Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 15 December 17 >

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. ✗plicit 00:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five Times August[edit]

Five Times August (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 WP:GNG, this artist has very little (if any) coverage in reliable sources which are substantially discussing his act. Not just lists, etc. I couldn't find a single article since 2013, and only then in non-reliable outlets. It also fails WP:NMG, as the act does not, contrary to the unsourced and wild claims of the article, have any #1 songs on any notable charts, or any notable awards. There is also a COI concern, given that most of the article was written by a user account which shares a last name with the sole member of this band. This is also the user account which added many of the grandiose claims which have since been removed, such as "The band was the first to use a kickstarter to fund an album" or "This song is currently #1 on the billboard charts in the US" etc. Things which are demonstrably false. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:59, 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Moore[edit]

Jodie Moore (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)

Not notable as a porn performer based on these sources and political career (such as it is,) hasn't led to any wins. So fails ENT and Politician Spartaz Humbug! 23:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment Not sure how reliable the political candidate reference is? As far as I can see, subject:
  • did NOT run for Lord Mayor of Brisbane in 2004.[1]
  • did NOT run for the Australian Senate in 2004,[2] NOR 2007,[3] NOR 2001,[4] but may have in other years?

References

  1. ^ https://www.tallyroom.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/2004-BCC-results.pdf
  2. ^ https://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/SenateCandidatesBySurname-12246-M.htm
  3. ^ https://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/SenateCandidatesBySurname-13745-M.htm
  4. ^ https://results.aec.gov.au/10822/Website/index.html
  • Delete Even if she had run, she wouldn't be notable as a politician unless she suceseeded in winning election. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not finding anything that can help her qualify under WP:GNG in my sourcing tools. Missvain (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not consider the coverage mentioned within the article as significant coverage as the sources mentioned do not already address the topic directly and in detail - some mentions appear trivial. I also find some of the sources to be questionable as the Adult Film Database has no editorial oversight and IMDB is user generated.’ I also do not think the subject of this article meets the proposed notability requirements for politics, however given that is a proposed guideline only, I have considered this as a secondary factor in my decision. My primary assertion is that due to the lack of significant coverage as stated, the article subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any other relevant criteria that would allow the article to remain, and so it should be deleted. - Such-change47 (talk) 07:58, 23 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie-Jean Coffey[edit]

Ellie-Jean Coffey (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)

Apparantly a surfer babe according to the sources but its a brief flash of coverage and appears to have no real career. The sourcing is based around clickbaity flash in the pan stuff and I would suggest is not enduring. Spartaz Humbug! 23:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep there is some on line, but as far as I can see the vast majority of it is low reliability, of dubious independence, and sensationalistic. If you can find some good quality IRS you might convince me otherwise? Aoziwe (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added a bunch of extra references - I will also note she has featured on two TV programs - she has been featured on Channel 9's show 60 minutes, and she was featured on the ABC show Rush TV Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to check your sources. The Daily Mail is not one I would use. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. Aoziwe (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I meant to take that out - it's gone, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try this search. It shows the two pages in total, just under one page in all, and nearly half of that is primary, ie, quotes by the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't work for me, so I'll have to take your word for it. It's still significant coverage. pburka (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why not? It worked again for me just now. Also, some of the text is about the subject's sister. Aoziwe (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try this search instead. Aoziwe (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG IMHO and also some WP:BASIC can be tossed in there depending on the coverage. Also uncool to say "apparently a surfer babe." She's a model, a surfer, and an actress. Missvain (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If the subject had not gone "softcore", would they have received any attention, ie, is this really a case of single event? Aoziwe (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aoziwe - Hypothetical doesn't matter here. She's a surfer, model, and actress. She meets general notability guidelines and her article can be expanded using WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 17:41, 23 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 23:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isogenous series[edit]

Isogenous series (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 doesn't seem to be a term that's widely used enough to warrant an article. "Isogenous" by itself turns up quite a bit in contexts not related to spectroscopy, but I can't find any references other than the one in the article for the term as defined here. PianoDan (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, there is little hope of this ever becoming more than a WP:DICTDEF. The spectroscopy sources that use it offer no real additional analysis. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be a standard term in established use. It's probably a COI, too, since it was created in 2005 by Drtjstone and the first author on the only reference is T. J. Stone. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wasn't able to find anything else on this in the realm of spectroscopy. I haven't heard of this term before either. I agree with the above this is most likely a case of COI and someone wanting to bring this into more common use via wiki, which isn't the way to do things. --Tautomers(T C) 00:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:36, 23 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) 22:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Nicholson[edit]

Devon Nicholson (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 basically a BLP1E. The article was puffed up with a lot of unsourced claims and unverifiable claims sourced to a website that doesn't appear to exist anymore and is specifically excluded from archive.org. I removed the puffery and unsourced or poorly sourced claims and basically what we are left with is a bunch of stuff about him stabbing someone during a wrestling event and a couple things about a Hepatitis C diagnosis and a related lawsuit. His notability as a Youtube personality and/or wrestler isn't established at all. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Between the stabbing incident and the Hep C lawsuit, the subject has been discussed in some major sources--CBC, USA Today, Figure Four Wrestling, etc. The CBC story also has links at the bottom to two other stories about Nicholson's Hep C journey and some accompanying information about his career. 1E makes no sense, as there are clearly two distinct events that have been discussed by major media outlets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — After taking the most cursory look at the nominator's indiscriminate hack-and-slash job, I conclude this nomination is highly disingenuous. The "website that doesn't appear to exist anymore" is Slam Wrestling, which is used extensively as a source in our coverage of pro wrestling. Rather than ceasing to exist, this site is now at its own domain instead of being accessed through CANOE. Clearly, WP:BEFORE in this case should have included a discussion with the participants of WP:PW. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See [12] starship.paint (exalt) 14:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And all Slam! stories are available in archived form through https://archive.today GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per GaryColemanFan and RadioKAOS. WP:LINKROT isn't a valid reason for deletion, he has covered by various WP:RS for years.LM2000 (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article looked considerably different before the nominator gutted it and took the scraps to AfD. With the exception of two sentences about a lawsuit involving Abdullah the Butcher (which garnered international attention by the way), all that remains of an article created fifteen years ago are three paragraphs about an incident from this week. The article looks like a BLP1E case by design and is deserving of a WP:TROUT.LM2000 (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Gary and Radio. Maybe the article needs more work, but Nicholson has been working for 20 years. Also, the nominaor deleted tons of information, including the Championships and accomplishments section (which several of them are unsourced, but not under the reason he gave) Also, the referee incident and the hep C cases are notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's no way this is a BLP1E if there's at least two things, which there are, one is getting Hep C from Abdullah the Butcher and the second is the referee stabbing incident. I'm concerned that WP:BEFORE has not been followed, especially the part on Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. I'm finding more and more mainstream news sources, the delete voters should be ashamed. starship.paint (exalt) 11:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's now 30+ references in the article, you can even ignore the Championships and accomplishments section and this is still true. starship.paint (exalt) 08:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a somewhat prominent independent wrestler with a fairly lengthy career and a couple of incidents of notoriety. McPhail (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He got Hepatitis C and stabbed a referee. He tried out for WWE and failed to catch on, like thousands of other hopefuls. What's notable about that? Is he a wrestler, a YouTuber or some kind of violent criminal? The article doesn't really make this clear by the text and look ing back, I think the deletions were very much warranted as most of it was unsourced and highly promotional in nature. OrgoneBox (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 1. RadioKAOS, when you have a moment, please familiarize yourself with WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. Your "comment" here is a personal attack. 2. LM2000 - You've made a ridiculous accusation that borders on a personal attack. The article was tagged as needing sources for over 4 years, which none of you who seemingly find the subject very important bothered to find or fix until now. Your accusation of "gutting" is false... what I did was remove a lot of unsourced promotional claims, puffery and unverifiable content, which is totally in keeping with standard editing here. See also WP:BURDEN. 3. HHH Pedrigree - The ONE source in the Championships section was to his own Youtube channel, making it a SPS about him giving himself the championship in his own tiny non-notable promotion. We don't write BLPs based on claims made by the article subject themself. 4. General comment - Articles about wrestlers aren't any less subject to the stringent sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. We do not build Biographies here based on unsourced puffery and claims sourced to unverifiable sources or 4. - going forward, I invite all of you to continue voting as you see fit WITHOUT the personal attacks and unsupported accusations against me. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer to number 3. I never said anything about lack of sourcing (which was sourced by Cagematch). However, removing a championship he won just because "own tiny non-notable promotion" is not an argument. As Starship said, I saw a problem where just removed unsourced information but looks like you didn't tried to find sources (it's not hard to find sources for the IWA or the WWC titles) or looking the archived ones --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cagematch is not a WP:RS. Removing a championship he granted to himself in his own non-notable company seems like completely normal removal of puffery to me. What's next, we give him the Canadian Backyard Championship too? Championships don't mean anything unless the promotion is notable. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Several GA and FA include titles with no articles. Can you tell me a policy about that? The WP:PW/MOS doesn't say anything like that. It's a title he won during his professional career and it's sourced --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't say anything about titles having articles here, I said non-notable title, and nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise regarding the notability of GNW. WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:BLP. Promotional detail about living persons needs to be well sourced, and I don't mean to his own Youtube, which is what was in there before. That's pure puffery. The fact other articles have glaring sourcing issues that run afoul of policy isn't a valid reason to repeat those errors here. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you made an attempt, in good faith, to clean up an article with the same run-of-the-mill issues that many neglected articles have. I don't think your version ended up being very policy compliant either though and there was no reason for this to end up at AfD.LM2000 (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I disagree that "my version" was not policy compliant, see WP:BURDEN. AfD isn't an attack on an article or editor, or even a big deal... it's just a discussion. If the result is "keep" and people have found sources I and other did not then that's lovely. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG and have multiple coverage २ तकर पेप्सी (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: if it was just the stabbing incident, then I'd agree it would be a BIO1E and should be deleted on that basis, but the Hep C lawsuit — which got significant coverage at the time — means he is notable for two events and so we fall back on the basic criteria, which he passes. Sceptre (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable for at least two events. The hepatitis issue was also widely covered: [13][14][15].--Mvqr (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If some bloody new money mark stabbed a referee in Mudlick for fifteen minutes of YouTube heat, I'd see how we might want to not encourage that approach. Referees have families, dammit! But as you've now read, this is Hannibal we're talking about, who was cursed with fringe status as a guy who couldn't quite make it to Ryback, Horace Hogan or Mantaur levels, but took that lemon and ran with it, all the way to the juicer. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 23 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 23:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-market awards[edit]

Mid-market awards (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)

Refs are press-releases and dead refs. Non-notable awards. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 22:25, 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aloe framesii[edit]

Aloe framesii (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 taxon is not accepted and listed as a synonym of a subspecies. Subspecies are not usually sufficiently notable to have articles, and synonyms certainly should not. See "Aloe framesii". Plants of the World Online. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Retrieved 16 December 2021. for evidence of synonymy from a reputable source. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:24, 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. ✗plicit 23:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BCSIR Laboratory High School[edit]

BCSIR Laboratory High 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 secondary school Whiteguru (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here to indicate notability (yet). Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources in google news. - SUN EYE 1 06:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two references in the article are extremely trivial and I couldn't find anything else that wasn't primary or passing mentions. So from what I can tell there isn't really a guideline based reason to keep this article. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 21 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 Rudolf Steiner. ✗plicit 23:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Steiner Archive[edit]

Rudolf Steiner Archive (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 the notability criteria for organizations; no substantial independent coverage found. Article creator was a single-purpose account with an undeclared conflict of interest. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For WP:COI issues and no RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Four hits in Gnews, only one in English. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This is not sufficient for an article, but it can be a section in the article on Rudolf Steiner. The redirect can point to that section.--23mason (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - as per User:23mason - plausible search term. WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 18:31, 22 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. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BCAST. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYAG-FM[edit]

DYAG-FM (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)

Bringing to AfD because of a fraudulently tagged prod (copied from a now-deleted page). However, I would have endorsed this legitimate prod anyway (like I did on the one that was actually copied)—this station does not meet the GNG, and its existence is not verified by an NTC list. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really have nothing to add but I don't want this to be relisted a bunch of times. This article has been through enough WikiBureaucracy already. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom, there is nothing here to indicate notability. It has one low quality reference. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Wright Jr.[edit]

Isaac Wright 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 in WP:GNG WP:NPOV WP:PROMO Yousef Raz (talk)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has major issues in its current state and I understand the want to blow it up with WP:TNT, but the issues aren't enough to require deletion IMHO. Subject also obviously passes GNG due to the multitude of sources in the article covering his life; albeit in often in the context of the TV show. I could see a wholesale rewrite of the article though. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after some more more or less radical edits - see discussion there. --User:Haraldmmueller 14:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Subject passes GNG and his life and career was covered by several sources. MerliSter (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I am the Author of the page and it has evolved quite a bit since I created the stub. Obviously, the page qualifies between the coverage of his life due to the TV show and, his run for Mayor of NYC. It does seem that the page may have been shaped by his PR company over the last couple years. I still think the page qualifies, though it is in need of some edits. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 14:20, 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. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about gold mining[edit]

List of films about gold mining (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:LISTN, WP:IINFO. Only references are database entries or news articles about the films, mostly Rotten Tomatoes pages, rather than documentation on gold mining in popular culture. The two external links are top-10 listicles about mining in general. Oddly, there's no delsort about mining or extractive industries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Mining in film includes Films about the California Gold Rush‎ (19 P), Films based on King Solomon's Mines‎ (7 P), and Films about the Klondike Gold Rush‎ (8 P). The last one has a Bugs Bunny cartoon in it. These films on the list seem to be about various things, and just happen to take place with a gold mine in them, that not always a major aspect of them. The Beautiful Blonde from Bashful Bend says the main character has a man who owns a gold mine trying to romance her. So the categories and the list article are all just random things it seems. Also on this list is The Shakiest Gun in the West which doesn't mention the word "gold" even once in the article, so not sure if has anything to do with gold mining. Dream Focus 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much as I find this interesting and would personally like to keep this page....the references are about the individual movies (and some of them appear to be about actual gold mining!), not about gold mining in film. Could be covered by a category just as well. Fails WP:LISTNDeathlibrarian (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am afraid this is to passing GNG/NLIST.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of these films have a lot more to do with trying to reach the place where gold mining is taking place than with gold mining itself. No evidence this is seen as a cohesive whole, nor that it makes sense to conflate traveling to California in the 1840s, with traveling to Australia, with traveling to Alaska in the 1890s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or WP:TNT (yuk, yuk) as a bit of a mess. For example, Virginia City and Ride the High Country are more about transporting gold than the actual mining of it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 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 23:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot Against the President[edit]

The Plot Against the President (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 has been on my watchlist for a while and every time I see it pop up, I'm confused about why I haven't nominated it for AfD yet. In the article we have two non-independent sources (The Hollywood Reporter, Fox News) – mostly interviews with the director – along with another THR article that quotes Milius and doesn't cover the movie in much detail.

A WP:BEFORE shows me a National Review review, which is a good in-depth review, but not WP:NFO#1 by itself (and notice NFO does not guarantee notability). It's strange I can't find more given THR's claim that it's "one of the most successful documentaries of 2020", but I can't find more with Google News, Google, ProQuest, Rotten Tomatoes or any other likely avenues. It's got a notability tag and some talk page comments suggesting non-notability. In any case, with the sources that I've found, we are particularly unable to cover the topic properly because of the lack of interest from neutral or left-wing sources – concerning as there is then no rigorous interrogation of the film's apparent far-right fringe perspective. — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 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. ✗plicit 13:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Jim's Pizza[edit]

Mr. Jim's Pizza (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 might establish notability for the Charlotte franchise, but I am unable to identify sourcing that establishes CORP/ORG notability for this chain. Here v. PROD as a since-deleted version was PRODded (no issue with recreation, uninvolved editor). Star Mississippi 19:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did some searches on this company - found lots of hits for store locations and some promo material. It's a chain of some note I gather, but nothing independent discussing it substantively from which we could work out notability. There is some scientology connection, but nothing of note. Sorry Mr Jim! Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the coverage appears to be routine and nothing (no, not even about the laxative scandal) that imparts notability per WP:NCORP. --Kinu t/c 20:47, 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. I am convinced by the sourcing presented in the article that this subject passes WP:GNG.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Utsav Chakraborty[edit]

Utsav Chakraborty (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)

Not notable; does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. DTM (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The guidelines clearly state that failure to meet WP:ENTERTAINER is not conclusive proof of failure at being notability, especially when we're considering a figure that has had more than significant in-depth coverage in multiple Reliable Sources. A cursory google search is enough to prove that. And his failure at WP:ENTERTAINER is shaky at best given his significant roles and writing credits in multiple All India Bakchod productions, in productions for Vice, and on Comedy Central, but not that any of that should matter because his notability is very easy to prove. LΞVIXIUS💬 05:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it if you want Pulakit. Ketlag (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems to pass the WP:GNG based on the several sources covering controversial elements of his life. SNGs are an alternative to the GNG except WP:NCORP and if an entity passes the main notability criteria it doesn't matter if they fail a secondary one. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:45, 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 keep. Two keep !votes and 1 relist with no further objections. (non-admin closure) ASUKITE 13:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Rajoura[edit]

Sanjay Rajoura (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 basic notability criteria and WP:ENTERTAINER. DTM (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm using WP:GNG as my guide and he passes it. Here is a selection of many sources available:
Significant coverage:
Contributes to WP:BASIC
Missvain (talk) 18:11, 22 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nom. Missvain (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McElhiney[edit]

Bill McElhiney (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 sourcing here does not meet any inclusion standards. The article is only sourced to a family memorial web page. My search for sources came up with one or two things that indicate that he was a musician who had an orchestra or sorts, and that there is some recording of some of his work, but I could not find any reliable sources to add as usable sources for the article. Not every musician who has had their work made into a recording is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing found for notability, he just toiled quietly in the background over the course of his life it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My searches are turning up quite a bit. He appears to have been quite prominent in the Nashville music scene in the 1950s and 1960s as an arranger and musician. It will take me a little bit of time to sort through to see if there is sufficient SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JPL's nomination was understandable given the article's condition at the time. I've now largely rewritten it with extensive sourcing. McElhiney was one of the most prominent arrangers in country music during the Nashville sound movement. He arranged hits for, among others, Brenda Lee (including the No. 1 hit "I'm Sorry"), provided the trumpets on Johnny Cash's legendary "Ring of Fire", served as musical director at Nashville's WSM (home of The Grand Ole Opry), and was named Best Arranger of the Year in 1972. Cbl62 (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw It appears that there is sourcing on him. The fuller information also indicates that he meets musician notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping an open mind, JPL. @Oaktree b: Would you now consider withdrawing your "delete" vote so that the withdrawal can proceed? Cbl62 (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw agreed, the article is much improved and seems very well-sourced now. I'm ok with leaving it in Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 20 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 COVID-19 misinformation by China. Merge anything of value and redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China as WP:ATD.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China COVID-19 cover-up allegations[edit]

China COVID-19 cover-up allegations (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)

One of the most egregious coatrack articles that I've come across in my fifteen years on Wikipedia, and frankly, it's an embarassment. It was born as a POV fork, and should never have been moved out of draftspace in the state it currently is, let alone what it was like six months ago. Sceptre (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sources
  • CNN [17] "The truthtellers China created a story of the pandemic. These people revealed details Beijing left out." Designed with a censorship theme.
  • Financial Times [18] "Coronavirus: the cost of China’s public health cover-up"
  • Axios [19] "Timeline: The early days of China's coronavirus outbreak and cover-up"
  • AP [20] "China clamps down in hidden hunt for coronavirus origins" Includes inadvertently released documents threatening severe punishment for anyone who releases information without high-level permission.[21] Story says this was done on orders from Xi Jinping.
  • PBS [22] "China's COVID Secrets (full documentary)" Money quote in the second minute: "To this day, the Chinese Government insists that in the fight against COVID-19, it has acted with openness, transparency and responsibility and in a timely manner. Over the past year, we've been interviewing doctors, scientists, experts, and public health officials involved in the response, and their accounts paint a different picture."
Also, a comment on the proposal to "redirect" to COVID-19 misinformation by China. The problem here is that most of the content in this article is off-topic at that article. The portions on delayed release of the virus sequence, arrest or disappearance of journalists, control of domestic research, actions against foreign research, disputes with other countries over proposed inquiries, and noncooperation with the second phase of the WHO investigation, are all off topic at the misinformation article. Added Dec. 21: For this reason, the claim of "POV Fork" is also false, as a POV fork is by definition a different article about the same topic. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing redirecting with merging. In the former case, the content gets deleted and the article becomes a redirect. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Adoring Nany is correct that the content here is off-topic in the proposed redirect destination, then redirect would be a mistake though right? We should only redirect if the topic is basically the same. We should merge if there is material here that is worth keeping that would be better covered in the merge destination. If the topic is substantially different, we need to either keep and improve, or delete and lose the sourced content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to correct any misconception that a redirect would preserve this content. Editors will have to judge how (in)compatible the concepts are here with the proposed redirect target - and it seems there is some move to push for a broadening of scope by retitling the target article, so that any "cover-up" type content could be accommodated there more fittingly. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a cover-up section in the Chinese government response to COVID-19 article would be as compatible there as the cover-up section in the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure article. LondonIP (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth considering moving the "misinformation" page into a subsection of the "cover-up" page? Considering that misinformation campaigns can be part of a cover-up, but misinformation can also simply be misinformation without being a cover-up, it gets tricky - what should be where and who should judge each piece of misinformation. And/Or is it worth explaining these concepts in the lead paragraphs? Perhaps more clearly defining the two would allow wikipedia to better filter some information from one page to the other. 2600:8804:6600:83:546C:7184:AE29:3AB2 (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this discussion is overwhelmingly in favor of not preserving the cover-up page, I don't think that's worth considering at this point, no. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. This article should not have been moved to mainspace in the first place. It is a mess of WP:NPOV and WP:V issues and doesn't seem to be about one consistent topic. It reads like an effort to make a case against the Chinese government rather than describing a topic in a dispassionate way. (The target article has neutrality issues too, but it's a lot better than this one.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China for consistency and NPOV. – The Grid (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and comment – I encourage participants here to review the previous merge discussion, as it provides useful context. A sizeable number of editors argued there's content that isn't easily covered by misinformation article, so it was closed as a no-con despite its awful current state. My suggestion was to create an overarching article called "Chinese government response to COVID-19", as the coverage of China's covid response is messily spread across several articles, and this seems like a good way to retain valuable information and coordinate our content while addressing the NPOV/COATRACK issues with the selection of information here. My proposal received a positive response and was mentioned by the discussion closer, as I had started work on compiling the articles in my sandbox. Unfortunately, this was too much work for me to do alone so it languished half-finished over the last few months. Last week, while the page move discussion that led to this AfD was ongoing, FormalDude left me a talk page message offering to continue this idea, and he has put together Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19. I support redirecting this article while work on the potential new article continues; I agree with Sceptre that having such a skewed article reflects poorly on our project, although I'd equally like to ensure that well-sourced notable information is not lost. I oppose outright deletion as it's important the page history is preserved, particularly for attribution in case content is re-used/moved to a new article. Jr8825 • Talk 21:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to COVID-19 misinformation by China; since the start this was a type of WP:POVFORK, a concern I previously expressed at the talk page when the article was new. The recent move helps but this is still redundant material. I specify redirect/merge because merge could allow any important missing well sourced material to be added to the misinformation article. As FormalDude notes, some material may also belong in other related general articles. Finally, at the talk page several editors agreed that information blockade in China is nothing new, but that especially with the older title, the article attempted to frame this into a suggestion of special crime coverup (most notably the leak theory that has little scientific support). —PaleoNeonate – 22:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China or Chinese government response to COVID-19 when created, as those other titles can result in more neutral editing, per the comments I made in the merge discussion a few months ago. I have a preference to Chinese government response to COVID-19 as some participants in the merge discussion made a point about censorship =/= misinformation. Jumpytoo Talk 04:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the new article idea, with all the information form multiple pages merged there might be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Chinese government response to COVID-19. We should seek an NPOV article name, and that is the most NPOV name I have seen. It also is a better, broader article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China --Jayron32 15:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also be good with the more neutral rename proposals above; perhaps as a merge target for BOTH article. --Jayron32 16:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. The latter may or may not require a move, but the content of the article is incomparably more neutral. I do not think there is much to save in a merge. The most egregious part of the cover-up article is that it pushes the lab leak theory thanks to selective quotes of WHO officials etc. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 17:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the move discussion should not have been closed the way it was. Ping DGG and wbm1058. What a disgrace. Francesco espo (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would remind all users to A) respect the WP:CANVAS guidelines, and B) respect the fact that DGG has stated numerous times that they no longer would like to be involved with or pinged about this topic area. Read the room — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close per WP:GAMING. Editors can propose Chinese government response to COVID-19 as an option in the MR discussion, once Sceptre undoes their close there. AfD is not the correct procedure for renaming an article. I have filed a complaint about this in ANI. Gimiv (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sceptre's rationale above does not mention renaming and is a perfectly valid one to discuss at AfD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate MR close on China COVID-19 cover-up. Gimiv, what do you mean by "the MR discussion"? I see the requested move (RM) but I don't see any relevant move review at WP:MR. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wbm1058 I meant RM, not MR. I reposted my complaint on AN. Gimiv (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per "common outcomes" listed in the deletion process for AfD: Issues to be addressed by changing the page title (and perhaps then expanding or improving its content). This can happen at AFD especially, if the article could be suitable for Wikipedia, but is created under an inappropriate title, and was nominated for deletion, but consensus agrees it is fixable if the title is changed. This is perhaps the best procedure as it removes possible redundancy. – The Grid (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing about this proposal is out of order. Merge/Deletion discussions can take place concurrently with other discussions. Even if you think Sceptre's close portrayed bias (I'm not sure I completely disagree), any editor is freely allowed to make AfD proposals. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19 - An article topic of "allegations" is obviously POV. -- GreenC 22:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, there are valid scopes of allegations. e.g. Allegations of unlawful campaigning in the 2016 EU referendum ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: that is an excellent point. I have created Draft:Wikipedia:Notability (allegations) in order to address the issue. LondonIP (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is basically NEVER a good idea to start creating policies/guidelines based on disputes. It will never turn out well, as the resulting draft will be very affected by this dispute, and will lose generalizability. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To the contrary, when policy changes are proposed without citing examples, they are deemed to be "too abstract", as was observed in the recent WP:VPP discussion about the persistent abuse of WP:FRINGE. All policies were forged in the fiery fires of dispute, and I would welcome you to collaborate on this draft, so that we can get it approved. It may come in handy in future DRVs on the subject of standalone allegations articles. LondonIP (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. I don't see much of a difference between "misinformation" and "coverup" in this context.VR talk 03:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. MarioGom (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China, as per many other editors here have stated:clearly this article is duplicative. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. This is a blatant POV fork. It has some good content, so where not repetitive, it should be merged to the less POV and more substantial/linked misinformation article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close and wait for the outcome of the Move Review. Keep or Move cover-up content to Chinese government response to COVID-19. OP improperly closed a RM, moved the article, and nominated it article for deletion. With 15 years experience, they should have known better. LondonIP (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Move Review was procedurally closed to await the result of this discussion. No consensus exists in favor of your view that the rename discussion was improperly closed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that the MR is also still active - the procedural close there was overturned almost immediately (though the 'closed' remained in the section header for an additional 2 hours, which might have caused some confusion). I wonder if the best option at this point would be to procedurally close BOTH of them, then start (a) centralised discussion(s) on the article talk page? That couldn't possibly be more chaotic than the status quo, and I don't think a procedural close of either one of these ongoing discussions but not the other could happen at this point without all hell breaking loose. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:907D:4451:8F72:3CE1 (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC) — 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:907D:4451:8F72:3CE1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    You cannot unmove a deleted page, but you can delete a moved/unmoved page. So the AfD trumps the move review. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it gets redirected I suppose the redirect could be renamed. Pointless maybe, but that way, everyone is happy? Alexbrn (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • procedural close/keep: multiple reasons: 1. AfD is not cleanup. If you believe there is something wrong with the article, fix it. Dont bring it to AfD as long as topic is notable. 2. The nominator of this AfD closed the RM. Their own view towards the article is biased. This can be seen at the move review, which has been closed as supervote. 3. Most of the participants have not provided any rationale here, those who have, have raised issues like coatrack, POV, and conspiracies. They have not mentioned "lack of notability". The titles, and the subject of the article has been covered in reliable sources, covered enough to establish notability. If you have some issue with article's content, you are more than welcome to fix it. 4.If you have issues with conspiracy theories, wikipedia does have articles on conspiracy theories as long as they are notable/covered in RS. The subject here is not a conspiracy theory, there are proofs/evidences out there proving China unsuccessfully tried to cover-up. 5. The article being suggested as target, and the one at AfD are totally different. One article is about China hiding truth, the other is China propagating lies. The target article doesnt even mention Li Wenliang. 0. Further detailed argument/analysis by Renat can be seen in the three comments (below each-other) by Renat at the original RM. pinging participants from RM discussion: Hemiauchenia, RenatUK, Zxcvbnm, Ched, Masem, Forich, Crouch, Swale, Tanjeeschuan, Loganmac, ScrumptiousFood, Usernamekiran, Citobun, FOARP, @ProcrastinatingReader, Mx. Granger, LondonIP, Jr8825, and Adoring nanny: as the previous attempt failed as it was not signed. Kindly feel free to ping the ones if missed somebody. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My ultimate article preference is a Chinese government response to COVID-19 that looks like User:Jr8825/sandbox 2 (which was proposed by Jr8825 in the original merge discussion). The current draft by FormalDude is probably a more realistic short-term goal, though, which can be expanded on with time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I ultimately agree that would be ideal. I think merging into the FormalDude article is a good short term plan. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China. Some of the content is, in my view, worth keeping and has some suitable references from reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian and Financial Times. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect, there is nothing useful to merge as the entire article reeks of POV and SYNTH. I think the only use for content of this article would be using it as a bad example, an NPOV disaster. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Outrageously POV. This page is clearly just an attempt to insert someone's (I haven't looked at who created the page) political views into Wikipedia. There's been a proliferation of these types of absurd opinion pages about China, and it's really becoming a major problem for the project. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; obvious WP:COATRACK / WP:POVFORK. The non-neutral title ("cover-up" implies something is being intentionally concealed) isn't enough of a WP:COMMONNAME to be justifiable. Nothing to redirect and the name is too specific to be useful. --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG. Merging into a fork article does no service to our readers. There is a a difference between misinformation and disinformation. — Ched (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping it in its current location is the issue here though. It's a WP:POVFORK. – The Grid (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Grid: which page is this page a fork of? And what is the POV you don't agree with? That the Chinese covered-up the early outbreak fo the virus and research into origins? Those allegations are put as statements of fact in several RS mentioned in the RM discussion. LondonIP (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Right now the "misinformation" page does not fully detail the detained and missing journalists like the cover-up page does. If this disappears from wikipedia something went wrong with this merge. Can a cover-up section be created on the mis or dis information page? Side question, where should the link be directed on Cover-up#Examples? 2600:1700:8660:E180:D873:FC3C:35E8:9942 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC) — 2600:1700:8660:E180:D873:FC3C:35E8:9942 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Grid (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Redirect (to COVID-19 misinformation by China as per other redirect votes above) - I remember the case with the "lab leak likely" essay of the author and how most of its content was generally considered unacceptable for Wikipedia yet it was kept due to its place in the "essays" section as opposed to mainspace. Well - here we are, those same fringe views are now being brought into mainspace. "I told you so" aside, this article seems to be attempting some sort of POV fork and its existence simply isn't justified in light of COVID-19 misinformation by China already existing and being more developed. Perhaps move some of the more salvageable contents to the "Initial response" section of that same article. The very concept of this article should preclude its creation - not only is "alleged" in the title MOS:WTW without context (and it, as the title, by definition cannot have context) but the entire topic fits neatly under "misinformation" (after all, suppressing truthful information would be misinformation) and does not have enough content to justify a fork of this sort. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Allegations" is appropriate in this context as it's an assertion of wrongdoing, as MOS:ALLEGED points out. MOS is a guideline anyway, the relevant policy here is WP:TITLE, particularly the section on WP:NDESC, which editors often seem to miss. There's an explicit exemption for accusations of crimes, although this raises further questions about whether this article's scope is appropriate. Jr8825 • Talk 19:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Notable subject backed up by reliable sources. Those who allege that the title is somehow inherently POV have evidently not looked at any of the sources. I don't support a redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China because I don't believe efforts to cover up the emerging pandemic falls within the scope of that article. Citobun (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Citobun: in my opinion, the suggestion that "efforts to cover up the emerging pandemic [don't] fall within the scope of that article [misinformation]" is the strongest argument for keep. However, the scope/title of this article is inappropriate per WP:NDESC given that it's treated by a large proportion of RS as an accusation rather than as a definitive fact. I made a similar argument in a failed RM at Uyghur Genocide, but in that case it's certainly far clearer that the Chinese government has committed a crime. The substance of the accusation here is unclear (precisely what's said to have been covered up varies across sources, a point which Pieceofmetalwork makes quite well below). An article solely about a government's cover-up is quite unprecedented and I don't think the sources are WP:EXCEPTIONAL. These concerns have been around from the start of this article, in the MfD of the original draft prior to the move to mainspace, and in the merge discussion I linked above. Neither a page move nor an attempted merge have remedied the situation or improved the content, most of which is well-sourced but which cumulatively and consistently verges into SYNTH/POV, as Tigraan illustrates below. I think the view of most editors in favour of redirecting/deleting here is similar to WP:TNT: the article as it stands can't be readily transformed into a comprehensive, neutral summary, and is damaging to keep in its current state. (A new article on Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19 is a good place for this content, as I've suggested before, and I'm continuing to provide feedback on its development.) As I mentioned above, I strongly oppose outright deletion so the article's content and history is preserved for re-use elsewhere, which ensures that nothing is "lost". It's also copied into two drafts, one in my sandbox and another version currently in the draftspace, so as long as the attribution is safeguarded the content isn't going to disappear. If content isn't visible to readers for a short period while it's being integrated into a more suitable context, that's fine in my book – Wikipedia doesn't need to be perfect at any specific moment in time. Jr8825 • Talk 19:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment those who are invoking the POV, kindly explain why/how this is a POV. Wikipedia sources the article to reliable sources. The reliable sources say there is a cover-up, and that's what is in the article. No POV. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll bite. The section China_COVID-19_cover-up_allegations#Refusal_to_cooperate_with_second_phase_of_WHO_investigation starts by On 15 July 2021, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis had been prematurely discarded by the World Health Organization. He proposed a second phase of WHO investigation, which he said should take a closer look at the lab leak idea... That is absolutely not a NPOV representation of the CNN source; the only attributed part that mentions the lab leak is a member of the WHO team who helped oversee the original investigation said the Wuhan lab leak theory did "not receive the same depth of attention and work" as the animal hypothesis. - so it is not the Director-General but an unnamed staffer, and they did not say it was prematurely discarded (the aliens-did-it theory did not "receive the same depth of attention" either).
Yes, that one instance might be fixable, but if you fix everything wrong, there is no article left. The reliable sources say there is a cover-up, and that's what is in the article. is begging the question. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the NYT source later in that paragraph. The url that was in the article now points to something different, but the wayback machine still has it[23] Chinese officials said on Thursday that they were shocked and offended by a World Health Organization proposal to further investigate whether the coronavirus emerged from a lab in Wuhan, exposing a widening rift over the inquiry into the origins of the pandemic.
Senior Chinese health and science officials pushed back vigorously against the idea of opening the Wuhan Institute of Virology to renewed investigation after the W.H.O. director-general, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, laid out plans to examine laboratories in the central city of Wuhan, where the first cases of Covid-19 appeared in late 2019.
Zeng Yixin, the vice minister of the Chinese National Health Commission, said at a news conference in Beijing that he was “extremely shocked” at the W.H.O. plan to renew attention on the possibility that the virus had leaked from a Wuhan lab. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is that quote supports the sentence Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis had been prematurely discarded. It does not attribute the actions to TAG. It does not say "prematurely discarded" (which would indicate at least carelessness at the WHO), but rather "here’s a new phase of inquiry". Hell, if you read closely, it does not even say that the reason for the new investigation is a possible lab leak (such statements are attributed to Chinese officials, not given in journalist voice).
Maybe you could find a source that does support the sentence as written. But again, that is only one example out of many. Right now the article is in severe breach of WP:V / WP:NPOV at the point where it would need a full rewrite to be compliant if anything can be salvaged at all.
IMO this invalidates the WP:NOTCLEANUP / "but sources are good" argument. I could write an article about the various types of pasta around the world using the same sources - sure, sources do not support the content, but WP:SOFIXIT, do not delete it when the sources are fine, etc. Yeah, no. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would cite WP:TNT — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added an NPR source [24] for the "prematurely discarded" part. This does not fit WP:TNT, which is about advocacy for personal beliefs, not about wiki articles on topics that are well covered in mainstream media.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think its worth saving the China_COVID-19_cover-up_allegations#Arrest_or_disappearance_of_citizen_journalists section? Is a disappeared person a misinformation event or a cover-up event? Should these be moved to Forced_disappearance#China if the cover-up page is deleted? 2600:8804:6600:83:79F3:FE56:5047:39A1 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the misinformation is the propaganda that surrounds the disappearances. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subtle distinction between cover-up and misinformation is lost on me. How is journalists disappearance not in scope of a misinformation article? (Of course you would need to check that the sources actually support the content as written.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is journalists disappearance not in scope of a misinformation article? I think it probably is. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good question! Probably something we should discuss considering what's being proposed haha. I'm not a linguist, but my understanding seems to be that Misinformation is purely speech. While a cover-up can be passive (which would include misinformation) or active, which can include all sorts of activities for example murder. Cover-up#Typology includes "Retaliate against hostile media" which appears to me to be within the scope of the reports concerning citizen journalists. It probably would be more diplomatic and less controversial to name the article Misinformation which is fine, my only concern is that the reports/sources dont get deleted from wikipedia. 2600:8804:6600:83:F9F7:BF7:1DA6:D7C2 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copying over a comment I made at the Move Review, as it is relevant here: I would say overall it is the interpretation and SYNTH of these sources that is at issue here. For example: " On 11 January, Zhang's lab published the sequence on virological.org. Three people stated that this angered the Chinese CDC, and the Shanghai government temporarily closed Zhang's lab." compare that to what the cited articles actually say: "It was not clear whether the closure was related to the publishing of the sequencing data before the authorities." [25] The second source cited for this sentence does not even mention the closure at all. [26] I stand corrected, it does, but it does so only citing anonymous rumors. This juxtaposure and composition has created the SYNTHetic conclusion deciding for the readers that the sequence release and the closure are connected. It does not name the individuals who feel this way. I genuinely have no idea where that statement came from. That's POV SYNTH. It tells the readers what to think, rather than describing to them the facts and conclusions present in our sources. That is unacceptable and it is just one instance of many in this article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the AP source cited immediately after that text:[27] On Jan. 11, a team led by Zhang, from the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, finally published a sequence on virological.org, used by researchers to swap tips on pathogens. The move angered Chinese CDC officials, three people familiar with the matter said, and the next day, his laboratory was temporarily shuttered by health authorities. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In general, on wikipedia, we should avoid citing single sources which only reference anonymous sources themselves. Especially for disputed and controversial statements. This is covered in WP:RSBREAKING and WP:NEWSORG. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, deleted the "angered the CDC" part. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a POV fork to gather sources from a specific viewpoint instead of from a specific topic. There are just a handful of sources about a cover-up as the primary topic (and not in bylines), and between them it is divided over things like early cases cover-up, origins cover-up, deaths cover-up, eventually there are just one or two notable sources left for a handful of allegations. And 'hiding information about early covid-19 outbreak' and 'inhibiting the research on the origin of covid-19' aren't even connected by anything in the article, then why aren't they separate articles? Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, this basically sums it up. There's some lawyering higher up in this discussion about the definition of a POV fork, but at the end of the day the article is held together by a point of view rather than a topic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to COVID-19 misinformation by China or Chinese government response to COVID-19 when created per my own previous comments at the merge discussion on the article talk page (in addition to the significant POVFORK concerns already expressed and detailed by other contributors to this discussion: something being "notable" does not mean it is best served by a silly POVFORK). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19 when created. While I agree not a lot is salvageable, some content certainly is, and this title has a more accurate scope than COVID-19 misinformation by China for the content of this article. It also includes content from some other articles, effectively being a three-way merge. Take a look at Draft talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 and feel free to help out please if you can. ––FormalDude talk 05:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content with COVID-19 lab leak theory and COVID-19 misinformation by China. I voiced concern about this topic not being covered on the "lab leak" page, and the "coverup" language invokes the not-yet-or-never-will-be-proven lab leak theory. The broad 'misinformation' page of course can cover more banal geopolitical spats that would be expectsd in any sort of global pandemic. (I have no choice as a dynamic IP, but WP:SPA disclosure...2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China as per POV issues. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to COVID-19 misinformation by China or Draft:Chinese government response to COVID-19 (if created) and merge any relevant content to wherever it best fits. I share the WP:POVFORK concerns. I support the calls, many from Keep voters, to ensure that material about Chinese journalists being arrested or disappeared be retained in an article somewhere. Firefangledfeathers 23:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to multiple articles. The article is actually very well-written and generally maintains a neutral POV, but the organization and inclusion of different items calls its neutrality into question. I agree this could be a WP:POVFORK or coatrack, a quite subtle one at that. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:06, 23 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, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Likely Story (1973 film)[edit]

A Likely Story (1973 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)

Article about a film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFILM. According to the article this film was never commercially released at all, and was only ever actually exhibited at film industry markets, which means that the only notability claim on offer here is that the film was made -- but our inclusion criteria for films don't extend an automatic inclusion freebie to every film that has an IMDb page, and instead require things like notable film awards and/or significant critical attention being paid to the film by professional film critics in real media.
The only reference here, further, is to a short video clip in which the cinematographer is talking about his own career in the first person, which is not an independent source for the purposes of helping to establish a film's notability. I additionally cannot verify this article's claim that the film was a Canadian production; even the IMDb entry tags it as Ireland/United States, not Canada, and it isn't listed in Gerald Pratley's A Century of Canadian Cinema as either "A Likely Story" (its title according to this article) or "Horowitz in Dublin" (its title according to IMDb).
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from having to have a much stronger notability claim than just existing as an unreleased footnote in people's careers, and much better referencing than just a Q&A interview with its own cinematographer. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're gonna be keeping this one. You're right that it may not, in fact, be a Canadian production, but an Irish/US one. That should be corrected or clarified. Notability is clear, "freebie" is a silly comment. Oscar-winning DP and three major actors. I've found a record of a VHS release in Brazil and a DVD release in "Taiwan". Obvious keep. DublinDilettante (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Films are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their cinematographers won awards for different films than this one, or because of who was in the film's cast. Notability hinges on evidence of significance, such as people being nominated for or winning awards for their work on this film, and cannot be established without reliable source coverage and analysis about the film in media. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 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 23:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dujso[edit]

Dujso (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 surname exists but it's extremely rare - see My Heritage and Acta Croatica. In fact, there are currently no articles on people with this surname on Wikipedia, so there is no potential to quickly convert this into a disambiguation page. I couldn't see any significant coverage of this surname in my searches of 'Dujso' and 'Дујсо' so possibly fails WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Or, failing that, a speedy delete option. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bonus question: can you guess the last name of the article's creator? No such user (talk) 15:39, 22 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 13:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UpGuard[edit]

UpGuard (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 reads like an advert, has largely been written by a series of throwaway SPAs, with just some gnoming from more established accounts. Looking at the sourcing, I'm seeing some unreliable sources (note that all the Forbes pieces are written by contributors), some stuff obvious rehashed press releases, and a few passing mentions in more substantial pieces of journalism. Bearing WP:CORPDEPTH in mind, I do not believe that WP:NCORP has been met.

In short: I believe this is a piece of covert promotion, almost certainly written in contravention of our terms of use by undeclared paid editors, about a non-notable company, and it should be deleted. Girth Summit (blether) 17:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • An example of significant coverage of the company itself is the referenced article in the Australian Financial Review which is an in-depth profile of the company’s products and capital raising activities. The article is both reliable and independent.
  • This ZDNet article is a significant piece that profiles the launch of the company's BreachSight product which automates data breach discovery.
  • The Australian did an in-depth piece on the company when they launched a cyber risk insurance product in partnership with Insurance Australia Group.
  • ZDNet covered the company's disclosure of a medical data breach in Australia. While this article is based on the company's own blog post, it is written by a reputable journalist.
  • This CNBC interview with one of the company executives, which describes the company's (at the time) new products.
  • Another example of significant coverage is this New York Times piece which goes into some depth about the specifics of the company’s security research and associated products/services: “Instead, he searches communication ports and the internet’s hive of connected devices to find information inadvertently made public. His discoveries have included medical records, airport security files, hotel bookings, a terrorist screening database and 87 million Mexican voter registration records. Once the sensitive information has been secured, he publicly discloses that the data had been revealed.” This level of coverage exceeds the examples of trivial coverage.
Regarding COI, I appreciate you pointing me in that direction and can understand why. I'm a new wiki editor, very much learning, and exploring other cybersecurity-related pages that I can contribute to. I don't believe I have any conflicts that would affect the edits I've made so far. Kenzie747 (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ZDNet articles are obviously rehashed press releases - they're not independent. The CNBC interview is an WP:INTERVIEW. The NYT piece has almost nothing about the company. I'll need to check the Australian/AFR pieces later on, I can't get past the pay wall from my phone. Girth Summit (blether) 06:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just checking back in to say that I looked at the Australian Financial Review piece, and it looks like anther piece of PR, rather than organic coverage. Almost every assertion is either a direct or an attributed quote by Mike Baukes, one of the company's founders, or from a manager at IAG, an insurance firm they were announcing a partnership with. My guess is that the two companies put out a joint press release, and AFR just moved the copy around a bit - this isn't independent. I haven't been able to access the article in the Australian, but even if it is high-quality, that would be the only source conveying any notability - and one such source isn't sufficient to satisfy NCORP. Girth Summit (blether) 19:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sentence, "The company’s research has been published in several high-profile data breaches and data leaks" is problematic on its own, as there is zero notability to be derived from the mere publication of content, with no context as to whether this was self-published. BD2412 T 21:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Feels like an upscale puff piece, agree with most of what's said above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:51, 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 for Mitare, Venezuela. There was no consensus about Sinazeze, which was only mentioned in one comment. The article about Agbau, Democratic Republic of the Congo was nominated (and deleted) in a separate AfD and should have been withdrawn from this discussion. RL0919 (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mitare, Venezuela[edit]

Mitare, Venezuela (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)
Sinazeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Maganga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Agbau, Democratic Republic of the Congo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Geostubs made by Spokane Ball yt who was blocked for creating similarly poorly-sourced stubs. These all fail WP:GEOLAND which requires populated places to either be legally recognized or have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG; although editors have replaced the sourcing with GEONAMES listings, these types of databases are notoriously unreliable and community consensus has consistently been against using them to demonstrate legal recognition or GNG for several years now. –dlthewave ☎ 16:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I both redirected and AfD'd Maganga. –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think. The Spanish language version is much more extensive, so I thought it might be salvageable. But both sources there are dead, so it seems impossible to find adequate sources. JonnyDKeen (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appear to be genuine, recognised and separate settlements. And AfDs for settlements in completely different continents, let alone countries, should not have been bundled together in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/redirect based on the Spanish language article and a very quick map check, passes GEOLAND, but desperately needs expansion; I would not mind redirecting to a suitable regional catch-all page until it can be developed further. SportingFlyer T·C 01:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that was just for Mitare; Sinazeze has a decent amount of scholarly coverage available as a decently sized township. It should not have been bundled here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 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 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 23:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul of Thebes Church, Dharmanathapuram[edit]

St. Paul of Thebes Church, Dharmanathapuram (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 entire article is unsourced. Can't find any sources. Search results in google news doesn't bring up anything. - SUN EYE 1 17:16, 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 Draftify. You can find it at Draft:Gwyneth Hendriks.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyneth Hendriks[edit]

Gwyneth Hendriks (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)

Was created, moved to draftspace, moved out of draftspace by a sockpuppet, PRODded and DEPRODded. She fails WP:FOOTBALL having never played for a team in a WP:FPL or for a senior national team. WP:GNG is also failed due to a lack of multiple sources of significant coverage on her. This isn't enough Dougal18 (talk) 16:54, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch Ladies[edit]

Lunch Ladies (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)

Not seeing significant criticism or review, other than this harvard crimson article and the film's minor award. Doesn't pass GNG or NFILM to me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There is a little notability here but it doesn't quite seem like enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reliable sources significant coverage such as reviews in Dread Central, Film Threat and Horror Society (all rs for horror films) as linked in the list here so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it has been in many movie festivals and appears on IMDb which makes it notable enough for me. Safyrr 22:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:NFILM: The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. Has that happened? And appearing on IMDb does not ensure notability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC
    Alright, for the IMBd thing. But, in the "Awards and nominations" section it lists several Film festivals it appeared in since its release 4 years ago and with each being tied to what looks like legit sources. Should it have more to make it notable? Safyrr 22:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't think it's quantity such as length; if it's rescreened in a year or so from now, that's another story. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has three reliable sources reviews irrespective of the awards Atlantic306 (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason it should not be deleted it’s because:

Lunch Ladies is distributed all over the world, has more than 120 film reviews and interviews, won 45 awards and was featured on France 24. Distributors included: canal + for French territories, prime video, shorts TV, curtcircuit33 in Barcelona, shotTV in Russia, osorezone in Japan, dark matter TV, Curia TV, Tubi TV, KanopyAmirv60~fawiki (talk) 10:50, 22 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 23:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IceNews[edit]

IceNews (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 about an online news website, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMEDIA. The only notability claim evident here is that it exists, and the only footnote being used is its own self-published "about us" statement on its own website, with no evidence shown of any external analysis of its significance in third-party sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 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. Nothing presented convinces me this subject merits inclusion. Passing mention or PR-y type announcements don't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG..

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justus (musician)[edit]

Justus (musician) (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 W:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He was Dr. Dre's "latest project" in 2015. Since then, ... Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All introducing Dr. Dre's new protege, all but one dated January 2015 (the renegade is from September 2015). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've obviously missed the one from October 2020... GiantSnowman 09:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the one titled "JUSTUS: The White Dr. Dre Protege You've Never Heard Of". Doesn't exactly scream notability, does it? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are promotional announcements and public relations fkuff. They are not descriptions of musical projects that are completed. The guy had a brief moment of media hype but has not produced anything worthy of notice. No music releases. Fails WP:MUSICBIO for sure, and WP:GNG is stretched very thin with these insubstantial source articles talking about future work that never panned out. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The coverage is nothing but PR hype. Nothing substantive to warrant a BLP. --Kinu t/c 19:11, 23 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 14:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chathamangalam Premier League[edit]

Chathamangalam Premier League (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 not a significant league. It is a local competition in Chathamangalam, without real coverage. Mvqr (talk) 13:53, 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 keep. The sourcing presented by User:Thryduulf convinces me that this subject passes WP:GNG and that there are likely more sources out there. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Loco Shed, Visakhapatnam[edit]

Diesel Loco Shed, Visakhapatnam (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 evidence seems to be available to indicate that this is actually a notable subject for an article. Fram (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from 2 minutes on google I've found the following sources: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] and [34]. It's also very likely that there are offline sources and sources not in English. I am unconvinced the nominator made a serious attempt at a WP:BEFORE here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, revenge posts, always fun. First source you give[35] is not independent at all, so not valid for notability. Similarly, your last source isn't independent either, it's from the national academy of Indian railways. I am unconvinced the !voter has a good knowledge of WP:GNG and WP:RS. Fram (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      What on earth has revenge got to do with anything? And that's still 5 sources I found in 2 minutes that you agree demonstrate notability, which rather backs up that any WP:BEFORE you did was at best inadequate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note user:JJking56 removed the AfD message from this page, I've restored it but don't have time to look whether they've done the same for the other similar nominations (which I've not looked at yet). Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per references above (which should be added to article). Djflem (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete made by a sock. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 02:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate sources and edits since nomination. Note that the "substantial edits by others" would disqualify this article from a WP:G5 deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Would like to see this kept for the railfan community, but the sources used don't seem to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:59, 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. Nothing presented here convinces me that this subject passes WP:GNG or the standards of WP:GEOLAND. Simply existing doesn't merit inclusion. If folks find reliable secondary sources about this place and chose to prepare a new article showcasing that, so be it.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lponga[edit]

Lponga (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)

Geostub made by Spokane Ball yt who was blocked for creating similarly poorly-sourced stubs. This one fails WP:GEOLAND which requires populated places to either be legally recognized or have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Please don't just add a GEONAMES entry as a ref; community consensus has consistently been against using such databases to establish legal recognition or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination, doesn't meet notability and single sentence article has little value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnyDKeen (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a genuine, recognised and separate settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recognized by whom? I don't see any evidence of legal recognition, and WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping a populated place article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No RS here to support notability. I've run a few searches, really not getting anything on this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The town appears on maps in tourism publications like this: [36]. It's clearly a populated, legally recognized place, or it wouldn't be included on maps of Malawi marketed to international tourists. Was a proper WP:BEFORE done?4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, maps cannot be used to meet WP:NGEO. Have you found any sources that could be added right now to establish verifiability? It turns out that none of the sources in the article even mentioned Lponga; the article creator was blocked for doing this. –dlthewave ☎ 12:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of sources saying people crossed the Tanzania–Malawi border "at Lponga," but that's all that's available online that I was able to find. SportingFlyer T·C 13:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is certainly a border crossing; I cannot confirm it is a town based on what is available on the internet. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SportingFlyer. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are NO reliable sources cited here indicating notability. At all. How are we supposed to have an article about this? Simply saying "there must be sources" is not an answer. FOARP (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic obviously lacks sufficient coverage to meet GNG and GEOLAND. Seems disingenuous to look at the article, provide no sources, and still claim otherwise. Avilich (talk) 15:35, 22 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 14:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada Dubbed Films[edit]

Kannada Dubbed Films (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:NLIST. Generally, original films released in a particular year are listed but not dubbed ones. This CfD also concludes that dubbing is not a defining charecteristic of a film. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:18, 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 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 14:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Morris (racing driver)[edit]

John Morris (racing driver) (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)

Unable to find much in the way of significant coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP, with this excerpt from the Motor being the most promising thing returned by a before search, with everything else being routine coverage in statistical databases. Such a search is complicated by the fact that "John Morris" is a fairly common name and the popularity of Morris motor cars. While I believe that this article's subject is fairly likely to be notable, unless somebody is prepared to scour libraries for forty-year-old issues of Autosport or Motor Sport then it is hard to verify anything about them beyond the fact that they competed in these events. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:07, 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 keep. Convinced this short film meets WP:NFILM based on it's festival winnings.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ala Kachuu - Take and Run (2020 film)[edit]

Ala Kachuu - Take and Run (2020 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)

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The notability claim on offer here is a bunch of film festival awards referenced to the festivals' own self-published websites or press releases -- but when it comes to film awards, Wikipedia does not just indiscriminately accept every film festival on the planet as an instant notability freebie for a film, and instead ascribes notability only to film awards that can be shown to get media coverage: Oscars, BAFTAs, Cannes, Berlin, TIFF, that sort of thing. If you have to rely on the film festival's own self-published content to source an award win, because media don't consider the award significant enough to report on it as news, then that award is not notable enough to make its winners "inherently" notable for winning it.
The first three footnotes are actually third-party sources, but one is a WordPress blog and one isn't actually about this film, but is here simply to tangentially verify the existence of the social issue that this film is about, so neither of those are helping to establish the notability of this film either. One source, Südkurier (#3) is actually about this film, but one GNG-worthy source isn't enough all by itself.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Considering that seven of the festivals listed have their own Wikipedia pages with notable sources and media coverage, does that not make them notable enough?

Although the festivals may be small and are not considered „important enough“ by the common „news“ does not make them insignificant in the world of film festivals. Such as them being BAFTA and Oscars qualifying.

Ala Kachuu - Take and Run has been shown at the Oscar qualifying festivals 11th BronzeLens Film Festival, 45th Cleveland International Film Festival, 16th HollyShorts Film Festival and the 38th Flickers’ Rhode Island Film Festival. The film is now eligible to compete for the next Oscars season by its airing at the LA cinema Laemmle’s Noho 7.


The following third party articles have now been added:

https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/zuerich/bellevue/zur-ehe-entfuehrt/story/13912947 https://www.e-journal.ch/region/den-frauen-eine-stimme-geben/ https://issuu.com/swissfilms/docs/fiction_fall_2020/3 https://www.flickfeast.co.uk/shorts/ala-kachuu-2020-short/ http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2021/nov/17/spotlight-15th-annual-alexandria-film-festival/ https://shortsshowcase.splashthat.com https://smeca.ch/news/aka-kachuu-geht-ins-oscar-rennen/ https://happeningnext.com/event/ala-kachuu-take-and-run-cinema-screening-los-angeles-eid3a086leght

Offline sources such as Swiss newspaper articles have also been added:

Matinee im Kino zum Thema Brautraub". Brugg. September 1, 2021. p. 19.

Bracher, Katharina (December 2020). "Gestohlene Bräute". NZZ am Sonntag Magazin (in German). p. 16.


Please note that the ninth (formerly second) footnote is referring to the term ala kachuu and not the film itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditLiz (talk • contribs)

The question of whether a film festival award counts as a notability claim for a film does not hinge on whether the film festival has a Wikipedia article or not — it hinges on whether you can reference this specific film's win of an award at that film festival to a media source that reports "this specific film has won this specific award at this specific film festival" as a news story, or have to rely on the film festival's own self-published website about itself because the media don't treat that film festival's awards as significant. NFILM #3 is not automatically passed by just every film festival that exists, or even just every film festival that has a Wikipedia article — it's passed only by film festivals whose award presentations get reported by journalists as newsworthy, such as Cannes, Berlin, Toronto or Sundance. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. No awards from any major festivals. Kolma8 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep long list of awards from notable festivals with their own articles, independent coverage in major newspapers (Tages-Anzeiger [37], NZZ Am Sonntag) as well as online [38] [39]. --hroest 15:26, 22 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 Scandinavian Australians. The merges have it. I think this is for the best due to the size, scope and sourcing. Also WP:ATD.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic Australians[edit]

Icelandic Australians (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)

as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugandan Australians and other similar AfDs. Also fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 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. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sienna X[edit]

Sienna X (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:NCORP. Earlier versions of the page have more content/refs, but still highly promotional and lacks CORPDEPTH. -KH-1 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there's some routine announcements, many top 10 lists, etc. I didn't find significant coverage so far. MarioGom (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails all our guidelines including NCORP, unashamed promotion, no indication of notability, should have been speed deleted. HighKing++ 20:58, 23 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 11:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahan Teymouri[edit]

Mahan Teymouri (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)

Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Coverage is mainly the by-product of press-releases. Persian-language sources appear to be promotional pieces for his business-training company. KH-1 (talk) 09:53, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sarooshi[edit]

Dan Sarooshi (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:BIO and WP:PROF. He gets a few mentions in the media, but little coverage where he is the subject. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 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 keep. After reviewing the sources, I am convinced the subject meets our notability guidelines for inclusion.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orzu Iso[edit]

Orzu Iso (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 person; fails both GNG and ANYBIO. Htanaungg (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copy-edited to streamline, but haven't checked coverage. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Some time with Google Translate leads me to the same conclusion as the user above. I would re-write the article though. 80.247.89.52 (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a new WP:SPA who has made only 8 edits to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 20:53, 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 03:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Children's programming on The WB, UPN and The CW[edit]

Children's programming on The WB, UPN and The CW (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 has been draftified twice and restored to mainspace by the article creator without improvement. Taking to AfD for review per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. The article strikes me as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Why is children's programming on The WB, UPN, and The CW grouped together, excluding children's programming on other television networks? I am certainly not able to find any sources that discuss children's programming on these networks as a set. I'm not sure if the article is intended to be a simple list since all sections are currently blank, but I don't see any potential for it to meet WP:LISTN/WP:GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, or delete No idea if there's a valid reason to group these networks together, but the article does not contain any list information as of writing and is unsuitable for the article space at its current state. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is unclear and has encyclopedic value. Louie (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: It is not clear what the page creator intended to do. There is no need to create sections for each and every program, instead of a list. It also does not meet wikipedia's quality standards. ― ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:13, 20 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2025 United States gubernatorial elections[edit]

2025 United States gubernatorial elections (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)

2025 United States gubernatorial elections

This article really does not contain enough information at this time about two elections in forty-seven months to warrant an article. It was rejected (not merely declined) on 29 November 2021 by User:Curbon7 with the notation: "Common practice stands that there is generally not enough sourcing for an article until usually a couple years before, unless it is a major (i.e. presidential) election." However, User:Thomascampbell123 then moved it to article space with the edit summary "Five sources seems sufficient", which reflects a common Wikipedia error in thinking that the number of sources is the key to notability of a topic, when sources are actually necessary but not sufficient. The move to article space after rejection (1) shows disregard for process, but (2) should indicate a willingness to accept the judgment of the community. So I am submitting this article to AFD rather than move-warring it back to draft space.

We have only recently begun articles on the 2024 US presidential election. At this point the listing of candidates is largely crystal ball gazing and rumor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is precedent to create articles this early as the 2020 United States gubernatorial elections article was created in November 2016. Additionally, multiple candidates have already declared their candidacies for New Jersey governor while many others have been speculated as potential candidates in both of these states. Thomascampbell123 (talk | contribs) 10:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll refrain from !voting since I'm the person who halted it initially, but in my opinion, it seems more or less fine now. The original version was created just a few hours after Youngkin won and thus had little in the way of sources or facts, but now that there are major candidates running and actual sources exist it seems like a different circumstance. Curbon7 (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a container article for a "next election," nothing wrong with this. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It makes sense to keep an article about the next presidential, senatorial, congressional (at least an overview article), or gubernatorial election in the US, even as soon as the previous election is certified. Does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. --Enos733 (talk) 05:45, 22 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 03:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Gandelman[edit]

Miguel Gandelman (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 indication that this person is notable by our standards. It's a COI creation, it's still plagued by COI editors who seem to think we're MySpace, and a search through the history suggests the current version, as bad as it is, is an improvement--but no secondary sourcing, and no valid claim to notability. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Reznicow[edit]

Joshua Reznicow (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 found no significant coverage. The Texas Orchestra Directors Annual composition contest doesn't seem to be a major award. Non-notable composer. SL93 (talk) 02:16, 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. ✗plicit 03:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiel Altaheri[edit]

Jamiel Altaheri (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. There is always a lot of coverage of police executives, the coverage should be beyond that norm. Yousef Raz (talk) 02:09, 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 redirect to MediaWiki#Extensibility. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki extension[edit]

MediaWiki extension (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)

IP editor 192.76.8.80 has made an edit request for this AfD to be filed. I am fulfilling this request on their behalf. Their rationale is as follows:

I am unconvinced that the topic of MediaWiki extensions has any independent notability outside of the topic of MediaWiki. The article sourcing as it stands is in a terrible state, I did a WP:BEFORE search and was unable to find much better. Over half the references here to primary sources, mostly other WMF wikis. We have comments in WP:TFD Discussions, bugzilla reports, random pages on Meta, Mediawiki Categories and the Mediawiki manual all being used as sources here, all of which are both primary and user generated sources. Almost all The remaining sources seem to consist of papers where a developer is writing about a specific extension they have written for Mediawiki, again I'm fairly sure that most of this would count as primary sourcing (because it's the developer writing about what they've done) but more importantly these are only examples of specific extensions, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, discussion of the extensibility of Mediawiki as a topic. Perhaps it would be sensible to selectivley merge some of the content on specific examples of extensions to MediaWiki#Extensibility?

—Sirdog (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MediaWiki#Extensibility. I don't like the implicit "we can promote ourselves" exemption to the notability requirements and I believe we should treat promotional content like this written by groups of COI editors (pretty much all of contributors to this article are heavily involved on a volunteer basis with this so-called "WikiMedia Organization") as the unencyclopedic content that it is. The nominee has convincingly established how this doesn't pass the GNG and even if it did the sourcing is questionable to the point that I'd still prefer a redirect until someone has a better article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per nom & Chess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as per the convincing arguments above as the suggested target is more suitable than the current content.--Mvqr (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom, and the above discussion makes a solid case.. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:41, 21 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 03:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palau–Turkey relations[edit]

Palau–Turkey 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)

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to these relations, besides Turkey providing aid (so do many countries). As an aside, the further reading list is excessively long and no titles refer to Turkey. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 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 merge to Studio (disambiguation). ✗plicit 03:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Studio[edit]

The Studio (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)

And another one for merging? (To Studio (disambiguation)) This is the third one I've come across in a couple of days, with the definite article form a separate page - but most DAB pages seem to include both variations, and it seems to be more helpful to direct them all to the same page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:59, 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 merge to Basement (disambiguation). ✗plicit 03:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Basement[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Basement (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 looks like another case of merge to, with Basement (disambiguation). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:52, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eswatini–Turkey relations[edit]

Eswatini–Turkey 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)

Fails WP:GNG. There really isn't much to these relations except some previous political support from Turkey. Level of trade is very low. No embassies, agreements or state visits. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While clearly some effort has gone in to this article, there isn't much to report on apart from a little cordiality. Per WP:GNG there are no secondary sources presented that show coverage of this relationship. Chumpih. (talk) 22:29, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_16&oldid=1061920000"