I discussed at nr. 3.

[12] Same as 9.

[13] There is no link for GUDBAN (GAAL-LEGED); Diiwaanka Gabayadii Sayid Maxamed Cabdulle Xasan, which fails WP:VERIFY. After a bit of digging I found the actual poem, which fails to mention Diiriye Guure.

[14] Again, no link for this one. I found the link to the actual poem which again fails to mention Diiriye Guure.

[15] Could not find this source, which fails WP:VERIFY.

[16] It was a bit hard to find this one. I did however find what seems to be the cited source in an online newspaper, which again fails to mention Diiriye Guure as well as his supposed younger brother "Maxmud Guure".

[17] Could not find this source, which fails WP:VERIFY

[18] Identical to [4].

[19] I looked through this source here and again, no mention of Diiriye Guure. No relevance to the subject either.

[20] No mention of Diiriye Guure nor is it relevant to the subject.

[21] No mention of Diiriye Guure nor is it relevant to the subject.

22 No mention of Diiriye Guure nor is it relevant to the subject.

This proves that this article fails WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. This article also fails WP:SYNTH, WP:GNG, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:BASIC, and WP:NPOL, and judging by all this evidence the article could also qualify to be a hoax. Dabaqabad (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heesxiisolehh:, I see no reason why that is worth noting at all. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, treat it like a similar article. According to some sources listed, I could not find any word for "Diiriye Guure". However, I were not able to fully check some of the references because they were books but did not have page numbers marked on them. When the page number is provided, I will check again for references that I have. Also, Somali names are sometimes spelled differently, so if the name is spelled something other than "Diiriye Guure," Please also indicate the spelling in which it is written. If this point is not improved, it cannot be verified, so deletion on the grounds of notability is considered appropriate.--Freetrashbox (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • this Evening Express source spells it as "Deeria Goori", this source as "deria gure", this source as "diiriye guure", so there's not exactly one spelling. In this source the title given to Guure in the Evening Express source, (i.e. as head of Dhulbahante tribe), is coalesced as encompassing the Dervish movement as well (see statement "all the Dervishes ... all the Dolbahanta ... we are a government, we have a Sultan") in the Dervish proclamation of independence letter. Since this proclamation of independence letter was written in 1899, during Diiriye Guure's era, plus the Dhulbahante and Dervishes having a shared sultan hence arguably increases the profile of the Dhulbahante monarchical position, thus by extension, also increases the profile of Diiriye Guure. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the reply. I can confirm through several references that this person does exist. "Evening Express" states that he is the third leader of Mullah's Army, suggesting that he is an important figure, but we do not know if he is the Garad of Dhulbahante. Sorry, I do not have the book "Taariikhdii daraawiishta..." He is only mentioned in the "Official History of the Operations..." as Mullah's third subordinate. Therefore, I think there is Notability, but I don't think it meets the requirements of WP:PAGEDECIDE. I think it would be better to redirect to Mohammed Abdullah Hassan.--Freetrashbox (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Freetrashbox: Evening Express says the men hitherto mentioned are "the heads of their respective tribes". So do you accept from the Evening Express source that Guure is the head of the Dhulbahante tribe? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the claimed positions, WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The sources presented here and in the article are either not reliable (e.g., Evening Express) or not significant (the multiple passing mentions or mere inclusion on lists). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: Usually I would agree wholeheartedly with your statement, but at the time in the 1900s there was a media censorship of the Nugaal region (see Las_Anod#Media), which makes any news that comes out all the more substantial. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be treated the same as Deria Arale, who is also Mullah's subordinate. I think it to be a redirect would be appropriate, but from what I can see there are many articles of similar amount of text on Horn of Africa. However, we need to fix the article using only sources that directly mention Diiriye Guure.--Freetrashbox (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dabaqabad: Most of the article Deria Arale seems to have been written by you, what do you think the difference between Delia Arale and Diiriye Guure? Diiriye Guure is also mentioned as "Delia Gure" in your article. And Diiriye Guure is at least described in the books Somalia: A Chronology of Historical Documents 1827-2000 and Official history of the operations in Somaliland that you listed as "reliable sources" in the article. I don't think there is much difference between the two in terms of their importance or the information that is left. Why do you think that only Diiriye Guure's article deserves to be deleted?--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Freetrashbox:, please see WP:WHATABOUTX, one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The existence or lack of "similar" articles is not controlling of the discussion of this article. If you think that Deria Arale is truly non-notable, then a separate discussion can take place. Please be aware, however, that nominating the other article so soon after this post without a thorough source analysis and nomination statement may well be seen as WP:POINTy. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: Thanks for your advice. Of course, we don't need to consider the balance with other articles in this discussion. However, Dabaqabad's actions seem to be using Afd as a means to win over his debating opponent (Heesxiisolehh). The article Diiriye Guure was not created by Heesxiisolehh, is involved in an unrelated conflict. I would like Dabaqabad to explain this is not the such case.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is flawed and erroneous with false claims and many non existent references which fail to meet WP:VERIFY. No mention of him being the overall garad/sultan of dervishes in any of the sources, author is passing own narrative misguiding readers by falsifying sources, but when each source is examined it either does not mention subject or support authors claims, example here were he is not even mentioned [23], also here not mentioned [24] . another source here [25] which is non existent and fails to meet WP:VERIFY again no mention of Diiriye guure [26]]. Creator of Afd has already discredited majority if not all of the references and sources for this article, therefore it should a Delete.Hawkers994 (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If he was a real Garad of the Dhulbahante Garadate, he may pass WP:NPOL because Garad is a Political faction based on monarchy. However sources didn't support. VocalIndia (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sultan of the Darawiish? Sultan is used as the title of certain rulers who claimed almost full sovereignty in practical terms. VocalIndia (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the tag "arguably", since the 3 May 1899 letter coalesces the Dervish and Dhulbahante sultan, although the letter also supposes a Triumvirate. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As detailed above, no evidence of notability and no mentions in reliable independent sources in the article. Jacob300 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many of the citations in this article are either inaccessible or do not reflect the material presented. As other editors have indicated, this article fails to meet WP:NOR, WP:GNG, and WP:VERIFY. This also appears to be a case of WP:REFBOMB with many citations only mentioning "Diiriye Guure" (and other spelling variations) in passing. Koodbuur (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Evening Express source describes Diiriye Guure as the head of his tribe; a position that constitutes garad of Dhulbahante; this meets WP:NPOL requirements. The source also calls Diiirye Guure "powerful". The "Official history of ..." source by the British War Office is an expedition letter from James Sadler which begins as "The object of the expedition is to ... to put an end to his movement in the Dolbahanta"; it then states "a large coalition of the Dolbahanta against us" and its perceived as an "invasion of the Dolbahanta country". So the letter describes it as a movement in/by Diiriye Guure's tribe, the Dhulbahante. The other 3 named individuals (Mullah / Sudi / Arale) are from different tribes. Since Sadler's expedition letter ascribes kinship as relevant, and if Diiriye Guure is the only named person genealogically linked to the tribe being reprimanded, i.e. Dhulbahante, then that makes the letter collectively relevant to Diiriye Guure. Likewise, the subclans mentioned in the expedition letter, i.e. Ararsame, Barkad, baharsame, are subclans of the Farah Garad, the royal lineage of the Dhulbahante. The Ali Gheri subclan, also a Farah Garad subclan, is the only tribe mentioned with a penalty exaction as punishment. (See pages 54, 55 and 56 of this accessible file). In summary, practically the entire 11th April 1901 expedition letter in the British War Office source is a reprimand of the tribe which Diiriye Guure is head of, thus making the letter most pertinent to him. Sadler's expedition letter is also reproduced in the 1901 Parliamentary papers and by Angus Hamilton in 1911 (spelled "Deria Gure" in both). As for the Somali language "Taariikhdii ..." source, Guure is mentioned in both volumes, i.e. 1976 and 2005. Finally, the 2001 "The Scramble in the Horn ..." source has an excerpt on the Dervish proclamation of independence letter dated 3 may 1899. The letter clarifying the Dervish government intimates at Guure although indirectly by using "letter ... by ... the Dolbahanta" and "we have a Sultan" ensuingly. So in conclusion, when including the different volumes and tertiary sources, Guure is covered 7 times by name and once indirectly via his title. Although this may seem little, this is significant when you consider the contemporaneous media blackout mentioned in this paragraph. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree per user:Heesxiisolehh. He passes WP:NPOL. VocalIndia (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dabaqabad's persuasive and in-depth reasoning. Ifnord (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gender identity movement[edit]

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

Article should be kept in the user's sandbox per their edit summary. Additionally, the content should be included in the Gender identity article rather than a standalone page. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nero Calatrava: I would strongly advise you to start creating an article in the draftspace linked in my comment above. Start with finding some sources and build from there. Cheers. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Funcrunch. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Unsourced micro-stub that fails WP:NPOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV barely-a-stub – as PerpetuityGrat suggests, maybe you could work on this as a draft, but I would caution against trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, as your previous edits on gender-related articles suggest you are doing. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced POV stub (POVFORK?). -sche (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork of Gender identity and possibly Anti-gender movement. --Aquillion (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV content fork. Without even seeing the !votes, I knew exactly what cruft would be in here, and the page did not disappoint. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt and do not bother recreating the article is WP:UGLY, yes, but it’s also an obvious attempt at a transphobic POV fork, and that’s not going to pass even if it’s cleaned up. The proper term for the so-called “gender identity movement” is the transgender rights movement. Calling it something else is usually meant as a dogwhistle. Every single one of this user’s edits has been related to POV pushing on transgender-related subjects so this is clearly not a good faith misunderstanding. Dronebogus (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're conflating the two topics too much, but I do agree that it is likely not a good faith misunderstanding. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the POV-related arguments above. WikiJoeB (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article should have never been created. Catfurball (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing salvageable here. There's very little to say about it that hasn't already been said if only because there's just that little there to say anything about. Looking at the votes above I think a SNOW close may be in order here.--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the POV-related arguments above. Nero Calatrava (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While many of his roles are minor, consensus appears that he has still a substantial list of roles in major films and TV shows. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Dean[edit]

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

Although I'm familiar with his work in The Breakfast Club, The Fugitive and The Dark Knight, none of his roles are significant enough, thereby failing WP:NACTOR. I also couldn't find any coverage about him thus failing WP:BASIC. The Film Creator (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant roles in at least Above the Law and Early Edition, in addition to a pretty prolific supporting career across major shows. Star Garnet (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep actors have a fairly low bar for notability, but he does pass based on the above mentioned roles (supporting roles in big movies, recurring roles on tv). Rhino131 (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus explicitly with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The numerical split here is 9 keep, 5 delete; but the "keep" arguments are generally so poor that there is almost, but not quite, consensus for deletion. To take the arguments individually; PORNBIO is depracated, and has no bearing on this discussion; WP:NACTOR requires appearances in multiple notable films; I see no consensus or precedent that being a Penthouse Pet is sufficient for ANYBIO; and GNG/BASIC requires substantive coverage in multiple, intellectually independent, reliable sources, which have not been provided here. There are also concerns with canvassing, so I would rather close this and allow for renomination than prolong an already messy discussion from which clear consensus is unlikely to arise. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devon (actress)[edit]

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

This was kept almost 4 years ago based on arguments that no longer have the same value since pornbio has been discarded. What we have here is possibly one page in a book that the reference is more of the then boyfriend then her. Then there is a film review so that’s about the film and not her. Then a couple of interviews as part of the usual porn industry noise so not really anything we can use to determine notability. In short fails GNG and ENT. Another redirect to AVN HOF after deletion seems appropriate. Spartaz Humbug! 21:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: Another redirect to AVN HOF after deletion seems appropriate" - this is the worst possibility. By what right do you want to create redirect from living person to an article about award? AVN HOF is just one of the awards gained by Devon. Create redirect from living person to an article about award of AVN HOF is without any common sense. Either keep artcile or delete article, you have no right to create pointless redirects. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep. Crazy, but role in Pirates counts as a WP:NACTOR-notable film, and being a Penthouse Pet ought to be enough to claim multiple notable productions. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only is your argument opinion without policy basis but you fail to address the lackmof sources. Penthouse has long not been a basis on which to keep unsourced blps. Spartaz Humbug! 09:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep Notable film role as well as a being a well known pinup girl featured in nation publications meet requirements.Super (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another policy based opinion that does not address the gng deficiency. HOTTIE has been depreceated even longer than PORNBIO Spartaz Humbug! 09:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per
    Shortcuts
    she has met the criteria for Pirates alone as its a well known unique, very notable film. She has also been inducted in to the AV Hall of Fame. Is this AfD because its pornography related? If so a good explanation as to why av stars should be treated no different then any other profession can be found in the first AfD in a comment by User:Subtropical-manSuper (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which policy is tohat under. Aside from the fact that your comment makes no sense and that subtropical man’s contribution or porn afds were charactarised by ridiculous assertions of notability, lets address your assertions in details. Do you have a source to show her contribution to the film was significant and that it was unique? Regardless of that its not a policy based reason to keep as Pornbio has been removed. Ditto HoF not longer counts due to pornbio being removed. Ad hom claims just demonstrate you have no proper basis to argue keep. Av stars get treated the same as other entertainers. Do you have any sources at all please? Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable film role + the most important award in the porn industry ("Porn Oscars"). [here was a piece of text that - theoretically by some users - might have been defined as offensive - deleted by the author of comment at the request of the user Spartaz, as part of good will]. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly note this user was pinged so is a canvassed vote. Secondly, subtropical, eithee retract your sttements about me or I'll report you to ANI for a personal attack / poisoning of the well. Your choice. Spartaz Humbug! 12:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Pirates" the film being notable does not transfer notability onto the performers. They have to stand on their own, and this one does not. Awards & noms are irrelevant, as established in wp:pornbio deprecation. The usual AVN, XBIZ, and porn dvd listings are irrelevant. Interviews are primary, used to support stated facts in an article, not build notability. Would also note that the extreme hostility shown by this subtropical guy should see their "vote" stricken and possibly an escalation into a filing to have their behavior examined. Zaathras (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop trying to intimidate other voters. I get it you do not like pornogaphy, lets keep our personal feelings out of this. A vote is a vote and we work off of consensus here.Super (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing how you improperly solicited Subtropical man to come here, based on his agreement with you on this subject (a violation of WP:CANVASS), you have already done what you could to sabotage the discussion, and are in no position to lecture others. Zaathras (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Supercopone and user:Zaathras, this debate is pointless. Everyone had their own opinion on this matter, further discussion or quarrel does not make sense. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't pointless at all, but this isn't the proper venue to discuss it...ANI will be. Zaathras (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zaathras excepting the last sentence, of which I have no opinion. nableezy - 20:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous consensus. The original consensus determined this page should stay based on WP:GNG not WP:PORNBIO. So nothing has changed. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
which sources pass the GNG? Spartaz Humbug! 20:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the keep votes in the previous discussion violated WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You can't just vaguely point at a policy page and say "yep, meets it" without explaining which sources in particular you feel are sufficient. Zaathras (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PORNBIO was deprecated by consensus, making that vote based on literally nothing. nableezy - 17:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what he wrote? He said not Porn:Bio. Please explain what you are talking about?Super (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras, Nableezy and some other:
The text is clear that we don't have to rigidly and mathematically stick to politics like robots, if, despite the fact that something may not meet the guidelines in 100%, users may decide to keep the article. Please respect the voices of other users, because every vote in "keep" is attacked by opponents. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 03:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even a rational or coherent argument, Mr. -man. Notability guidelines and policy exist to give us structure and to ensure that every BLP subject is treated equally and fairly to one another. If Devon the actreess does not meet what is the generally accepted standard of Wikipedia notability, then the article should be deleted. Also, for someone who was expressing displeasure about being pinged to this discussion in the first place, you sure are lingering in it. Zaathras (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major role in major film, multiple awards, I did a little quick searching and easily found this biography which isn't used in the article and by itself is probably a more in-depth source that we have on thousand of other bios. There is more than enough for GNG. MB 03:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) Not a major film; notable enough, but that notability does not automatically transfer to participants, 2) pornography awards do not count towards notability per WP:PORNBIO deprecation, and 3) xxbios.com is just a blog filled with uncited personal details with lots of r-rated images. It is amazing to see someone stuff so many flat-out wrong arguments into a single post, but you managed it. Zaathras (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) Since "major film" is subjective, classifying it as not a major film is just your opinion. 2) this makes no sense since WP:PORNBIO doesn't exist anymore, it can't disallow anything. Awards of any kind that generate coverage can contribute to GNG. 3) xxxbios.com is not a blog, it is a copyrighted site that requests attribution when used, hallmarks of a RS. The fact that it has r-rated images is irrelevant and suggests that you may have an issue with pornography and probably can't maintain a NPOV in this area. MB 02:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A copyrighted site that requests attribution when used, hallmarks of a [reliable source]" ~ I found this discussion via ANI and just wanted to have a quick look through the arguments. This one is so weirdly incorrect that I had to take a moment to point this out. It appears to be self-published lacking editorial oversight; copyright notices and attribution requests have no effect on the reliability of a source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable in my humble opinion. I did view the 'consensus keep position'. See first nomination. Also found the comments of MB & Bob helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:JUSTAVOTE. Curious that we're seeing a slew of attempts to keep the article based on the outmoded criteria of afd number 1. It's like a bunch of old editors unfamiliar with how notability rules work in 2021 just - showing up. Zaathras (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Closing admin, please note that the last 3 keeps are either grounded in deprecated policy, or have no grounding whatsoever. Zaathras (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more opinions that address the sourcing situation, which is going to determinative for the fate of this article as a WP:BLP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per those above. On an aside: I fail to see the benefit of deletion then redirection. If the title is to remain extant, keeping the history intact is almost always preferable. A consensus for redirection here means the page should not be restored without substantial new developments. There is no reason that these should be treated different than other topics which would be redirected without deletion if redirect was the consensus here; moreover, if redirect is not the consesnsus here, then recreating as a redirect within a short amount of time is really an immediate objection to the outcome and against consensus. (Are pornography related subjects now too taboo to exist even in page histories?) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping the history intact is not preferable, as it just makes the redirect a magnet for fans with no grasp of project policy to come and restore the article. This is why I retain Lana Rhodes on watchlist long after the discussion. Also, "keep per above" is meaningless, as many of the calls to keep above were not policy-based. Zaathras (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC, per review of available sources, which are WP:SPS, routine notices, and PR blotter. The statements that the subject make about themselves do not count either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I checked out all comments of voters and I'm agree with keep voters. Having main role in notable movies, meets WP:PORNBIO. Brayan ocaner (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PORNBIO has been supressed and is no longer grounds to keep any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact it was supressed over two and a half years ago. It is no longer an arguemtn to keep anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Brayan ocaner: if one clicks on the link in your comment, WP:PORNBIO, one is presented with the following --- The subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and pornographic models was deprecated in March 2019 in this Request for Comment. Its content formerly appeared on Wikipedia:Notability (people) and was removed in this edit pursuant to the Request for Comment. With that, please explain how an article meets the notability criteria of something that literally does not exist. Zaathras (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a few routine articles and a bunch of PR matieral does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I tend to be extremely skeptical about notability in this area, but this is one of the instances where there is sufficient references and sufficient accomplishments. The question is not about policy: it's about where we should draw the line in interpreting the guidelines. The various deprecated guidleines were eprecated only in the sense of no longer being used for presumed notability, not as irrelevant to notability altogether. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Schmitt[edit]

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

Dreadful sourcing, not even on the same page as gng or ent. Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ferguson Jr.[edit]

Kevin Ferguson Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA criteria; he doesn't have 3 fights in a top tier promotion (bellator top tier 2009-2015 and 2022 beyond), nor has he been ranked inside the top 10 of his division by FightMatrix or Sherdog. He is the son of famous street brawler, boxer, and mixed martial artist Kimbo Slice but that fact alone shouldn't mean he passes WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 16:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 21:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xianyu[edit]

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

Nearly all of the pages it redirects to are redlinks Devokewater (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes Palace Hotel[edit]

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

This article has been here for a while. The hotel exists, but a simple search shows that there is nothing inherently notable about the hotel or its building. As such, it looks to me that it fails WP:GNG. The article itself is a stub, and only contains one citation to back up a claim that the hotel once hosted a UNESCO meeting session. The rest of the article sounds like an advert. Mugimeshi (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search would generate results on the hotel, but many of the sources in Indonesian would simply state it is the venue of some event, but does not expound on the hotel and does not talk about it. But again, citing WP:INHERITORG, notability is not inherited due to an event associated with it. Of the two articles I found talking about the hotel [27][28] (both in Indonesian and from the same source), both are written like a sponsored article from a local newspaper.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rutgers University–Newark. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George F Smith Library of the Health Sciences[edit]

George F Smith Library of the Health Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much as I love libraries, this neither evidences nor asserts any claim whatsoever to notability; it's Rutgers fancruft and self-congratulation. Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Manning Cup[edit]

2019 Manning Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After posting at WT:FOOTBALL it was agreed this fails SNG WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Manning Cup season[edit]

2021 Manning Cup season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After posting at WT:FOOTBALL it was agreed this fails SNG WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finger claws[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources cited, seems designed to promote an origami website. Kleuske (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R v Khan (South Africa)[edit]

R v Khan (South Africa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Legal case which fails WP:GNG, relies on a single primary source, previous afd was closed keep, but I think it could be different this time. Two prior reasons for keep aren't valid any more:

One was the similarity in names, as it previously had the same name as the R v Khan article but different punctuation so it was argued keep as an obvious redirect.

Second was the argument that it satisfied WP:CASES. However that has since failed.

I will ask the main keep !voter to weigh in, since they may be able to explain further how they considered it to meet GNG as they said at the time. Mako001 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only source cited is a dissertation which includes only a small amount of content regarding this case -- less than two pages which are double-spaced with wide margins. I don't see how this article satisfies WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of notability. The single source is one dissertation. Kill it now. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus to delete, sole keep vote conceded the subject doesn't pass NFOOTY, but did not provide any sources to support wider GNG and so is not sufficient to warrant relisting. Fenix down (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maili Forbes[edit]

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

Footballer with a very, very brief career limited only to WP:NOTFPL leagues. No caps mentioned on Soccerway or Ozfootball. A search of Google News yields two squad list mentions. DDG yields nothing of note either. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://websites.mygameday.app/assoc_page.cgi?client=0-9385-0-0-0&sID=269940&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=34255445 Yes Yes No Just a few match report mentions. Routine sports coverage ✘ No
https://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/southwest/the-gap-eyeing-premiershipchampionship-double-in-npl-queenslands-womens-league/news-story/e3604d60bd66e076babc6d36d1eea642 Yes Yes No Mentioned in passing once in the article's body. Also mentioned once in a photo caption ✘ No
http://web-old.archive.org/web/20161018195010/http://www.gapnplfootball.org.au/news/interview-with-maili-forbes/ No She used to play for this club No No Since this is an interview for a club that she played for, it can't count towards WP:SIGCOV ✘ No
https://us.women.soccerway.com/players/maili-forbes/426070/ Yes Yes No Stats ✘ No
https://thewomensgame.com/news/brisbane-roar-looking-locally-for-season-8-483519 Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-25/w-league-semi-final-melbourne-city-brisbane-roar/7113740 Yes Yes No Not mentioned at all ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SuperJew caps in the context that I was using it was referring to full international caps. If she does have these then she does meet one half of WP:NFOOTBALL. As things stand, she only has WP:NOTFPL games so wouldn't meet the SNG. If she meets the GNG, however, then the article can be kept. If she does not meet GNG then there is enough consensus from recent cases of Australian soccer players such as Sarah Groenewald, Tiarn Powell, Alesha Clifford and Jessica Seaman and others to delete. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: Then you should write that you mean international caps. What you wrote, the meaning is caps in general, club or international level. As we've already crossed paths on quite a few AfD and WT:FOOTY discussions, you don't need to explain to me the meaning of WP:NFOOTY and you know that I think it's nonsense that the top level league in Australia doesn't confer suggested notability in the same way that the top level league in for example Honduras does. So anyways my argument here would be to Keep. I'm sure there's sources and potential to expand the article, but I don't have the time or resources to deal with it now. --SuperJew (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ProQuest has no in-depth coverage of Forbes, in addition to the searches already conducted above in my nomination statement. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ackeem Auguste[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC, is only playing at an under-19 level. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete essay per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard the Lionheart's encounters with lions[edit]

Richard the Lionheart's encounters with lions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reason for this article to exist. The only subsection of this article that actually talks about Richard the Lionheart and lions is 1.3, which is more or less a paragraph and can easily be merged to the main biographical article. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balázs Bergmann[edit]

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

15 years ago, he played 155 mins of professional football then dropped to a lower level and, in the same season, completely disappeared. He has no trace of a career since 2006 so the likelihood of a future professional appearance is low, therefore, I would oppose sending to draft. Clear consensus at hundreds of recent discussions is that WP:GNG must be met in these types of cases. Google News yielded nothing in the Hungarian name order and western name order. Similarly, this Hungarian source search also yielded zilch. All I can find are stats pages like BeSoccer and World Football, which confirm the weak WP:NFOOTBALL pass but bring us nothing towards GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Download Accelerator[edit]

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

My prod was removed, but it seems like no significant coverage was added. I'm not sure if the Softpedia review counts as reliable, but it might be. The other reference is a trivial mention in a list. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think Softpedia is reliable, or at least not without other sourcing. Listicle is not enough either. More would be needed and I too am unable to find more. Star Mississippi 15:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Far Eastern Republic[edit]

Ukrainian Far Eastern Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was no such a republic. The user's been pushing this mystification in Ukrainian Wikipedia for a quite long time now. There was indeed a cultural autonomy of Ukrainians in the Far Eastern Republic, but the sources provide no confirmation that the colony's independence was even considered, let alone established (or "self-proclaimed", as the article states). It was considered though Piramidion 15:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an abstract of the second reference used in the article:

The Far Eastern Ukrainian Secretariat planned to hold a Far Eastern congress, which was to proclaim a Ukrainian state in the Far East known as Zelena Ukraina (Green Ukraine), but in November 1922 the Far Eastern Republic was occupied by the Red Army.
— Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine

--Piramidion 00:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Since from what I can tell a lot of it is either made up or only loosely based on historical facts. On the "were they an independent colony" question, there's no evidence that they were an officially recognized independent colony and a self-proclaimed one is rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Not that there's evidence they had self-proclaimed independence anyway. At least not from what I can tell. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a POV fork of Green Ukraine. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose as Ukrainian Far Eastern Congress or merge into Green Ukraine (which currently dies not cover the same ground). The article appears to have sources, though not ones that I can read. Its tone and content is credible, as an element of the chaos following the collapse of the Russian Empire and the attempts of the White Russians to rescue something from the advance of Bolshevik forces. I lack the linguistic skills to tell if the sources support the content. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing to "merge" or "repurpose, because it is 97% unreferenced and hence impossible to verify. Keeping in mind that some modern Ukrainians are on the quest to rewrite their history. The current Uk-wiki is horribly plagued by this, on par with croatian one. And this problem starts seeping in enwiki was well. E.g., some time ago I noticed efforts to delete historical Russian names from articles about Ukrainian towns. 18:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loew Galitz (talk • contribs)
      It does not "start", it is already full-scale here for several years. There are multiple users who are only rewriting here Ukrainian history in line with the government propaganda and not doing anything else.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      user:Loew Galitz, if there’s an inherent national characteristic of modern Ukrainians that makes them unsuitable as Wikipedia editors, then let’s start a conversation about it and figure out how to identify members of this troublesome species and keep them in their place. Or maybe please try to comment more thoughtfully. —Michael Z. 21:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Mzajac, your irony is misplaced. A while ago I saw a statement that ukrainian govt spearheaded an effort to "present Ukrainian point of view in Wikipedia" . If it is not a call for nation-wide POV pushing then I dont know. And since the government represents the people, then I cannt judge to what extent pov-pusing has become "national characteristic of modern ukrainians". Loew Galitz (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Here you go: I googled "ukrainian point of view"+wikipedia, and lo:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/News_and_notes . "MFA Launches Ambitious Campaign To Enrich Wikipedia with Unbiased Information On Ukraine and the World" - Well, from what I know, "Unbiased Information On Ukraine" includes the statement that Stepan Bandera is a hero of Ukraine an not a Nazi collaborator and antiSemite.... Loew Galitz (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you should keep your own prejudices at bay and stop your insinuations right at this point. Being a Ukrainian myself, I'm offended by your derogatory attitude, both to Ukrainians, and to ukwiki editors. Ukwiki indeed has a lot of problems in this regard, but it's not as bad as you're trying to picture. --Piramidion 01:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
user:Loew Galitz, you made a broad, factually unsupportable, negative statement about “modern Ukrainians.” In my opinion it is completely unacceptable in any Wikipedia discussions. This talk page is subject to WP:ACDS. Please strike it out or delete it. —Michael Z. 04:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, sorry for overgeneralization. I changed to "some modern ukrainians". Loew Galitz (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Loew Galitz, I still object. Wikipedians do not register their passport, national identity, nor DNA test. Negative national stereotyping of broad groups is not useful nor helpful for this or any discussion. It only encourages a WP:BATTLEGROUND, based on you and other editors arbitrarily categorizing each other and associating your stereotypes with factual positions on article content. Please, lets not start naming the quests of some Russians, some Poles, some Jews, some Crimean Tatars, some Rusyns, and everyone else. Please just strike or delete that. —Michael Z. 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will not. Ukrainian govrnment announced a concerted effort to edit wikipedia to their likes. This has nothing to do with "my stereotypes". It is a fact of grave concern for neutrality of Wikipedia. A while ago something similar happened with concerted editing of Wikipedia by Israelis and this was elevated to the level of Arbcom. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, User:Loew Galitz, I don’t see Arbcom posting notes on Israel-related discussions warning us to watch out for Israeli spies and fifth columnists, nor handing out leaflets on how to identify a Russki after Putin said Wikipedia was unreliable and ought to be replaced. I’m taking this to WP:ANI#Negative ethnic stereotyping by Loew Galitz. —Michael Z. 23:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- I would support Ukrainian Far Eastern movement. My approach is to treat what is credible as if it is correct, even if not adequately referenced. The conflict between red and white Russians in the aftermath of WWI was chaotic and potential source material may well have been suppressed by the victors, so that I am not too worried by a dearth of references. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Samaha[edit]

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

All where she worked and what she did; no indication of notability. Htanaungg (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Senior editor at several major Middle Eastern newspapers. Not sure why you you think he was female. Dsp13 (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't "where he worked and what he did" exactly what should be in a biographical article? What do you expect? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Oh his mother worked hard? Weasel words. Hardly any sources for an article of this size and I can't validate them/can't read the language. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has some media coverage and the creator of this article is a Senior editor. HelpingWorld (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The creator of this article is irrelevant to whether the subject is notable, but, anyway, only has a few dozen edits at English Wikipedia, so is hardly a senior (let alone Senior) editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. While the depth of coverage in English-language sources might be limited, he has obituaries in Taiwan News (via Associated Press)[29], Gulf News[30], and Al-Ahram Weekly[31], and some discussion in The War on Lebanon: A Reader. All sources indicate he was a prominent journalist and thinker. Presumably there are reviews of his book that can add critical perspective. Relatively less significant details of personal life can be removed or reduced. Articles for deletion is not articles for cleanup, and notability is based on the level of coverage in reliable, secondary sources (in any language), not the quality or sources in a Wikipedia article at any point in time, per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. editors in chief of important newspapers are generally notable . Someone who has the necessary skills and access should indeed look for reviews of the books- DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Meadors[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC for inclusion the sources that presented are not suitable for WP:BLP Shrike (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. While there are assertions of notability to go with the keep votes, the delete votes are backed in policy. Further, the keep votes to not provide sourcing to back up the notability claims. Without sourcing, there isn't what we need to meet NACTOR/GNG. Star Mississippi 00:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faruk Sobhan Nayeem[edit]

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

Appeared in some TV series and films, but not major roles. Fails WP:NACTOR. Htanaungg (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: He has been in the lead role in numerous television serials. Two new movies are coming out where he is in the lead role. He and his wife are one of the celebrity couples in the country. I think it comfortably passes GNG. Arnab8081 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — Arnab8081 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any evidence of significant coverage, There's no assertion of notability here. Brayan ocaner (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Jaago is a notable film, and Bachelor Point is a notable TV series, but his roles in them are not significant, at least judging by how little reliable sources say about them. None give them more than a sentence. Typical is: "The drama cast [list of 14 names], Fs Nayeem and others."[32][33]
Does not meet WP:GNG. There are primary sources in which Nayeem talks about himself with no independent analysis, but such sources don't help establish notability. There are also many sources that say he is in the cast of such-and-such a program. Occassionally they include a single sentence of context, such as, "Mamo and Nayeem worked last time under Sardar Rokon’s direction in the tele-drama ‘Chand Konnya’."[34] Or "Besides, actor FS Nayeem has completed the shooting of a drama opposite Ishana Khan under the direction of Topu Khan." That is not signficant coverage that addresses him in detail.
The keep !votes assert that he passes GNG, but without identifying sources that prove it. I can find no evidence that he was nominated for Meril-Prothom Alo Awards. There's no way to know whether his unreleased films will be released, or whether they will generate any in-depth independent reporting about him. At this time it is WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, for failure to meet WP:NACTOR. This is not a strike against him as a person or actor, simply that he does not meet the notability guidelines for a global encyclopedia. As Worldbruce said, it is WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Higgins Armory Museum. MBisanz talk 02:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Higgins Armory Building[edit]

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

Essentially a minor duplicate of the article about the Higgins Armory Museum and its closing; more than half this aricle is about that rather than the building per se, which has a good bit of coverage in the museum article. At very least, merge them. Qwirkle (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an argument for inclusion, but not for a separate article. Qwirkle (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Merging would be acceptable. But if you want to merge them, why did you propose the article for deletion? That's not what AfD is for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One or the other should happen; it’s easier to work down than up. Qwirkle (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’d disagree; the museum, too, “merged” into the Wormtown Ahht Museum, but it is still more or less a separate entity there, a distinct coherent collection, much like Bashford Dean’s stuff in New York. Qwirkle (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into the article about the museum, which seems (slightly) more notable per a BEFORE, which makes me think that should be the name of the article with the building as the redirect. There's no doubt the building is notable per Necrothesp's points, but I don't think we need separate articles on both. Re: Myotus' comment on deleting the museum, I don't see the need. It was notable during its existence and (still looking into this for better sourcing), part of the museum's story is about the building so makes sense for them to be covered together. Star Mississippi 15:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Green Cayo[edit]

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

A long-unreferenced article by a WP:SPA describing a project which was initiated by a local Rotaract Club. It is effectively a summary page for a project; searches find mirror articles but no evidence that the project achieved notability. The AfD in 2013 seemed to head to a tentative consensus for some form of merge/redirect, but without suggesting a target. There is no article concerning Rotaract Clubs in the town or in Belize as a whole; the Mountain Pine Ridge Forest Reserve article might be a target, though adding unsourced material about one project without evidence of its outcome there would probably create WP:UNDUE imbalance. In these circumstances, I am not seeing a sustainable WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simão Pipo[edit]

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

Only played 3 minutes of pro football, failing GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, and last played on the amateur fourth tier. Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivaylo Marinov[edit]

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

Previous AFD was a long time ago when the guidelines were interpreted differently. It was kept because Marinov had played 2 games of professional football, which World Football gives as 1 game. As we know now, Marinov then fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, in the same way as for instance this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this Bulgarian footballer. Geschichte (talk)

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karishma Sawant[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG too early in career to have wiki article ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emre Emin[edit]

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

Emre Emin is a Bulgarian footballer who played 134 minutes in the top league. Despite that he fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, in the same way as for instance this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this Bulgarian footballer. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree on cleaning pages of players who have just one or two apps in professional football. In this case, player have just 3 games, but he is still young and playing and having full chance to playing in the professional football (His current team is close on promoting as current solo runner for the first place). I believe his page should be kept for 3-4 years and at this point if he is still haven't returned in the top football somehow, it should be deleted. Chris Calvin (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NFOOTY, and has active semi-pro career.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV on the subject regardless of WP:NFOOTY status. As such, the consensus has been in favor of delete per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES (bullet point #4). Keeping the page around in hopes that he meets notability criteria at some point down the line asserts that he currently doesn't meet the requirements for a stand-alone page at present, in my opinion. GauchoDude (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - passing mentions such as xnews, Sportal and dir but absolutely nothing significant as far as I can see. Being young and having an active career at semi-pro level is irrelevant when the subject fails GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is she isn't (yet) notable. Star Mississippi 18:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wloka[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT as she has not competed at the highest level of her sport. Medals in competitions for teenagers don't meet that guideline, and it's not uncommon that teenage athletes fail to transition into actual adult athletics. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wondered if she wasn't notable because there was a small handful of news articles about her. Maybe I should stick with articles about Paralympians for now. Sorry for the inconvenience. SarahTHunter (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She would probably survive an AfD at pl wiki, which in my experience is more inclusionist... a while ago I AfD there another Youth Olympics medalist and they were kept b/c editors there concluded YO is a "big thing" (although I still disagree with that). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a big thing in the life of the athlete, but youth sports just isn't the same as senior sports. Many athletes realize this when they see how much training goes into being an international senior athlete, and give up their careers. So I think we agree here. In addition, the Youth Olympics is not a "real" competition with 30 IAAF members not sending any competitors, and a majority sending 1 or 2. We recently deleted a gold medalist from the same event. Lastly, while TOOSOON can be evoked, we can say TOOLATE as well, since her career ended almost 5 years ago, so there is no chance of athletic notability in the future either. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Shrivastava[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi–Morocco relations[edit]

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

Per numerous other relations pages up for deletion recently, this seems minor and trivial. Some aid less than 1 million, no embassies, no historical connections. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. can be recreated as a redirect should a suitable title be identified Eddie891 Talk Work 16:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gram per litre[edit]

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

The bundled deletion discussion got out of hand, so let's try again with the individual units which are clearly not notable. There is no evidence for notability for this composite unit. While it is numerically equivalent to the SI composite base unit of density, kg/m^3, that does not make it itself worthy of an entry. That would require secondary coverage of the unit, not simply evidence that it is used. PianoDan (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Volpe[edit]

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

The subject of the article is not notable. There is no notability standard for police officers but he was an art theft detective and his son was involved in an infamous incident of police brutality. That doesn't seem to merit a wikipedia article.Yousef Raz (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Anne Colomines[edit]

Murder of Anne Colomines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing notable about this crime. It is a routine homicide and fails WP:NCRIME. It does not warrant a Wikipedia article. WWGB (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This was an extremely high profile case in Ireland, with a lot of media coverage. It played a role in lots of discussion about femicide in Ireland. The page is incomplete, and doesn’t mention this aspect yet, so I will try to get around to adding it, but even missing that aspect it clearly has enough coverage to warrant an article imo. Also, reading WP:NCRIME, it seems to go against the message you’re purporting that it says. It says that while breaking news is often the subject of deletion discussions, “media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act”. The page currently vatious sources dealing with the case, comprised of national newspapers and the national broadcaster, which were released over a period of four years. I think this page very clearly meets the WP:GNG. This is very similar to my objection to the other article you nominated, the Murder of Nadine Lott, because these cases were both very high profile in Ireland, drawing lots of media attention, and are often linked together in media in discussions of femicide in Ireland. Xx78900 (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NCRIME. Unfortunately, this is just a routine murder. It was not a high profile case. Only got media coverage in its immediate aftermath, as all murder cases do. Spleodrach (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing to indicate that the thresholds of WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NCRIME are exceeded. Rightly or wrongly there isn't scope for us to have an article on every awful crime - including every terrible murder. (Most if not all murders are subject to material coverage; Of the event and any following court proceeding; It is worth noting that, while the NCRIME guideline does read "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act" it continues with "provided such coverage meets the above guidelines". This "provided that [X is also true]" qualifier is critical to interpretation. And the guideline cannot be read without it. As the "provided that [X is also true]" means the coverage of a crime/event should meet the LASTING, DEPTH, PERSISTENCE, criteria. Not solely the RS, SIGCOV criteria.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The murder fails WP:NCRIME, WP:LASTING, and WP:MILL because it was a routine event that did not have any lasting effects. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Roger Waters. To the extent deemed necessary... Sandstein 13:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inflatable pigs on Roger Waters' tours[edit]

Inflatable pigs on Roger Waters' tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An indiscriminate collection of information, all of which could quite happily sit in Roger Waters' main article, or any of the individual tour articles such as The Dark Side of the Moon Live, The Wall Live (2010–13), Us + Them Tour and This Is Not a Drill (Roger Waters tour). NB: This the second AfD; the first was in 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pigs on Roger Waters solo tours and closed as "no consensus". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the merge target will be helpful in ascertaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Donald Trump filmography#Advertising. Consensus is against keeping, and the redirect isn't contested. Sandstein 13:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Pizza Hut commercial[edit]

Trump Pizza Hut commercial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficiently notable piece of media. It's mentioned in Donald Trump filmography, which seems sufficient for the topic. pluma♫ ♯ 07:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing a lot of vague references to sources and notability guidelines, but nobody's actually provided a strong source analysis. The sole keep !voter noted that there were some newspaper articles from back in the day but did not provide links, while others did not discuss the sources present in any detailed way. Additional discussion regarding the sources both in the article and the print sources contemporaneous with the advertisement being run will be helpful in establishing consesus around notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very, very few commercials are notable enough to have their own article, this is not even close to being one of them. Just because the actor appearing it was notable at the time and went on to become much more notable does not make it in any way something that needs to have a separate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:IGNORINGATD. There is a perfectly fine merge target if the article cannot be kept, so deletion should certainly be avoided here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhawk10 Sorry, I will try adding those sources very soon. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Nihonjinron. Merge has been appropriately completed. (non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 19:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese civilization[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced and reads as an WP:OR essay. Even after reading the whole article, I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to be about – as a combination of descriptions of Western scholarship, Japanese culture, and history of Japan – or how it's a distinctly notable topic beyond our existing articles such as Japanese people and Culture of Japan. Reywas92Talk 05:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to NeXT. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NeXTWORLD[edit]

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

This magazine itself does not appear to pass WP:GNG from the sources in the article or those I could find online. I propose that the article be redirected to NeXTSTEP, where the topic could be sufficiently covered with a single sentence in the history section. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Per nom. May be notable, but the few informations in a sub-stub like this could be included in an article with broader scope. However, I propose to redirect to the main NeXT article as there is already a paragraph devoted to this magazine (last one in the "Corporate culture and community" section). Pavlor (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NeXT, Corporate culture and community section, per Pavlor's rationale. Ifnord (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bartaz (town)[edit]

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

Location is not notable; tabular data sourcing is insufficient to meet WP:GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 04:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This passes WP:GEOLAND; it's inhabited and it is legally recognized by Azerbaijan. The ru wiki article contains sufficient sourcing for this (see: this state media piece and this publication which refers to it as "Baratz, p"). The page could be expanded, but I don't see a reason to delete in light of it passing WP:GEOLAND. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: What is the difference between this town and Bartaz (village) which appears to be located only about a mile away? Is it certain that Azerbaijan has two different jurisdictions adjacent to each other which have the same name but different municipal statuses? Admittedly, the same sort of thing does occasionally happen in the United States (see Tonawanda (city), New York and Tonawanda (town), New York), but let's make sure that these really are two different geographical entities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like this is something like that. See page 113 of AZƏRBAYCAN TOPONĠMLƏRĠNĠN ENSĠKLOPEDĠK LÜĞƏTĠ. (I'm relying on google translate here since I absolutely cannot understand Azeri for the life of me, but I think there are indeed two distinct settlements in the same area based off of what I can pull out of machine translations). — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mhawk10. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2025 United States Electoral College vote count[edit]

2025 United States Electoral College vote count (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not able to find significant coverage of the 2025 United States Electoral College vote count, and it appears to fail WP:GNG. Might be worth making the page again in 2024, but I don't think the article subject is notable at this point. And, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; it's not always the case that these sorts events are notable, so I don't see a motivating reason to say that it will be notable in the future. Therefore, I believe that the article should be deleted at this time. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snow delete. There really is no hope for this article. JIP | Talk 21:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will it carbonate?[edit]

Will it carbonate? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is blatant original research. A set of articles on "food and drink that can be carbonated" likely fails WP:NLIST as well. As a result, I believe that this article should be deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Bailey[edit]

James R. Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see a WP:NPROF pass here, and I don't see a WP:GNG pass either. The sources in the article are all WP:SPS; searching online, I find basically no news sources (although he's published a few op-eds and quoted in a few others), it doesn't look like WP:SIGCOV to me. jp×g 04:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Not to be a dick, but where? It looks like he partially fulfills criterion 5 with the named professorship position, but it's not a chair position, as far as I can tell. jp×g 06:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not entirely sure of the nature of the "Hochberg Professorial Fellow of Leadership Development" (the actual title) and whether it is really a chair/professorship or something else (the "Fellow" part is a little unusual and is throwing me off). But I think the case for WP:PROF#C1 through many well-cited publications [35] is strong, as is the case for #C8 as editor-in-chief of a notable if strangely-named journal, Academy of Management Learning and Education. There may also be a case for WP:AUTHOR if we can replace the spammy Amazon links with proper reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly Passes WP:Prof & WP:AUTHOR Juggyevil (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am perfectly willing to withdraw this nomination if someone finds RS talking about "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (per WP:NPROF). I was unable to. At present, all I see is a single citation to his profile on a university webpage, as well as two citations to books that he wrote (which are perfectly valid citations to back up the fact that he wrote the books per WP:ABOUTSELF, they do not seem to do anything to demonstrate notability). jp×g 12:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the scholar link four inches above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Are you going to withdraw your nomination? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Freestyle wrestling techniques[edit]

List of Freestyle wrestling techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some of these techniques may be notable in their own right, but this list in particular feels indiscriminate and provides almost no encyclopedic context as to what anything is. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a page List of Brazilian jiu-jitsu techniques that follows the same format, albeit slightly more developed. The only real difference is that this article is new and has no lead section.
    Wrestling is a widely used Martial art and Olympic Sport, and this article gives a basic understanding of wrestling. From neutral position you make a clinch hold and preform a takedown. If you are on the bottom, you attempt to avoid a pin, and if you are on top, you attempt too pin. This article is an important for readers of martial arts and athletic articles. Jellybean987 (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My awareness of wrestling is generally limited to folkstyle wrestling, but I'm able to recognize the vast majority of the techniques listed. I'm not a huge fan of List of Brazilian jiu-jitsu techniques to be honest. In general, the list entries should all be notable, and a multi-level list is a bit odd for this sort of article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am myself a student of Brazilian jui-jitsu, and i personally dislike wrestling, though it doesn't matter what we like or don't like personally, but what is useful for readers. I don't wrestle and never have, but i have edited the intro section and clinch hold section. I feel you will think a bit more highly of the article, as the information i included can help layman understand the edited section. Jellybean987 (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Completely unsourced, doesn't pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No establishment of notability. — Czello 08:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a source section and a single source so far to verify information. Why judge a new article so harshly that it needs a "speedy delete" Jellybean987 (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    added now 3 references to verify article information. How many do you feel is proper? Jellybean987 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The addition of sources is good, but I'm still not seeing an establishment of notability or how it passes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Don't take it personally. — Czello 08:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't take it personally. After edits, The article is no longer a list and was moved to Freestyle wrestling techniques. As far as i know, it is solid enough to be a stub class, and with more work, a start class article. Jellybean987 (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Czello. Philosophy2 (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing else to add beyond this, but look at the "edits since nomination" and see the progress of an hour of work.I'm just trying to help people learn more. That's my case. I'll check on this page in a few days and if the article is decided to be kept, i'll keep improving it. Jellybean987 (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Azuredivay (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very definition of freestyle is "there are few restrictions on the moves or techniques that competitors employ", so you can't possibly classify all the techniques (and ones to be found in the future) all in one article. Nate • (chatter) 19:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delaney, Washington[edit]

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

Once again we have the familiar sight of a grain elevator next to an abandoned RR grade, with nothing else about. Searching produces endless history of the highway construction and improvement through the area, and one reference to it as a station, but nothing indicating a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 1988 AFC Youth Championship. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1988 AFC Youth Championship qualification[edit]

1988 AFC Youth Championship qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not credibly assert notability as a WP:SPORTSEVENT; it's a "Youth championship" qualifier series. As an WP:EVENT, it similarly appears to fail to have generated WP:SUSTAINED coverage and a WP:LASTING impact. Therefore, I propose that this article be redirected to 1988 AFC Youth Championship, in line with the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982 AFC Youth Championship qualification. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 1986 AFC Youth Championship. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1986 AFC Youth Championship qualification[edit]

1986 AFC Youth Championship qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not credibly assert notability as a WP:SPORTSEVENT; it's a "Youth championship" qualifier series. As an WP:EVENT, it similarly appears to fail to have generated WP:SUSTAINED coverage and a WP:LASTING impact. Therefore, I propose that this article be redirected to 1986 AFC Youth Championship, in line with the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982 AFC Youth Championship qualification. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 1980 AFC Youth Championship. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1980 AFC Youth Championship qualification[edit]

1980 AFC Youth Championship qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not credibly assert notability as a WP:SPORTSEVENT; it's a "Youth championship" qualifier series. As a WP:EVENT, it similarly appears to fail to have generated WP:SUSTAINED coverage and a WP:LASTING impact. Therefore, I propose that this article be redirected to 1980 AFC Youth Championship, in line with the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982 AFC Youth Championship qualification. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 1985 AFC Youth Championship. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1985 AFC Youth Championship qualification[edit]

1985 AFC Youth Championship qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not credibly assert notability as a WP:SPORTSEVENT; it's a "Youth championship" qualifier series. As a WP:EVENT, it similarly appears to fail to have generated WP:SUSTAINED coverage and a WP:LASTING impact. Therefore, I propose that this article be redirected to 1985 AFC Youth Championship, in line with the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982 AFC Youth Championship qualification. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National opinion polling for the 2024 European Parliament election[edit]

National opinion polling for the 2024 European Parliament election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article content appears to a list of national opinion polls for basically a bunch of unique parliamentary elections (some of which don't necessarily occur in 2024). The connection to the 2024 European Parliament election appears to be wholly WP:SYNTH, as the polls that are being displayed are for national legislature elections rather than for European Parliament elections. In other words, the article confuses opinion polling for parliament or the legislature in various countries for opinion polling for the European Parliament; the two are not the same. Therefore, I'd propose the article be deleted as having been created in confusion without content that can be salvaged. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draw Down the Moon[edit]

Draw Down the Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reason that this disambiguation page should exist, per WP:TWODABS, especially when one of the two is non-notable. The Foxing album should be the main target. Could not be PROD-ed on a technicality (former PROD was for the Icarus Witch album, which is the whole reason this is a dab in the first place). — GhostRiver 16:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Draw Down the Moon (Foxing album) to the base title, with the other album as a hatnote. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third time is a charm?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. With the recent changes to remove non-notable listings, User:Reywas92's suggestion of a merge should be explored on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of model railroad clubs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of model railroad clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a list of otherwise non-notable model railroad clubs. Wikipedia is not a directory and there is no encyclopedic value to such a list. ... discospinster talk 02:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as contributor. Reversing my (forgotten) keep assertion from 2012. This is the definition of notdirectory since virtually all the sourcing of entries are direct links to the organizations themselves. BusterD (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIR list of overwhelmingly non-notable WP:RUN OF THE MILL model rail clubs. Too short to be realistically useful. Unless this quadruples in size it’s nothing a category can’t provide. Dronebogus (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just erased all the entries that did not link to their own Wikipedia article. That was most of them. It is now a valid navigation list article. There are additional entries at Category:Rail transport modelling associations which can be added to it. Dream Focus 05:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added two more that weren't there. There are 11 entries total, with links to their Wikipedia articles. Enough for a list article to exist. Dream Focus 05:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now it’s the opposite problem— it’s too short to have a purpose. If there’s less than a dozen entries it doesn’t need to be a list since the scope is too narrow to have a meaningful navigational purpose that couldn’t be covered by a category. Dronebogus (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winnowed down to the blue links, it's a reasonable list, and it provides at-a-glance information (e.g., years of founding) that looking at a category page couldn't. Good enough. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In it's current state it is a useful navigation list that adds value over a category. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been edited to remove all the non notable entries and spamlinks, looks ok now. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This list itself is desperately short on RS, but of the individual list entries, if each were AFDed as of this datestamp, only two three of them would be kept (for lack of RS on the others). These articles and this list are almost entirely self-sourced. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of model railways. Agree that now this is too short to be particularly useful and that some of these links like Highland Park Society of Model Railroad Engineers should be deleted. However most of the remaining links are also museums or are clubs that have their own railways that would be in the other list anyway. Reywas92Talk 14:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alto, Washington[edit]

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

Another grain elevator that used to sit next to the tracks. No sign of a town, and on page 714 of this 1894 history of the state refers to it as a station. All the other references simply used it to locate things, including the 1971 petition to abandon the line. Mangoe (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These GNIS spam articles are all bad but the "ghost town" articles are particularly so, since they so obviously related to places that never actually existed, yet because GNIS listed it as a "populated place" the author simply used the idea that it must have existed at some point in the past as a band-aid to cover the obviously problematic sourcing. Meany at this point should just be thought to be an unreliable source given how it obviously identifies so many places as "towns" that clearly never were so. Fails WP:GEOLAND#1 and WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 10:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a former railroad station, now a grain elevator, no evidence of a currently or formerly notable community here. –dlthewave ☎ 17:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Orbis School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Whole article written like an advertisement. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 00:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima High School, Vidyavihar[edit]

Fatima High School, Vidyavihar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 00:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima High School Badlapur[edit]

Fatima High School Badlapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 00:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Irfan secondary school[edit]

Al Irfan secondary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 00:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Kapoor[edit]

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

Reviewed a a part of new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability. No references. Some pseudo-references were given as in-line external links. I reviewed all of those. Some mentioned him but none were really coverage of him. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2015-04 ✗ R3 ← 2007-10 ✗ PROD
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_11&oldid=1061404026"