Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 16	July 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Threnody[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two IMBd references and a link to the film itself on youtube are not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I largely concur with the rationale by both Johnpacklambert and Bovineboy2008. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing notable found. Kolma8 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Documentary that delineates the important subject matter of radioactive waste. Cites are indeed missing and should be added as soon as possible. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we try to rely largely on the established notability criteria rather than the subjective assessment of the importance of the subject of the article (or consequence). If notability cannot be established then importance is inapplicable. Kolma8 (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman_Spinner: Forgot... Please check this essay on WP: Wikipedia:Subjective_importance. Thank you as always. Kolma8 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and this: WP:ITSIMPORTANT...sorry about all the double taps. Kolma8 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fail to establish notability and no evidence that such sources that would establish notability exist anywhere. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Please ping me if sources do come up. I tried my own search and found nothing outside the usual self-published stuff. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ivar Hippe. Daniel (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korstoget mot velferdsstaten: På innsiden av nyliberale tenketanker[edit]

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

Redirected to the author, which was reverted without rationale or improvement. The current sourcing is about the author, and mentions the book. Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Searches did not turn up enough to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unusual with Wikipedia articles on Norwegian non-fiction books. It is too new to have had any lasting impact. That said, the book was reviewed in nationwide Norwegian newspapers Klassekampen and Morgenbladet as well as a news article in Dag og Tid (behind paywalls). Merge would be a good WP:ATD. Geschichte (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed by Nom, My search did not find anything supporting WP:GNG and there is no article in the books language wiki. Jeepday (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Abacherli[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT as a qualification tournament is not the highest level of international competition. Called up to national team ahead of Olympics, but ultimately left off the final roster sent to Tokyo: https://www.fibs.it/en/news/italia-dopo-il-titolo-europeo-ecco-le-convocate-per-tokyo Either way fails WP:GNG as well. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Note that WP:NSPORT requires all athletes to pass GNG, regardless of professional or international appearances. Alvaldi (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Todd[edit]

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

Todd's career in television news does not rise to notability under the WP:GNG. Consider checking inbound links and moving Ruth Todd (researcher) here if deleted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are sources that show her career, they are not the type that would pass GNG. With her being a spokeperson for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 2010-2013 there are lots of quotes from her in the media, but the articles are about other things and quote her, they do not provide substantial coverage of her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elisandra Tomacheski[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Google search for news on this person shows very little since a batch of modelling shots in 2011–2013. WP:PROD was contested in March by article's creator without a clear defence. Former citations/external links have been removed as not WP:reliable sources,[1] or as dead links.[2] – Fayenatic London 20:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically what Fayenatic london and Johnpacklambert already stated. Celestina007 (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP)[edit]

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

There is no independent reliable coverage of this organization, as it's not notable. It's one of countless UN programs. The page fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is already a Wikipedia article for United Nations Office for Partnerships which is the UN body which the UNFIP is part of. There's no reason UNFIP should have its own article when it can be succinctly covered in the UNOP article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus leaning a weaker keep. Would recommend that the discussion around potential redirect or merge or similar could continue on talk page if there is a desire to. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bauer[edit]

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

This characte doesn't meet WP:GNG: little written aout the character, though soe coverage of the actress playing the character or being involved (or not) in a given season. It's just a character arc plot summary. Few references, no references forthcoming. The character hasn't influenced other characters or become a trope or pattern in other notable fictional works, so no criteria based on influence has been met. Mikeblas (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Ping me if new sources are found for reviewing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found some more references,Piotrus: [3], [4], [5]. I hope, that helps. Tec Tom (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tec Tom, Thanks. Are you not going to vote yourself? As for the refs, the second and third are primarily about the actress, not the character. The first is about the character, although any "analysis" boils down to "reviewer x has called her the 'dumbest' character in the show". Not much to work with, although it's better than nothing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In contrast to the nomination, there is some non-plot-summary treatment in secondary sources: ‘Why do I hate all the female characters in 24?’ An etiology of 24’s misogyny, like the one summarized by User:Piotrus, also says that (re)viewers find her a dumb character, but also why (and how that reflects 24's overall misogyny). Similarly a paragraph in Surveillance in the Time of Insecurity, p. 30. Film and Television After 9/11 examines Kim's role and importance in the narrative (and contradicts the other sources as her being not only a damsel in distress). Defining Dilemmas Down: The Case of 24 is quite short, but analyzes how this "stupid" character faces a moral dilemma. And Representing 9/11: Trauma, Ideology, and Nationalism in Literature, Film ... p. 125, also short but provides another sentences for an analysis section: Kim Bauer represents "American innocence"... Collectively, I think that's enough material to write a reasonable "Reception and analysis" paragraph, which in turn fullfils the standard set by Wikipedia's notability requirements. Daranios (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a character list or delete. Most of the above seems to be borderline trivial coverage, and anything that's not would easily fit within a small paragraph on a character list. TTN (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely unpopular character. Keep. The character was hated by both critics and fanbase - [6](TV's dumbest character), [7]. She was often remembered when other such characters appeared [8]("Kim is the Wile E. Coyote of the TV teen genre."), Dana Broady is specifically compared with her ([9], [10], [11]), [12], [13], [14], [15]. See also Critical reaction to 24, Season 2 and the reviews. The character is mentioned in review on 2020 TV show [16]. So character did become a pattern, and there is a number of reliable sources that indicate that. So, she meets WP:GNG. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character has often been viewed as one of the "worst" TV characters ever, as evidenced by the sources above, which is a notability of a certain kind I guess. I think there is enough here to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the character has received a significant amount of coverage from reliable, third-party sources, mostly in a negative way though. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough references made it clear (mentioned above), that the character is notable.Tec Tom (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am still not seeing WP:SIGCOV there. Critical_reaction_to_24#Controversy_and_criticisms needs a section about sexism, where we could add something about her, but I am still not seeing which sources warrant keeping her by meeting SIGCOV here? PS. I've added a section on sexism to this article, mentioning Kim Bauer. But as I said, I don't think there's enough for a stand alone - but now we can at least redirect her entry there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postino (musician)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines under WP:musicbio. The only independent source is a single interview/article in a student newspaper, I can't find anything else on this musician. Niftysquirrel (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator is correct the only full source on him is the student newspaper interview. Other sources are PR pieces, and the Gizmodo one is only two sentences, with the writer just mentioning he listen to Postino's music while finding a Halloween costume to wear: that's not WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough for WP:MUSICBIO Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OM Association, Inc.[edit]

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

The sponsor of the programs on the adjacent AfDs. based almost entirely on its own publications when it's sourced at all DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by DGG. Notability guidelines for organizations largely follow the formula of GNG, if the sources aren’t independent of the subject of the article then NORG is unfortunately not met at this time. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find anything to meet WP:GNG. As mentioned by Nom, most of the references are Primary, which does not support WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Imagination[edit]

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

based almost entirely on its own publications when it's sourced at all. (I made an attempt to fix it by removing the worst section--see page history--but I think its hopeless) DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hasura[edit]

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

Undeclared paid editor, now banned, which should be enough of a reason for deletion. The references without the company name in the title are mostly mentions of the company in an article about a group of other applications, as their titles make evident. The others are notes about funding or promotional interviews.

If anyone wishes to defend to, please list only the THREE best sources you can find in the group. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 09:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd speedy if it wasn't 3 years old - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete promo. Doesn't qualify WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, promotional. Alex-h (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop Movement[edit]

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

Largely self-promotional, not a real thing, etc. seems to have been written by the subject to whom the topic is attributed. isento (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Street sting What do you mean by not a real thing, self-pomo? Are we talking about the same thing here, not a real thing of cause you have not done your homework and just attacking, how can it not be a real thing when this man owns the name Hip Hop Movement, I think he can make hip hop movement whatever he wants ^[1] uspto.gov --Street sting (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:ahk8rd.2.2

Delete. No WP:RS to back up this idea, page more or less promotes someone's interpretation on what Hip Hop is.Yeeno (talk) 🍁 21:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Street sting WP:RS Where in this article that clearly states This article is about samples of Hip Hop Movement as the new Civil Rights Movement & Music Genre. For the music genre, see Hip hop music. For other uses, see Hip hop., HIP HOP and HIP HOP MOVEMENT ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, no one is talking about hip hop in this page, it's on hip hop movement as the new civil rights, you all are getting this mixed up. It's also stated in other books hip hop movement is its own set of elements and meaning, this is no self-promo here (I am just a regular person from Bronx River Projects in the Bronx, NY, yes the land of the Zulu Nation where hip hop started, this man got molested and we giving him his just dues and 100% the truth, you all are not from hip hops beginning so you don't know nothing about hip hop movement, hip hop and hip hop movement is two different things) these are facts taking from sources, before talking about deleting a page (thats been up here for 5 years and been approved by wikipedia) about something you don't know about, trying reading up on it starting from 2016-2021 and then add to the article. Do you know Ronald Savage put out a desist and deceased order for people to stop using the word and term Hip Hop Movement, you all want to delete something you don't even know about, I guess he trying to stop people like you from falsely giving out wrong information on Hip Hop Movement after he registered the rights to the word and term Hip Hop Movement, ask people on youtube or social media who owns Hip Hop Movement I bet they say Ron "Bee-Stinger" Savage. I don't know him but I'm trying to meet him--Street sting (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, messy essay. Geschichte (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Promotional article. Alex-h (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Self-promotional Artical TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There certainly could be an article about the hip hop movement, but this focuses solely on one interpretation, has no worldview, and is essentially a personal essay. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hip hop#Social impact: Looks like an WP:ESSAY. It's best to merge important stuff to any part of the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep User: Street stingKeep - The research on hip hop movement and its real meaning MUST be keep kept, if you all want to add to it to make it better please do but don't delete a page that has been on WIKI FOR 5 YEARS, please do this seems to be nothing more then an attack on this hip hop legend Ron "BeeoStinger" Savage by Piotr Jr. I ask that this article for deletion of hip hop movement which this man Ronald Savage OWNS. This is an attack after years of this being on wiki and in books, I believe Piotr Jr is a part of the Zulu Nation which covered up this man's alleged sexual abuse.

1) piotr Jr - went to this guy Ronald Savage wiki page first and removed the part where this hero fought for the passing of the child victims Act which everyone in the world knows this, it was covered worldwide in every online press and offline press.

2) Not one hip hop pioneer objected to Hip Hop Movement in wiki because it is giving the real facts and everyone knows that Ronald Savage trademarked Hip Hop Movement because he is the person who coined the 6 elements of the hip hop movement, it is clear that Piotr Jr. is attacking this mans legacy and does not know the true meaning or the new direction the hip hop movement has taken in this new digital era.

3) Piotr Jr -even took out from Ronald Savage wiki all the songs this man-made (smh) as being a hip hop artist, he would not have done this to any other hip hop artist, and just from this I request that his wiki has been vandalized and attacked by Piotr Jr., I submit this like to amazon as proof that Piotr jr is trying to use wiki and it's other uses to attack this man's history for his own personal vendetta when hip hop movement was APPROVED OCT3, 2016, 5 years ago and wiki will allow this man to hold a deletion on Hip Hop Movement which is respected around the world and this is the man who holds the rights to the word and means, I am shocked at wiki users to fall for this slander and attack. I submit this link as evidence as a personal attack by Piotr Jr on the legendary Ron "Bee-Stinger" Savage https://music.amazon.com/search/ron+savage?filter=IsLibrary%7Cfalse&sc=none

Why would a wiki user remove this man's songs off his wiki page unless it's personal then the same day at the top of hip hop movement on wiki it states: This article is about samples of Hip Hop Movement as the new Civil Rights Movement & Music Genre. It also states For the music genre, see Hip hop music. For other uses, see Hip hop. to show any kind of confusion between the two as new people to hip hop do all the time, For the people who said to delete I hope you see this attack and also for people who do not know their hip hop history as I do, Hip Hop Movement WAS NEVER EVER USED IN A OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND HAD NO REAL MEANING, this is why they have saluted him on bringing meaning to hip hop movement and it being on wiki which was on his Facebook page years ago. Piotr Jr is trying to keep the truth about hip hop movement from the public, I respectfully ask that you reject this deletion immediately based on the attack on this artist even taking down his songs which is on every online store around the world, even his music videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cu387y9EAg. Look what label it's on, I didn't even know this. Hip Hop Movement has been up on wiki for 5 years please do not let this man Piotr Jr at this point we don't know who he is or his personal attack on this legend. Hip Hop Movement has already passed approval 5 years ago and I request that Piotr Jr be banned from editing Ronald Savage or Hip Hop Movement --Street sting (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki page has already been approved and has been up on Wikipedia for 6 years, we had done so much research on hip hop movement and its registered trademark owner Ronald Savage, also other Wikipedia users helped in building and giving ideas 6 years ago when someone up it up for deletion even he held to build and give ideas to the page and it has never been asked for deletion again, Let me give my reason first on this deletion request and its legitimacy, Piotr Jr is the one who put this up for deletion when the pioneers of hip hop who started hip hop and yes Ronald Savage was there with them liked the Hip Hop Movement Wikipedia page, im from new york and I have shown some of them and they are happy for the work and gives Ronald Savage his much-needed props like Busy Bee, Grand Puba, Jazzy Jay, and others.

Pioptr Jr first went to Ronald Savage page on Wikipedia and removed all of his listed hip hop songs this man has done to show he is a hip hop artist, POPTR JR would not have done that to any other artist on Wikipedia listing their songs showing they are an artist.

pioptr Jr then took out of Ronald Savage Wikipedia page that mentioned that he was one of the childhood sexual abuse victims who fought to get the child victims act passed here in NYS, "who would do such a terrible thing like this to a survivor" then he unlinked the hip hop movement link on Ronald Savage page, this was first after he went to the Hip Hop Movement page on Wikipedia and asked for the page to be deleted, because it mentions Ronald Savage, look at the time frame, it is safe to say that this was intentional, I ask respectfully that this discussion removal be stopped on good faith on a page that has already been approved and up for 6 years, and if you like you are welcome to make changes to the page rather take a page down thats been up with no complaints at all other then Pioptr Jr whi wants it down with no legitimate reason other then his own and Ronald savage being mentioned, for god stances the man owns the rights to Hip Hop Movement whiched is registered and he turn something he coined the 6 elements of the hip hop movement, if you can see he is not taking anything away from hip hop and as you see hip hop and hip hop movement are legally two different after 2016, hip hop movement never ever had a meaning and thats a fact. You all will be doing a real misjustice to the real legal meaning of Hip Hop Movement, and i don't know wikipedia FOR covering up the truth. -Street sting the page creator of the Hip Hop Movement Page

I list this as my evidence:

curprev 21:26, 17 July 2021‎ Yeeno talk contribs‎ 14,861 bytes −307‎ format discography undothank

curprev 21:32, 17 July 2021‎ Piotr Jr. talk contribs‎ 12,770 bytes −94‎ →‎Non-profit and political work: ce for neutrality and tone, cut unverified undothank

curprev 21:07, 17 July 2021‎ Piotr Jr. talk contribs‎ 9,534 bytes +417‎ AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip Hop Movement. undothank Street sting (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)--Street sting (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Sources don't support the article, which is a clear work of self-promotion. - MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is clearly self-promotional. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 WMF World Cup[edit]

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

Outside of minifootball.com and wmfworldcup.com, I can find barely any coverage of this event. This tournament does not seem to have any meaningful independent coverage. I found a passing mention in The Star News but hardly anything else. Recreated immediately after being sent to draft. I'm not even sure that WMF World Cup is notable as a topic as a whole either but I'll leave that to a different discussion. Coverage in its own organisation's websites and Facebook pages is not an indicator of notability as even local 5-a-side leagues have this level of coverage.

In short, no evidence that WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT are met as far as my searches are going. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT Nitesh003 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre da Silva Gabriel[edit]

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

Similar situation to Adriano de Oliveira Santos, where there is an ongoing AFD. No reliable sources confirm WP:NFOOTY being met and WP:GNG doesn't look to be met either. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Adriano de Oliveira Santos and this article are created by the same user – User:Japan Football (banned sockpuppet). Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find him on the unreliable Transfermarkt and Zero Zero, neither of which have any appearances for him anyway. I even looked at the other language Wikipedia articles to see if any of them could help us to find sources. The Japanese Wikipedia page says that he just sat on the bench a few times and then left. I can't find anything to suggest that he is notable anywhere. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely being hired and paid to be a football player, absent any thing else, is not notable. Many new players drop out. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Referendums in Germany. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Official collection[edit]

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

Copypaste of very poor sourced Germany Wikipedia translation - no vaild sources present.....seems we have a few junk copypaste of these. Moxy- 20:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is used in English when describing election procedures in Germany. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source we can work with?--Moxy-

20:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.direct-democracy-navigator.org/legal_designs/baden-wurttemberg-germany-regional-popular-or-citizens-initiative-and-authorities-counter-proposal-pci-plus-volksbegehren

3 § 27 (1) "...and the launch of registration lists in the municipalities (official collection). The official collection extends over three months, the free collection of six months...." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an academic source that explain what it is so we can at least source the lead.--Moxy-

22:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Referendums in Germany. This seems like a fairly specific procedure that may be better covered in context of referendums and petitions for them more generally. Reywas92^Talk 20:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:TNT. It makes no sense out of context. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Becerril[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST PepperBeast (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. I believe I found her biography (autobiography?) on Blogspot. While obviously not a reliable source, it's a good place to start from. There are quite a few intriguing Goole Books hits for Becerril going back to the 60s and 70s, but I can only see fragments of each one. For example, there seems to be an entire chapter about her in The Complete Works of Carmen de la Fuente, and Adult Education in Finland reports that her work is held at the Academy of Fine Arts, Helsinki (where she apparently studied). I'm suspicious that there might be two artists with the same name, as it's a bit surprising that an artist of her age and experience would be entering the Pan American Health Organization drawing and painting contest in 2009. pburka (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pburka, I think the winner of the Concurso de Pintura y Dibujo is the same artist that was born in 1938, not some younger person. See https://www3.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5214:2009-drawing-painting-contest&Itemid=2468&lang=es It's very similar to the other work. Vexations (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw the blogs and the paintings. I could not find any evidence online that she would meet NARTIST or even GNG. The bottom line here is that very little about her is verifiable, which is also demonstrated by the uncertainty of the above Helsinki and Carmen de la Fuente sources. There's a hint of something, but little that is verifiable. --- Possibly ☎ 20:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credible evidence of genuine notability; obscure museum and blogs for sources; fails our standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Searle[edit]

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

Searle has not played in a professional league, or represented his nation at either Olympics or Senior level. He's not an Olympic athlete if he does not compete at the Olympics. No guarantees he will be first choice goalkeeper for New Zealand. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. And yes, I have looked for sources online and found nothing that is enough for SIGCOV. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I said at a concurrent AfD, there is no reason to have this discussion now. Wait and see what happens in the Olympics. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's go write some articles about wars which haven't happened yet. Then, if they don't happen, we can have them deleted afterwards. Ridiculous logic. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have World War III. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any significant coverage of him anywhere? I searched but couldn't find any but I'm not too familiar with NZ news sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The only article I could find that is potentially significant coverage was this one but it is behind a paywall and it alone is not enough. Also, it does not matter if he appears in a game in the Olympics as WP:ATHLETE clearly states that all subjects must meet GNG, regardless of whether they pass any sport-specific guideline such as WP:OLYMPICS. Alvaldi (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the bio with a detailed write up from a local Bay of Plenty newspaper. It gives a rundown where he's played since he left high school, and given that he's played in England and Wales since leaving school, it's clear that there will be little that can be found about him in New Zealand newspapers. You'd have to look further in England and Wales. Schwede 66 23:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing these sources, I could only find the SunLive one myself, and that and the Birmingham Mail source on their own would not have been enough for GNG. The NZ Herald article is behind a paywall, but does look promising. I think the page may scrape by on GNG, depends on opinion. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the paywall article, the text is actually all in the page's source code. I've extracted it and it's linked from the article's talk page. Quite an interesting and detailed read. Schwede 66 22:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Association football isn't my area of expertise. However, as I understand it, the Premier2 league is professional. That's where Searle has played (see bio note on Swansea City website here [17]). This appears to satisfy criterion #2 of WP:NFOOTBALL. Others who understand this topic better will no doubt be able to confirm this, or provide a correction.Marshelec (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Searle has just signed a contract with Swansea City, but I see no evidence that he has actually played for them. There are plenty of goalkeepers who are signed to clubs but never get a game, as most clubs usually put out first-choice goalkeepers unless they are injured, which happens less frequently than with outfield players. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshelec: The Premier League 2 is not professional, as it is a youth competition. He does not pass NFOOTY, but may scrape by on GNG with the sources provided by User:Schwede66. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article may have been created prematurely, but, now that it exists, I see no harm in waiting a couple of weeks before nominating for deletion to see if he plays in the Olympics. Why such a hurry from either "side"? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree with this, but I've seen numerous delete votes against articles I've created, where the players have actually made an appearance in a professional league, and are still playing in a professional league. (1, 2, 3 - and yes I know that in all three, the decision was keep, but that's because they actually played in professional games). Players who have not made pro appearances do not pass WP:NFOOTY. You could argue, for example, that Will Ferry should have a page created for him, because he plays for Southampton in a professional league, has even appeared on the bench for them, and has potential to play in a professional game of football. But this is all WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON, which I thought we were supposed to be avoiding? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing WP:NFOOTY or WP:OLYMPICS is not automatic notability pass, regardless of whether the player has played 1 match or 100 matches in a professional league or the Olympics. The player always has to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. I highly recommend reading the FAQ at the top of WP:ATHLETE, which both SNG's are a subsection of, where all this is made very clear. Alvaldi (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But if he does take part in the Olympics (something that I know nothing about the likelihood) then he will very likely get significant coverage off the back of it. Again I must ask the question, "why the hurry?", if notability is going to become clearer one way or the other in the next couple of weeks. This is an encyclopedia that exists for the long term. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't change anything, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. There is no guarantee that him participating in the Olympics will result in any significant coverage about him. Alvaldi (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, there's enough coverage out there to justify keeping, particularly given the Olympics call-up. Giant Snowman 15:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I would prefer the article be run from draft space, no guarantee he will play an Olympic game, if he does then he would qualify for an article. This still feels WP:CRYSTAL. Govvy (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep will narrowly pass WP:GNG and further subject is 20 years with an ongoing career and has a Olympics call-up see little point deleting it now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per others. Nexus000 (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they're a professional athlete with media coverage of themselves, and more references has been added to the article since it was nominated. Mathmo ^Talk 06:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Council on Accreditation of Coaching Education[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to be part of United States Center for Coaching Excellence. "The National Committee for Accreditation of coaching Education (NCACE) is a committee maintained by the United States Center for Coaching Excellence (USCCE), a not-for-profit organization involved in supporting the professions of coaching, coaching education and coach development." Search for United States Center for Coaching Excellence: :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin (game)[edit]

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

Despite the colourful easy-to-search terminology, I can't find any evidence of this game existing, from a web, book and news search, and the claims about a game's history don't sound entirely serious. How many pub games have a "standardised game" or an official rulebook? The page has only ever had one source, a Lycos user page for some people who were playing it in 2005/6. This looks like a game limited to one pub in Bristol, and possibly just one group of friends in one pub in Bristol. WP:NOTMADEUP. Lord Belbury (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just Speedy this out of existence. I wish the rap Goblin himself made this game so that at least I could say it was a little bit notable just cause it was made by him. The article is the creator's only contribution ([18]), which indicates the article wasn't created out of encyclopedic intention and was either a WP:Hoax or a thing this user made up one day. Amazing no editor, admin or bot noticed this in the article's 14 years of life. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is not a hoax, it's an interesting piece of WP:OR, but it has no place on Wikipedia in this (unreferenced) form. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Old WP:MADEUP leftover from 2007. Wario-Man ^talk 09:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is madeup. I can't find anything. delete but let me know if someone finds sources. If we can source it at all in a reliable source, at the least there could be a merger. Hobit (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Technically a WP:SNOW close, but a WP:SPEEDY close might also be justifiable. Two rationales for deletion are given. One is WP:IDONTLIKEIT; even when the dislike is based on (potentially legitimate) NPOV concerns that is not a rationale for deletion. The other rationale was that it was a duplicate; the other article named was the duplicate and has been redirected here. Consensus is clear that this is a notable topic. As there are discussions elsewhere, I am closing this early. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queer coding[edit]

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

This article is the exact duplicate of Sissy villain created by a mysterious Penpaper123 but has been recently edited by the same author of Sissy villain. The article is similar because it uses the same homosexual websites such as pride.com to imply the suggestion that Disney characters are queer when Disney Animation has denied such claims. Never in the history of Disney animation has there ever been an LGBTQ character unless its Onward. Painting beloved characters such as Jafar and Scar as queer is ruining the nostalgia and golden shimmer of the Disney classics. Those days the concept of queer never existed and to officially state these characters are queer is a disrespect to traditions and values. Let me repeat, what do these people use as justification: YouTube, blogspot, Disney, pride.com! violating WP:NPOV 7falcon23 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of this explains why the article should be deleted — deletion is not cleanup. I recommend just removing the "Impact" section per above. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment surely identifying characters as queer would *burnish* their “golden shimmer” rather than ruining it, no? Anyone who thinks that queer is a more recent concept than Ursula the Sea Witch can see me for a reading list. Mccapra (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom has a history of railing against things they perceive as part of the "gay agenda", and not only does a google search for queer coding in disney movies return tons of usable sources, it's a suggested completion for queer coding, demonstrating how often the term is searched for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep incoherent AFD, valid article. Artw (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject meets WP:GNG per significant independent coverage in a basic WP:BEFORE search (e.g. [19] [20] [21] [22]). This article needs to be improved and better sources need to be added, but AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. An article on a notable topic should not be deleted just because the article is poorly written. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snowball close as soon as prudence allows. No valid deletion reason given, and most of the potential valid reasons have already been counter-argued. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snowball close. Nom seems to have their own agenda and needs to consider how their values differ from Wikipedia's. MarnetteD|Talk 21:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. While the topic may be notable, the sources currently in the article aren't what we'd consider reliable or independent. This article needs a lot of work on sourcing. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - While I want to give this topic “benefit of the doubt” (it certainly deserves to be notable) it needs independent reliable sourcing to properly establish that notability. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since some editors seem not to have noticed my !vote above and are insisting that we don't have sourcing:

Note that this is the result of less than 10 minutes of google searching, and there are some scholarly results in there, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poor unfortunate nomination. So WP:DISRUPTIVE, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is just a user having a hissy fit towards the fact that his childhood, "traditions and values" is being somehow pissed on. We don't determine deletion based on a person's feelings; we determine it based on the coverage of the topic. Look at how freaking easy it was to find reliable sources about this topic. You'd have to try hard not to find any of them. Two results of the first page of a Google Scholar search are pieces MAINLY about queer coding. Hell, you don't even need to go to Google Scholar. It only took me reading the first page of a Google search where I just typed in the phrase where I got four features mainly about queer coding. [23] [24] [25] [26] three of which aren't even LGBTQ-themed publications. Just close this bullshit. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. The nominator, in !voting Delete on the article Madonna as a gay icon, used the same nonsensical moral outrage that had nothing to do with the topic's notability or coverage. This is indicative that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I mean, look at this crazy stuff:

I have never seen such blasphemy in my life. Painting a person like Judy Garland as a homosexual is blasphemy and a defamation against the woman who was married to a man! This is utter cursing, and I know how I feel when someone says I am LGBT. These articles foment division and hatred towards the heterosexual people and is a sign that these criminals are desperate to see at least 10% of the world population converted to LGBT before their mortal lifespan is finished. If this continues the fiefdom of LGBT will dominate and completely make Wikipedia's suffix meaningless.
Just take a look what they have done to American animation. Armed with their liberal news media they have completely hijacked films such as Luca and Mitchells vs. Machines. No longer does it mean to say that if you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend, it means that you are gay because you are the same gender! What utter nonsense. Thousands of prominent authors stated they have boyfriends and girlfriends. Can we rule them as homosexuals? No, only if ultra liberal news media like NBC come to their defense and spin tales of how the rainbow is LGBT...if you see a rainbow outside...or wait if you wear a rainbow pin...Oh that must be LGBT! This is the frenzy of avarice they have against the human kind who continue to live the life nature intended.

The user is clearly trying to input they're own point of view onto the encylopedia, and ironically is themselves violating WP:NPOV 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nomination seems to be based heavily on the nominator’s ignorant LGBTQ-phobic opinions barely hidden behind flimsy claims of “NPOV”/“inadequate sourcing”. Dronebogus (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notion that queerness did not exist "in those days" is misguided and ill-informed at best. The appeal to "traditions and values" suggests we are not dealing with a best case scenario. Richard Nevell (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Where are my supporters? I thought I had some traditional supporters by my side? This is unbelievable. I am like the only person in Wikipedia who tries to delete NPOV articles related to LGBT. The citations used were - 1)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxokB7sfopc 2)https://andreasdeja.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-evolution-of-jafar.html 3)https://ohmy.disney.com/movies/2015/10/13/8-things-you-didnt-know-about-aladdin/ 4)https://controlforever.com/read/queercoding-and-horror-films/ . Do you not see those citations are not valid in Wikipedia?

Note user User:MjolnirPants noted this citation: https://www.insider.com/luca-lgbt-gay-queer-coded-2021-6 is good to be used in queer coding. If you look at Luca (2021 film), the director explicitly denied the main character isn't LGBT, then how can that citation that says Luca is LGBT and queer coded be valid? All these citations are following WP:SYNTH which is using a variety of sources to imply a suggestion that characters are queer-coded when they are not! Whatever you do do not ruin Classical Golden Age Disney. There is zero evidence that the characters Jafar and Scar are LGBT and to the extent therefore they are queer-coded. 7falcon23 (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT do duplicate votes when you've already nominated the article for deletion. That is an abuse of the deletion process. There is no WP:SYNTH going on here; all of the sources provided state the concept is real and that those characters, while maybe not really LGBT, are queer-coded, and no one, as well as not the article, is stating the characters are actually LBGT, just that they have traits and characteristics that "codes" them as LGBT. Just using multiple sources is not automatically synthesis. You're not even understanding the concept of queer coding properly. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Paulsen[edit]

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

Paulsen has not played in a professional league, or represented his nation at either Olympics or Senior level. He's not an Olympic athlete if he does not compete at the Olympics. No guarantees he will be first choice goalkeeper for New Zealand. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Wellington Phoenix FC Reserves#Reserves squad. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator has not complied with WP:BEFORE, there is coverage out there. At most drafify. Giant Snowman 17:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely is not coverage enough for this player. If there is, by all means provide some links which display Paulsen's notability. I have not found one article that is specifically about this player. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for sources but could only find brief mentions at best so as far as I can see he fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Note that the Wikipedia community consensus, seen in WP:ATHLETE, is pretty clear that passing any of the sports-specific notability guidelines is not an automatic notability pass, all subjects must pass WP:GNG regardless of whether they pass WP:OLYMPICS or WP:NFOOTBALL. So even if he appears in the Olympics, his article should still be deleted if no significant coverage on him is found. If someone manages to find enough coverage for him to pass GNG, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall note that you are questioning WP:OLY with your statement and suggest this is the wrong place to have this discussion. If that’s your view, feel free to start an RfC for that. Schwede 66 08:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: I am not questioning WP:OLY, I am mearly stating what the guideline actually says. WP:OLY is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (also references as WP:ATHLETE or WP:NSPORT). The FAQ at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) makes it very clear that 1. it does not supersede GNG and 2. Passing a sports-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:OLY, is not an automatic notability pass and all subjects must pass GNG.
Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A2: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.)
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
Editors cannot form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Alvaldi (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article was taken to AfD a mere 10 hours after it was created. That's too quick. Moreover, Paulsen is slated to appear in the Olympics, which begin in just a few days. There's no reason to have this discussion yet. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lepricavark: Sorry, what? How is a nomination for deletion "too quick"? The creation of the article was "too quick"! New Zealand have full international Michael Woud in the squad, it is most likely that he will be their first choice. This statement is very WP:CRYSTALBALL. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. It's just as 'crystal-ballish' for you to assume that Paulsen will not appear in the Olympics. There is genuinely no reason why this AfD couldn't have waited until after the Olympics. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or, even better, the article shouldn't have been created in the first place. I've seen numerous AfDs for players who could go on to play in an international game, or in a pro league, and some of these players even have appearances in professional leagues. If they fail GNG, then the pages are deleted. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - We're clearly at loggerheads. I've said my piece and I'm happy to leave it to the discretion of the closing admin. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per LEPRICAVARK. Nexus000 (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even by the delete !voters' interpretation of NSPORT, namely that it is to stop articles from being quickly deleted rather than to keep them forever, it was still inappropriate to nominate this 10 hours after creation. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how it is possible to interpret it any other way as the FAQ on NSPORT is very clear on this and even sources the community consensus behind it. If the deletion nominator did a WP:BEFORE and found no sources then the nomination is not inappropriate. Below are the core matters of this case.

1. All athletes must have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, regardless of whether the pass sports-specific notability guidelines such as WP:NOLYMPICS (which he does not pass), per Wikipedia community consensus as stated and sourced in the FAQ at the top of WP:NSPORT. Any WP:LOCALCONCENSUS by a limited group of editors cannot decide that this does not apply to articles within its scope.

2. The subject has not been shown to have any kind of significant coverage which he needs to pass GNG, neither in the article nor in this AfD.

3. Claims that he might gain coverage by participating in the Olympics goes against Wikipedia not being a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

4. Of the keep !votes, they 1. state that there is coverage out there but do not produce any to back that up 2. state the fallacious believe that the subject will gain some kind of automatic notability if he appears in the Olympics, which as shown above, is not in accordance of Wikipedia policies or guidelines. 3. State that the nomination was inappropriate due to it comming 10 hours after creation, which does not go against any of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and does not explain why now three days later noone has been able to produce any evidence that suggest the subject passes GNG.

Alvaldi (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is 19 years actively playing and part of the Olympic team see little point deleting it now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Tié[edit]

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

Tié has not played in a professional league, or represented his nation at either Olympics or Senior level. He's not an Olympic athlete if he does not compete at the Olympics. No guarantees he will be first choice goalkeeper for the Ivory Coast. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Vitória S.C.. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator has clearly not complied with WP:BEFORE given there is coverage out there, some of which I have added to the article. At most draftify, but I think there's enough to justify keeping. Giant Snowman 17:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to be so condescending? Seriously, is there something wrong with you? There is not enough specific coverage about Tié for him to meet WP:GNG. If this is significant enough, then any player to be in the squad of a professional team is significant enough for an article. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG, even though he fails NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems very close to passing GNG, and at any rate should not be deleted until after the Olympics at the soonest. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and further the Olympics starts July 23rd that is Just 6 days from now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GNG and going to the Olympics.--Chuka Chief_talk 14:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Draft:Zhanna Son. Daniel (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanna Son[edit]

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

No indication that the subject meets WP:BASIC or WP:NPROF. A BEFORE does not bring up additional independent coverage in reliable sources. I may have missed sources in Russian, but WP:ONUS applies. JBchrch talk 16:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 16:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 16:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 16:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what is the best way for me to prove her notability in this case? I would like to get advice, and not a direct link to the rules. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Kubanskiy: The best "practical" advice I can give is to find quality secondary sources about Son's work, that would discuss her work and scholarship. This is where the article is mostly lacking. It could be, for instance, articles from quality news outlets or scholarly books and articles. JBchrch talk 17:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as draft - until the article can be further improved. She has recently participated in conferences in Italy and Denmark and has collaborated with at least one American author. I have been able to find a large number of primary sources of information about her but have not yet found any substantive secondary sources (although there might be several in Russian). Maybe her work could be referred to in the article on Koryo-saram as she appears to be a specialist on Koreans who have emigrated to Russia.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is not close to passing GNG. As for NPROF, the citation record indicates a single digit h-index which is insufficient for NPROF#1. She is an associate professor (docent), and does not meet any of the other NPROF criteria. This is not a close call and there is no expectation of her meeting notability guidelines in the near future, so this should not be sent to draft.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom, no indication of pass WP:NPROF or WP:GNG - unless further sources are brought forward that are currently not in the article. --hroest 14:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'"Keep" Give more time for the editor to improve the article and attract Russian-speaking editors. SkylightXO (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio with Pictures system for use with DVB[edit]

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

I don't think this passes WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything much in the way of reference, and I think this amounts to a rather peculiar fork of DVB. PepperBeast (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ESSAY and WP:FORK. It's not wrong, it's just not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Mukarji[edit]

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

BLP of a young climate activist who I think really falls under WP:BLP1E and doesn’t have the kind of sustained coverage we’re looking for. Mccapra (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained at the nomination. Nothing more to say. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

V. Raghavan[edit]

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

Set out to remove the shameless promotional language on this page but having looked for sources to back this wall of text up, I'm not finding enough to demonstrate notability Dexxtrall (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the award of the Padma Bhushan which would alone make him notable. The article was in a decent state until 13 July when a family member made good faith but disastrous edits, filling the article with eulogistic material. Revert to an earlier version. Mccapra (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense, I've reverted the edit that added all the promotional stuff Dexxtrall (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO as a Padma Bhushan awardee. Promotional stuff can be cleaned up. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFDs debate notability. person is notable. Problematically written for sure. Can also be draftified, cleaned and then moved to main space. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Science and Research University[edit]

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

The only evidence for the existence of this organisation is its website. It therefore fails WP:NORG AND WP:GNG. It is not listed by the Ministry of Education and Research (Estonia) at https://www.hm.ee/en/activities/higher-education. I found the article through Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles. TSventon (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. TSventon (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. TSventon (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could be the pretty general name, but I wasn't able to find references about it. Let alone any that would make it pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obviously this debate became a bit of a mess with all the sock votes. This came down to a difference of interpretation of MUSICBIO, and I believe a consensus exists that the article doesn't meet MUSICBIO. If anyone wants it draftified, happy to do so, although would recommend it go via AfC on its eventual way back to articlespace. Daniel (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason van Wyk[edit]

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

Non notable musician who doesn’t meet WP:GNG and fails WP:MUSICBIO. -Xclusivzik (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article's main editor, who has done little in WP beyond the articles for this musician and his albums, has removed the AfD notice twice (so far). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The musician also had four album articles, all created by the same user and dependent on announcements from the personal websites of the musician and/or record companies (one got a couple of brief blog-style reviews). I have redirected the albums to the musician's article so they do not fall through the cracks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created by a probable single-purpose account, and note that the article refers to the musician by his first name. That is done by oneself or a passionate fan who is likely to exaggerate. Despite the many sources in the article, those that are not about other people are from the musician's own website and social media, plus some record company and directory listings. He does have some blog reviews (e.g. [27]) but he has not been noticed by the independent music media. Does not meet the requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:SIGCOV. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

DOOMSDAYER520 -- Created by a probable single-purpose account. The article's main editor, who has done little in WP beyond the articles for this musician and his albums

Not an SPA. Just a fan that has been following this musician’s career for many years. I will make a concerted effort to contribute to more articles outside of this topic.Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DOOMSDAYER520 -- has removed the AfD notice twice (so far)

Apologies regarding this. Won't happen again in future articles. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DOOMSDAYER520 -- or a passionate fan who is likely to exaggerate.

No exaggeration. Everything I’ve contributed has been taken from reliable sources. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DOOMSDAYER520 -- Despite the many sources in the article, those that are not about other people are from the musician's own website and social media, plus some record company and directory listings.

I have removed some of the sources that link to his website and replaced them with independent sources. There are links to other works, such as the films he’s worked on which are technically about other people, but he acted as a composer on those films, so those are still valid. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DOOMSDAYER520 -- and note that the article refers to the musician by his first name.

Didn’t realize this was an issue on here. If so, I’ll be happy to change it to his last name. The reason I used his first name is that it works better than "van Wyk" when used at the start of a sentence. "van Wyk" is correctly spelt with a lower case "v", but when doing so at the start of a sentence, it doesn't look correct to me. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DOOMSDAYER520 -- The musician also had four album articles, all created by the same user and dependent on announcements from the personal websites of the musicians and/or record companies (one got a couple of brief blog-style reviews). I have redirected the albums to the musician's article so they do not fall through the cracks.

These releases have been covered by notable blogs and news outlets. I’ve updated the page today with more sources showing this. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG - Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

WP:MUSICBIO - Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

I've used at least three main-coverage, independent interviews with him as sources on this page as well as on his album pages. Reviews of his albums from creditable publications have been included as sources as well. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - It's nice to see my name repeated so many times, but we can let the community evaluate each side of the argument. However I think you need to become more familiar with Wikipedia's definition of "reliable source" at WP:RS. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing fails to meet the bar of WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:NBIO, or WP:GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Artist passes WP:MUSICBIO.

WP:MUSICBIO - Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

:Artist is signed to Black Hole Recordings - One of the most established and influential record labels in the Electronic Dance Music scene that has been around since the mid 90's. Artist has had seven releases with them. The label was co-founded by Tiesto and has many notable artists on it's roster including Paul Oakenfold and BT.

~~Artist passes again with two albums on independent label Home Normal, which includes artist's on their roster such as David Toop and Bvdub. Socrates 2 (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Just note that the first sentence of WP:NMUSICBIO says that meeting any of the listed criteria may make the musician notable (not must or definitely). So being on those labels helps Mr. van Wyk a bit but he still needs help from the other criteria, especially reliable media coverage, which as we've already seen is in short supply. Meanwhile, those labels may well be long-established but whether or not they're "major" depends on how you read their own promotional materials. See also Record label#Major labels and the following section on independent labels. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::*Comment - Home Normal I'd classify as independent. Black Hole is independent too, but definitely one of the biggest ("major") within the Trance music and EDM music scene. WP:NMUSICBIO also states "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." - I've posted three separate, independent, full coverage interviews with van Wyk as sources. Also, van Wyk is a film composer and composed the score for the film Triggered released by Samuel Goldwyn Films - A notable film studio and distributor which is part of The Samuel Goldwyn Company. Socrates 2 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates 2, please note that you are only allowed to !vote once, so one of your two "keep" votes should be struck out. Richard3120 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::::*Richard3120 My mistake. I've renamed the one "Keep" to "Comment". Socrates 2 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. Per DOOMSDAYER. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WynLib. Wynlib40 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Provide time to upgrade the record if needed. "Notability" is very seriously biased in favour of certain environments even if structured as per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO[reply]

Keep - Artist is notable and sources are correct. --Scottlogan189 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing whether the sources are correct or not, it's whether they pass WP:RS and demonstrate notability. And you may be a genuine editor, but it doesn't look good that this is your first Wikipedia edit in more than five years, and most of your edits are about this subject. Richard3120 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Igloo magazine in a respectable e-zine with an editorial board. I would consider that an independent source that is significant coverage. Likewise, the Vancouver Weekly source is significant, but because it is an interview it lacks enough independence to count towards RS. The Ebert film review, the Criterion Collection source, and the David LaChapelle sources don't even mention van Wyk so I don't think that counts towards RS. It's not clear the Fluid Radio is anything more than a glorified blog. Headphone Commute claims independence but insists on anonymity, so there's really no way of knowing if they are truly independent because it lacks transparency. As such I would consider it an unreliable source. Everything else is directly connected to van Wyk (ie his record label) or is trivial, There are no All Music reviews, just a bare bones profile which is trivial. All together, there just isn't enough independent coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:MUSICBIO, and there are no awards or charts or any other criteria which the artist meets.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::4meter4 The Criterion source has his name listed in the credits of the video at the end, the Taschen source has been updated to a film where his name is included in the credits on the YouTube page. I've also included an album review from Chain D.L.K. which I consider another respectable review source. Socrates 2 (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well then, those examples only qualify as passing mentions which, although I think editors in general use that phrase way too loosely on Afd discussions, add nothing to the notability of a topic. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The person seems notable per MUSICBIO#10 as he has been comosers of notable films and have albums published under notable record labels. But the article content suffers from NPV concerns and is promotional, it defintely requires cleanup. Chirota (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chiro725 That’s a bit of a stretch per wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. Just because the label is notable, doesn’t mean all of its albums are notable. None of this artist’s albums would pass the notability criteria at WP:NALBUM. The film is notable, but none of the reviewers commented on van Wyk and his music so that seems a bit of a stretch as well.4meter4 (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, Wikipedia has a definite set of guidelines based on which we decide if a musician is notable. If you read MUSICBIO#5, it says Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels, which the subject satisies. Also, MUSICBIO#10 says Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc., which again makes the subject notable. If you read WP:MUSICBIO carefully, you will understand my rationale has nothing to do with WP:NOTINHERITED and that the subject passes notability for musicians per MUSICBIO. Also, as you remarked "The film is notable, but none of the reviewers commented on van Wyk", but we don't need his music to be reviewed per under MUISICBIO#10. Chirota (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't consider Blackhole Records a "major record label" but a minor one. Major labels would be Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music, BMG, Universal Music Group, PolyGram, DECCA, etc. These labels have international reach and large amounts of sales. And history. Blackhole records is a small and young operation in comparison within a niche market, and as such it's artist don't qualify under MUSICBIO#5. As for the film, MUSICBIO#10 suggests we should redirect the artist to the page on the movie itself.4meter4 (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::::::Black Hole Recordings definitely falls within the "more important indie labels" category that WP:MUSICBIO states. It's been going since the mid 90s and has been extremely influential on the global dance music scene. Socrates 2 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by both Doomsdayer520 and Xclusivzik. Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. It's no wonder this discussion has been long-going; there is so much contention on interpretations of WP:MUSICBIO, how the notability of the projects the subject has worked on adds to the notability of the subject itself, and the reliability and potential promotional-ness of the sources he's received. Ultimately, I'm basing my judgement on 4meter4's rationale plus the evidence of PR connections ruining the independence of even the most notable music publications, such as The Source and HipHopDX. I'm only voting Weak Keep for the fact that he has had his music published by an influential label, and the one film he composed was reviewed by reliable sources, even if his contributions weren't discussed in the reviews. Even then, I should take WP:INHERIT into consideration. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having credits on notable works doesn't automatically confer notability. I don't see any depth-of-coverage to support WP:BIO, nor anything to support WP:MUSICBIO notability (#10 in itself doesn't quite cut it). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment WP:MUSICBIO #10 is not this page's only claim though. #5 - Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels - Artist passes this. Socrates 2 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC) *Keep — Per rationale by both Chiro725 and Socrates 2. Artist passes WP:MUSICBIO. Point 1 states: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. I see at least 10 sources that point to this musician's work from independent music sites. Igloo Magazine I hadn't heard of, but it does have an independent editorial board, so this would count. A Closer Listen is very well known in the experimental music scene and has been around for many years. That too has an independent editorial board, so I feel it counts. His interview with Vancouver Weekly counts. While Headphone Commute is a popular site, there isn't any mention of who actually writes and contributes to that site. Regardless though, we have many sources here, so I can accept it as part of a broader range of sources for this article. Point 5 states: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). This musician meets this criteria in two cases. One on Black Hole Recordings, another with Home Normal. Two important indie labels, both of which he's had more than one release with. Both labels have a long history and have many independently notable artists on their lineups. Point 10 states: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. He has composed the score for a notable feature film. If this was the page's only claim and this was the artist's only known work, I'd agree to redirect it to the film's page, but it isn't. Musician still passes point 1 and point 5 regardless. Subject passes notability for musicians per MUSICBIO. --Kevin19781 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck a number of sockpuppet votes on the Keep side.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those wondering, all of the various "people" crossed out have been ruled sockpuppets of the same person. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYWC-FM[edit]

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

Another station which does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Government and third-party sources show that it is, indeed, on the air and sources back it up. GNG satisfied, NMEDIA is happy too. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sorry, that's not what GNG means. As you well know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence does not satisfy GNG, and NMEDIA is currently being rejected 2-to-1 in an RFC.[28] Alsee (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Alsee: That's the rewrite of NMEDIA, not the actual thing itself. Onel5969: Telling people how to !vote and acting like you are an expert on GNG isn't cogent thinking...sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the two non-listing sources is a dead link, and the other is not significant coverage. (I'd suggest a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Dumaguete as an ATD if it were mentioned there that the diocese has a radio division.) A couple of sidebars, one to SBKSPP and the other to Onel5969. First, to SBKSPP, I hope these AfDs and the comments at the RfC are sending a message that the quality of these Philippines radio station pages needs to improve and higher-quality sources are required. Secondly, I can't say I'm particularly enthused with the fact that Onel5969 continues to nominate pages for deletion at a time when there is a large notability discussion taking place (though I generally agree this fails the GNG at this time). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sammi Brie, most of these pages were redirects, and have been recreated and are now appearing in the NPP queue backlog (this particular one wasn't). As they come up during my NPP is when I take action. If they were left as redirects, this wouldn't be an issue, but several editors insist on recreating them. I'd be more than happy to simply turn them back into redirects. But turning them into redirects at this time is simply a waste of time, meanwhile they add to the NPP backlog. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this station does not pass WP:GNG, all of the coverage has some sort of problem with it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there's no significant coverage sufficient to meet the GNG, and no plausible redirect target is apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2 and 3 indicate part of the station's programming. Source 4 indicates the station's broadcast coverage. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:GNG per Astig's and Neutralhomer's arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - again, simply stating something pass GNG, when it so evidently does not, is not a way to bolster your argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already commented. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neutralhomer, ~~hi stalker~~. You do realize you can comment as many times as you want? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - A personal attack, how sweet. No, I !voted on it, so I watchlisted it. I follow the article alerts page. What I don't do is telling each and every person about your opinion on GNG as you did above. That's not a comment, that's an opinion. Curtail the personal attacks and present a more cogent argument other than "simply stating something pass GNG...is not a way to bolster your argument". You aren't in charge of the AfD. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neutralhomer, My apologies. Will strike my comment above, was confusing you with a different editor. While you and I have disagreements, that's what they are disagreements. Again, my apologies. I will completely redact it if you would like. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Mistakes happen, disagreements definitely happen when we are different sides of this very tense debate. I appreciate the apology. Apology accepted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are sparse and not significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched and searched. I was unable to find sources to support Notability. WP:N: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. Alsee (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It was said that DYWC FM is affiliated with CMN. Any flaws may lead to deletion. ACQ322Acuity (answer me) 11:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All coverage is trivial. Mlb96 (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neutralhomer's comments and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES NemesisAT (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All coverage blatantly fails WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is very little coverage for this minor station. What little that has been found is far too sparse to count as significant coverage, thus failing the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dr. Universe (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Waste Association of North America[edit]

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

~~References do not show WP:SIGCOV and do not meet WP:GNG. RaziNaama (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)~~Strike sock, blocked for sockpuppetry. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My WP:BEFORE finds copious references to this organization in RS, however, they are all passing mentions in WP:CHURNALISM referencing reports and studies the association has released. Though there are many sources, they don't rise to the level of WP:NCORP. Chetsford (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~should this be kept, closing admin should check for copyvio. Portions appear to be lifted directly from here including the capitalization of 47 Chapters. Star Mississippi 14:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)~~ this has been handled, thanks onel5969. Star Mississippi 13:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the addition of sources by Eastmain. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not sold on the article and where the consensus of this debate sits, plus some eyes on potential copyvio would also be nice.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the copyvio issue has been dealt with. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles seems updated now. Copyvio issues are fixed and additional refs seems enough to make this page stick. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Vilar (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This may be appropriate for placement under "speedy deletion" per WP:ONEOTHER, with the unnecessary WP:PRIMARYTOPIC being the seven-sentence stub for the 1940s–1950s "Argentinian sailor gold medallist in the Pan American Games and the Snipe World Championships" Carlos Vilar Castex whose WP:COMMONNAME is Carlos Vilar. The other (longer) entry is for a better-known Peruvian performer Carlos Alcántara Vilar whose common name is Carlos Alcántara. In the unlikely event that anyone might search for the Peruvian actor under the name "Carlos Vilar", a hatnote atop the sportsman's entry would resolve any confusion. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sure I had some rationale for creating this page, but cannot recall what it was. I have no objection to it being deleted. Hamamelis (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ilooked to see if there were any other valid entry, meeting MOS:DABMENTION, MOS:DABRL or with an article, that just hadn't been added to the dab as yet. I added three entries: user:Hamaelis and user:Roman Spinner, does that change your vote at all? Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boleyn, with only a single stub as the sole Wikipedia entry that bears the main title header "Carlos Vilar", the Carlos Vilar (disambiguation) page still seems to be in difficulty of justifying its existence and then, further, its use of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Among the four other men listed on the dab page, two (the Spanish general and the Safe House (2012 film) character) are only "See also" since they are named "Carlos Villar", not "Carlos Vilar".

As for the other two men, the Peruvian actor has never been referenced as "Carlos Vilar" (The main title header of his entry in Spanish Wikipedia is Carlos Alcántara (actor), not Carlos Alcántara Vilar) and the architect on the HSBC Bank has no entry in even the Spanish Wikipedia and only a single name mention in one article. Ultimately, it feels like a base too flimsy to support a disambiguation page with a stub for a primary topic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dabs are indexes - they mention very basic mentions of people with that name on WIkipedia, just as any index would. It meets all guidelnies. Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A disambiguation page is not required here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which guidlnies does it go against, yser:Shhhnotsoloud? Each of the several entries meets MOS:DABENTRY. Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should be solved with hatnotes, not including the seemingly non-notable people that were added, and in addition Carlos Alcantara Vilar should be moved to Carlos Alcantara per the Spanish Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus reached after two re-listings and more than 8 days after the second relisting. WP:RELIST strongly recommends not to relist more than two times. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Abdur Rab[edit]

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

Only one source, titled IUB hosts 8th Bangladesh Physics Olympiad 2018, and nothing else. A quick google search found nothing. The article is unverifiable and reads like a resume. It is oddly promotional and would fit nicely into LinkedIn Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ changed to delete per WP:NPROF#6, he is the vice chancellor of International University of Business Agriculture and Technology (over 10k students) and thus the highest level administrative post at a major university. Seems like a pretty clear cut case and a lack of WP:BEFORE. --hroest 19:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my !vote due to the fact that the institution appears much less important than initially claimed (I got the 10k from its Wikipedia article which seems to have been wrong). --hroest 14:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, per NPROF C6. JoelleJay (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per discussion on what constitutes a "major academic institution". JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Further, I'm not convinced that the International University of Business Agriculture and Technology is a "major academic institution". Student population is not what makes a school major. Publications, standing and accomplishments as a research institution internationally, etc. is what matters. From the article itself there is nothing there that seems all that impressive about the school. Therefore, fails WP:NPROF#6.4meter4 (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROF #6 uses the phrase "major academic institution" because the community hasn't been able to agree on a brighter line. The number of students (which according to IUBAT's about page is 6500, not "over 10k") does not demarcate "major". Nor is "major" suggested by their annual research budget of $235,000 or the fact that the highest degree they confer is an MBA. Eastern University, where Rab was VC earlier, doesn't exhibit characteristics of a major academic institution either. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no sign that this is a major academic institution, so significant coverage would be required. Reywas92^Talk 19:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Murray (author)[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to satisfy basic notability criteria. Searching for his name on google returns several results for different people with the same name, but nothing about the author, and searching for the book series returns almost nothing (2 results for Icky Doo Dah and 4 for Mokee Joe, the latter focusing on the subject's father, Peter J. Murray). Isabelle ^🔔 14:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 14:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 14:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've spent the past four years in lower schools (K-8), as a teacher and librarian, and never heard of this guy nor his books. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article is heavy on stats and results, and light on description. However, a look through the source material in the page did show the AutoSport articles give some coverage to the 2021 event. As such, there is sufficient merit to the "keep" side arguing that WP:GNG is passed, even if this is a fairly minor and junior level event. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Ginetta Junior Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable motorsports competition. This article was already draftified once by User:Onel5969, but then created again in article space by the originator (rather than discussing with the reviewer). The article does not speak for itself in establishing notability, and the references do not speak for it either, because one is paywalled and the other is the subject's own web site:

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant
1	Forix.autosport.com	A login screen for a paywall	Don’t know	Probably not
2	Ginetta	Own web site	No	Not applicable

Does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being behind a paywall is not a valid reason to discount a source per WP:PAYWALL. I also wonder why one would think that Forix is "probably not" independent when they are a highly regarded results database, and I am unaware of any reason to think they are in any way involved with this championship. That said, the coverage there is most likely NOT going to establish notability since it would be just results (I don't currently have a subscription). A7V2 (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Forix is an indepent source, but it is also just a stats database, and therefore not sufficent to prove notability. Performing a quick google search, the only source which is both indepedent and not an indiscrimante database is this article:[29], which is not sufficent to satisfy WP:SIGCOV.
SSSB (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Robert McClenon and A7V2: I think that the table may not have come out the way it was intended. I've WP:BOLDly changed it: Special:Diff/1030008496.
SSSB (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: Ah well that makes a bit more sense! I have struck some of my above comment. A7V2 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is teetering on the fence regarding notability, but what sources there are, combined with the live television coverage, are enough to lead me to believe that this article's subject just about meets the WP:GNG. I've added a source which provides relatively significant coverage of the subject, and performing a WP:BEFORE search suggests there are a few others. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently meets GNG with the new sources added and generally newer sources will be posted as the season develops as we have seen with both the 2020 Ginetta Junior Championship and the 2019 Ginetta Junior Championship. FozzieHey (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very minor event, so having an article for each edition of it is not notable. None of the competitors even have their own page on here. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an excellent article and well done and well polished. There's plenty of references in the article, and it's of broad enough interest to enough general users. Arguments have been made both for and against WP:GNG and I'm of the opinion that if it does somehow lean against passing WP:GNG even though some people agree with that and some people don't, then WP:NORULES should apply because this article is a useful contribution to the WP project. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how you reached that conclusion. The article is essentially just a list of results which could be seen to violate WP:STATISTICS. The only substance is one paragraph of context. I'm not arguing for or against deletion but I don't see how you can describe one introductory paragraph as a well-done article or 3 independent references as plenty.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Since the debate is roughly evenly divided among "keep" and "delete" this warrants some explanation. Initially, the article was nominated based on verifiability concerns (confirmation that the sources were about the same person), but after the basic facts are in place, the question is really one of notability. The sole plausible claim to notability in the article is the position of Dean of Connor, all the other content, being a priest, the place and time of birth and death, and place of education, is registry-type information that may well belong in a biography, but that confers no notability.

The "keep" side has argued that the Dean of Connor is a sufficiently notable position that anyone who has held it is notable ("the position conveys sufficient notability"), and the fact that the article is a stub is not a reason for deletion.

However, notability, as defined in Wikipedia, has generally been about the presence and availability of source material that gives significant coverage to the subject. While very short articles ("stubs") are acceptable, it should, at least in principle, be possible to develop the article. Very few categories of articles are considered inherently notable. In this case, the source material is extremely limited, there is barely enough to establish the positions that Cuppage held and nothing about what he did while serving in those positions. As Charles Matthews mentioned, it is unclear at best if the dean position at that time was a real position of clerical authority, or a sinecure.

With the very limited sourcing, I cannot see that WP:N is met by any reasonable standard. Although WP:N is a guideline that can be interpreted or even overruled by consensus when there is good cause, I cannot see that any argument for doing so has been made here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Cuppage[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability could be found. The first sources lists very briefly a George Cuppage who was 16 in 1715, so unclear whether this is the same person. I couldn't find Cuppage in the second source, and in the third source he gets one line. Searching online produced nothing else at all. Searching even further gave some very brief entries for a George Cuppaidge, which seems to be the same person, but even then there isn't enough to meet our notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, these previous discussions on deletion of Wikipedia articles might help

Bashereyre (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, no, these don't help. You post these every time someone nominates a dean article you created, as if a series of AfDs which ended some in delete, some in keep, some in merge or redirect, mean anything special. There is no general rule that all deans anywhere, anytime, are notable (or not of course). Some of them obviously are, and some may have been nominated in error. Others, like this one, don't seem to have the necessary notability. No list of other AfDs for other persons will change this one way or another. Fram (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course you could have written this. "Hi Basher. Thank's for posting these and indeed thanks for all your hard work on the project over the last 14 years. Like all of us you sometimes need guidance. Yours collaboratively Fram" I've had another read through this Wikipedia:Civility, cannot see I have done anything to deserve your scorn. I've never ever been in trouble with anyone on the site. Have you?
Delete per nom. The linked sources barely (if at all in some cases) confirm that the subject existed. A WP:BEFORE search returns nothing additional. Just being a member of clergy (even a relatively senior member of a diocese or deanary) doesn't automatically confer notability. And there is nothing at all to indicate that this subject did anything at all (other than being appointed to the role of "dean") to suggest that WP:ANYBIO is met. Or, frankly, any other notability criteria for that matter. Guliolopez (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing encyclopaedic in the stub. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: George Cuppaidge is indeed the same person: [30] and similar reference book entries are enough to make the identification. There clearly is a story here about Cuppage serving as private chaplain to Admiral Edward Vernon, in the naval expedition to Portobello during the War of Jenkins' Ear of 1739. Cuppage was evidently rewarded with preferment. The details in the reference are not obviously correct, though. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thank Charles as always for being able to find facts I did not reach.
Keep per Charles Matthews--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suspect there may be a problem with the different uses of the word "dean" in different denominations of Christianity. I found it useful to look at Dean (Christianity) to get some clarity on this. Deans in the Catholic Church, for example, don't seem to have much notability. However, I think deans in the Anglican Church (and thus in the Church of Ireland) do seem to be notable as the chief resident cleric of a cathedral and head of that cathedral's college of canons; I suspect that these deans are notable "ex officio", rather as some otherwise uninteresting bishops are. I think we draw the line like this: the chief resident cleric of a cathedral or equivalent large religious institution is automatically notable, as is the chief potentially non-resident cleric (such as a bishop). In general, people who have got to these roles have had some kind of impact, even if history has subsequently forgotten much of it. However, I think we don't extend notability any futher down: in particular, I think it's pretty clear that canons are non-notable simply for being canons, and rural deans are similarly non-notable. For what it's worth, I think the same general principle can be applied moderately clearly to other religions. RomanSpa (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is bad enough that we claim all Anglican/Episcopalian bishops are notable, when some preside over very small organizations. We should not give such notability to other offices. We should not keep an article which has one source which provides a very short references, one source that says nothing of substance and one source that says nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm very sympathetic with your concerns, and in general I don't like adding minor personages to Wikipedia. However, I want to make it clear that my point is not specific to Anglicanism/Episcopalianism. Rather, what I'm seeking to say is this: major religious institutions of all religions - all denominations of Christianity, but also other religions including but not limited to Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, etc. - are headed and administered by people who are notable because of their contributions to those religions and institutions, even if we do not, because of our natural biases of time and place and culture, know exactly wherein this notability rests. In any case, Charles Matthews has provided enough additional pointers to justify the article's retention at this time. RomanSpa (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I agree with @RomanSpa: that cathedral deans do have reasonable standing; in the case of the Church of Ireland during the Protestant Ascendency it is a little harder to understand if the position was more than a sinecure. I think the position of the article is in the "neither helps nor hinders" class of marginal notability, absent sources that are better than Burke, which is perhaps based on family traditions. Such topics tend to generate lengthy debates without being conclusive. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Charles Matthews. I do agree that bishops/chief rabbis of major denominations are (almost) always notable, although not deans. In this case, as per my usual practice at AfD, if you can find three good sources and add them, them I would change my mind. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We normally have had bio-articles for Anglican higher clerics, including dens and archdeacons. In this particular case we have little detail of his career, but that implies tagging it for improvement, not deleting it. note we have a a well-populated category for Category:Deans of Connor. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That we have other articles for deans doesn't mean that every dean is notable, and furthermore it seems as if other articles in that category can do with some scrutiny as well; e.g. Frederick Rusk, which isn't some late medieval hard to find person but a recent one, seems to lack the required notability for an article as well[31]. Fram (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as my assessment is that 1) We have enough to V this person existed and held this position, and 2) The position conveys sufficient notability as supported sources including Charles Matthews' findings under an alternative spelling of his last name. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the others above. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it should be deleted. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(perhaps useless) Comment - I nearly closed this as "no consensus" but then thought consensus is still possibly attainable. As an editor I'm highly sympathetic towards historical figures such as this, but I have to ask "what makes this person worthy of encyclopedic attention?" It's been suggested the topic is notable because of the influence he had on church life, but the article says nothing about what this influence might be. Did he produce any publications, or are there any other slight indications he made lasting contributions? If so, I'd swing my vote to "keep" even of the sources aren't incredibly in-depth, so long as WP:V is met. However, as it stands we can verify that the topic existed and that he held the post of Dean of Connor. Perhaps the list of deans at that article could be expanded to include a table that includes all of the scant information contained in the Cuppage article (and likewise for information historically contained in instances such as Frederick Rusk, now a re-direct.). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sananel[edit]

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

Simply not notable. The only source cited here is Goodrick-Clarke, which I have taken a look at - there is no mention of "Sananel", but of "Satanel" on p. 28, who is described as "a former chief of the angelic host who later became the demiurge or creator of the material world and known as Satan", which this article copies almost verbatim. Satanel currently redirects to Satan. The article probably should just be deleted and/or merged into Satan - after all, Satanel later became known as Satan according to Goodrick-Clarke. Roniius^{talk to me} 13:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Roniius^{talk to me} 13:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the one source apparently suggests the title is a typo, and not a likely redirect. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Raman[edit]

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

The sources are about the book that he written. Pramod Raman is failing GNG. source given doesn't have significant coverage Iamfarzan (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virus Creation Laboratory[edit]

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

No third-party sources, notability not proven. Skyerise (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since its prodding and now AFDing the raised issues have been mostly addressed. --DanielPharos (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pburka has added sources so Skyerise should either update their rationale or withdraw the nomination (and heed WP:BEFORE in the future). ~Kvng (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has historical significance. The sources are good enough. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fara Montgomery[edit]

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

BLP of a singer that does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice to a renomination in the future. Daniel (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SiLA Airlines Flight 42[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Everytime a plane falls out of the sky is not a notable event. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article indicates anything noteworthy for a stand alone article and in particularly "All 18 people on board survived" means it doesnt really meeet the bar of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not significant enough. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An airliner of a similar size to that which was involved in the loss of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251 (2021) was written off. That all on board the flight survived is not a reason to say that the notability threshold has not been reached. There is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for a reason. Again, as with PetroPavlosk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251, the accident happened in a country were coverage is not going to be wall-to-wall, but what coverage there is means that GNG is passed. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A regularly scheduled airline flight with passengers crashes resulting in the destruction of the aircraft. This is not a routine occurrence like a snowstorm in Chicago, WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. The level of coverage easily meets WP:GNG... More sources are available on the Russian version of this article, but there is also plenty of English-language coverage, like Reuters, Associated Press, Aviation Week, TASS, Yahoo News, and more than I care to list here. More sources are likely to develop, since the event only happened a few days ago. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Above reason. Also some users like delete articles.Yyang Sr. GakupoKaito (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It wasnt just an unplanned landing. The plane crashed into a swamp, during the crash it turned upside down with the chasis facing the sky. The fact that (miraculously) no one had died shouldnt exclude articles about major plane crashes from existing on wikipedia 212.74.201.233 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Antonov An-28 and/or the article about the destination airport (which surprisingly doesn't seem to exist). Per long-standing community consensus pursuant to WP:NOTNEWS, hull-loss accidents without fatalities go in the airport article and/or the aircraft article. There are plenty of examples on Wikipedia, many involving aircraft much larger than this one with more spectacular damage (e.g. American Airlines Flight 102). Carguychris (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Carguychris: - are you sure about that? Read my comment above very carefully. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots:, I read your comment and I disagree with your rationale. Airliner accidents inevitably invite press coverage. Your rationale would justify a Wikipedia article for almost every airliner hull-loss accident, anywhere, under any circumstances. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS, the line must be drawn somewhere. Carguychris (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking, I think that in every case I linked, the aircraft was not written off, yet we have articles. I suppose there'll now be another flurry of AfDs. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several of those articles have already been through AFDs, with similar arguments for deletion proposed. I think Sully's aircraft was written off, but it's in a museum now. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that claiming that there is a long-standing community consensus that hull-loss accidents without fatalities go in the airport article and/or the aircraft article is very inaccurate. I think that a more accurate interpretation of the community consensus lies along the lines of the guidelines outlined in the WP:AIRCRASH essay. In practice, as well, recent AFDs fall along the same lines. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loganair Flight 6780, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Astana Flight 1388, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 328 (now a GA) just for some a handful recent examples of aviation incidents with no fatalities that after a community discussion at AFD, were kept. I also disagree that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, can you specify which of the four points in that guideline you feel this article violates? This is not a routine news event like a traffic accident that shuts down the freeway during rush hour. It is also not very similar to an incident of an airline skidding off the runway during a landing in adverse conditions like AA102, which you mention. This is an airline taking off during regular service, with paying passengers aboard, and crash landing mid-flight because of a dual engine failure, resulting in the destruction of the aircraft. Definitely not routine. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been thousands of non-fatal airline accidents and only a hand-full have articles, if this article is kept then the related project will appreciate help in creating the large number of non-fatal airliner accidents that happened in regular service. All of which would have attracted news coverage at the time. MilborneOne (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cleantech Group[edit]

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

The article's history shows a lot of persistent COI edits (or likely COI). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. After few years of unaddressed "like an ad" tags, plus the others, I think it's time to discuss the future of this. Is this a notable entity? I have serious doubts based on my BEFORE, but maybe someone can find something to salvage this (and make a few PR folks happy, since they were not able to do so, despite years of efforts...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacking any reliable sources that didn't originate from a press release Dexxtrall (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP. -Hatchens (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Meade[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. A couple of routine mentions in business news don't automatically make a person eligible for an encyclopaedia article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sushil Pandey (actor)[edit]

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

Article is created with a DAB to get around the creation protection at Sushil Pandey. References available in the article are brief mentions and interviews. The actor hasn't played any major roles to qualify for WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Umakant Bhalerao Hey Umakant, from where have you checked that "The actor hasn't played any major roles to qualify" ?? I am feeling sad for your weak knowledge. You should try once again. The actor has played major roles in films like Article 15, Maharani, Mr. X, John Day, Jolly LLB and Jolly LLB 2.

49.14.110.152 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist because soft-delete isn't available as an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a close call, but based on WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG I'm going with delete. None of his roles in notable films were starring roles, which is how I'd interpret a "major role," not just a credited speaking role. The sources, while largely reliable, are still either passing mentions (failing SIGCOV) or interviews (which for notability are usually considered WP:PRIMARY and not independent). The fact that the article lacks quality independent sources makes the article seem WP:PROMO, which is why the salted article Sushil Pandey got deleted in the first place. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the fact that he at least is getting reputable, reliable press, even if only for WP:INTERVIEWs or a single sentence per article; plus I disagree with Qwaiiplayer that his roles in Article 15, Mr. X and the Jolly LLB films weren't major roles, because otherwise, the Wikipedia articles on those films wouldn't list them as WP:FILMCAST doesn't allow any minor roles (with exceptions of cameos of notable celebrities) to be listed in cast sections. With that said, the evidence provided by the nominator and Qwaliplayer weakens the strength of my Keep vote. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NACTOR as there is no evidence of playing significant roles (such as critical commentary about their performances). WP:FILMCAST has a far lower standard that tends to list any named and speaking roles. The coverage is not enough to meet GNG either. Ab207 (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hungry Lucy. ✗plicit 13:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse of the Earth[edit]

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

Non-notable album that fails WP:NALBUM. The songs have been released under CC, but that doesn't mean notability. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. I created the article years ago because of full releases by notable bands are generally considered worthy of an article. Perhaps this has changed, but, if so, WP:OUTCOMES should probably be updated. If it needs to be deleted, perhaps it could be merged into the artist article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hungry Lucy. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hungry Lucy. Not WP:NALBUM. Cannot find any reviews or other RS about the album except the one already referenced. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Album isn't independently notable, makes most sense to redirect to the band themselves Dexxtrall (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Darshan (actor)[edit]

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

Not notable. KnightMight (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KnightMight (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty and Power[edit]

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

No sources in the article. I can only find references in other unreliable blogs and a trivial mention in this. It should probably be a redirect to the Center for History and New Media or David T. Beito Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it's non-notable. I couldn't find any independent and reliable secondary sources that would demonstrate notability. Searching online results in a lot of WP:GHITS from historynewsnetwork.org and two sites that appear to be the same site with a different url such as hnn.us and thirdpartywatch.com, a redirect to either of the above mentioned articles would be appropriate. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no citations provided. Cannot find anything in Google. Does not meet WP:GNG. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Ghuge[edit]

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

A reality show participant without any significant coverage. Coverage is routine and fails GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seshu KMR[edit]

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

BLP of a music producer and sound designer which I don’t think passes WP:ARTIST. Many of the sources cited don’t make any mention of the subject at all, while others are just his name in listings. The few pieces of coverage that do discuss him don’t look enough to me to demonstrate notability. There may be other sources in Telugu. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the notable work is of a sound designer. That alone can't be considered significant enough to refer to the subject as co-creator. Fails WP:Creative. If more of the the subjects work become notable where he is writer, director, producer - could be seen differently. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sound designers are not inherently notable under any SNG and must meet GNG. Only one film which they worked as a composer, Singam 123, has an article but that itself poorly sourced. I've run a Telugu-language search but found nothing significant. -- Ab207 (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 08:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Perry (safety)[edit]

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

Not my field, but does not apparently meet the criteria for American Football.No professional appearances. DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG to me based on sources provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What makes him relavent is winning 4 college football National championships (2 as a player and 2 as a coach). His brief time in the NFL is a bonus, but anyone with over 190 links to the page should be considered a relevant figure. Bigmike2346
Keep I've found enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG: "Nick Perry thankful for another season at Alabama" from the Dothan Eagle/Alabama safety Nick Perry appreciates the opportunity for one more season from Tuscaloosa News; Alabama Safety Nick Perry Could Be Next Undrafted NFL Gem from BaltimoreRavens.com (not independent); Perry Will Do Drills Just Once from The Montgomery Advertiser (via Newspapers.com; Bears eye safeties -- including Alabama's Nick Perry -- in draft from The Chicago Tribune; and From Prattville to Power House: The Emergence of Nick Perry from The Odyessey Online. Also, a note to User:DGG, failing NGRIDIRON doesn't mean someone is non-notable, as they could still meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether he passes WP:NGRIDIRON or not is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether he passes WP:GNG as all athletes, regardless of whether they pass a sports-specific notability guideline such as NGRIDIRON, have to have the significant coverage to pass GNG per WP:ATHLETE. And Perry has that significant coverage per the sources that User:BeanieFan11 has presented. Alvaldi (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they appear to pass WP:GNG with the sources listed above. NemesisAT (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The person is notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 17:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - however, something should be done about the title. We currently have Nick Perry (American football) which is a different person. Arguably, this should be at Nick Perry (coach) or even Nick Perry (American football coach) as either would more accurately describe why we have an article about this fellow. A good-faith nomination but the issues can be dealt with in other ways. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mural of Marcus Rashford[edit]

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

Just a painting on a wall that got vandalised because of the result. WP:1E and WP:NNEWS fail. Plus also seems to be a WP:CFORK as all the information is already available at Marcus Rashford. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already appropriately covered in Rashford's own article. Might merit a separate article if it had received detailed coverage for anything other than being vandalised, but as far as I can see that isn't the case..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an artwork it's not notable in its own right, and is covered adequately in Rashford's biographical article. No need for a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not require a separate item; should be covered in the Rashford article. Eagleash (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The mural is not independently notable and is covered adequately at Marcus Rashford. – Pee Jay 11:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete, not notable enough for a standalone article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marcus Rashford. Giant Snowman 14:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by creator: Woah, surprised to wake up to a string of delete votes. Rashford's article has 2 sentences about the mural, with a link to this entry, which seems like an appropriate level of detail for a large biography. I've expanded the mural entry a bit more and shared additional sources on the article's talk page. I notice most of the votes above are cast by editors who follow and focus on football content, which of course is fine, but ideally we'll also see some votes cast by editors who focus on public art and visual arts. I say keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, significant media attention at least in the last little while.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete, redirecting to Marcus Rashford seems like a better idea than deleting. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marcus Rashford - WP:NOTNEWS applies Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two separate pieces of sigcov in The Times and BBC from BEFORE the defacing. Seems to me like it's independently notable. Mlb96 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mlb96. The level of encyclopaedic detail in this article would also be undue in the main biography as it's not about the person but the notable artwork. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single vandalism incident doesn't warrant an article. I think that moving the relevant information from this page to the Marcus Rashford article and giving it a section of it's own would suffice. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about a single incident of vandalism though, it's about a notable artwork. The article was notable before the vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thryduulf, if someone had proposed the creation of this article before it was defaced, I doubt it would have been accepted. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Given that there are multiple examples of in-depth coverage dating from before the vandalism it would have met the GNG so there would be no reason not to have accepted it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You know, I completely disagree with every delete vote, nothing is policy driven in the delete camp, nor have they truly considered the aspect of WP:GNG, the article has multiple sources. Lets looks at List of works by Banksy, there are multiple articles on that list that have be created and are in a far worse state than this article which this AfD is about. I completely disagree that this is a WP:CFORK. The argument that the subject is not news, when clearly it is news because of the vandalism and aftermath, even the new york times picked up on the story, which points to the fact this isn't just local news. It's national news and has gone international. Nearly every news agency in the UK has picked up on it. Run a google search and tell me this article does not pass GNG... Seriously, if this gets deleted I might challenge that also. Govvy (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the policy based rationales given when I nominated it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The C of E: We are discussing an article about an artwork of the person, you point to WP:1E an event around a person. I believe you have miss-used this policy for an argument about the event of the artwork. I don't believe this applies what so ever. Is the artwork temporary? Are you discussing Rashford or the artwork, what about the creator of the artwork. The article lacks a little background about the artist. I don't see how you have truly assessed the article on its own merits. Govvy (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes it's in the news right now, because it was vandalised. Yes it got some news coverage last year when it was created. But I still don't believe that the artwork passes WP:GNG. And whatever Banksy articles exists, that isn't relevant to this article, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. People are entitled to different opinions, but your claim that nothing is policy driven in the delete camp, nor have they truly considered the aspect of WP:GNG is wrong. So stop belittling other editors because you don't agree with them. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Joseph2302: Then show me one delete argument that cites a policy bar the nomination and not reflective of. Also Banksy is an example of, it's good to show where there are other articles like this that are kept. The Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba is a very famous piece by Claude Lorrain, yet, not many sources are there. Compared to The Last Supper by Leonardo, the articles should really be on par with each other. I find it very odd, that people choose to disdain a piece of art like this over something comparable like Art Buff by Banksy. I find this whole AfD rather bizarre. Govvy (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it into the Marcus Rashford article. It's not like this article has a tremendous amount of detail. RedPatch (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (Not an assessment of sourcing or policy-based argument...) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'll tell you how famous this mural is—it came up in conversation recently between me and my mother, who have the least awareness of football that it's possible to have while being English. GNG is passed by the sources in the article, particularly The Times, BBC, NYT and the BBC again. Note that substantial coverage comes from multiple events (unveiling and vandalism) so it's not WP:BLP1E. The article is sufficiently long that not all of the information can be merged into Marcus Rashford without exceeding length or due weight sensibilities, and it can definitely be expanded further. — Bilorv (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:GNG and not for one time event, a bit long to merge into Marcus Rashford. --SuperJew (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable mural, even pre-defacement. Glad to see it has a page now Lajmmoore (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable mural. Coverage of the unveiling is routine. The vandalism coverage is also routine. The description and it being vandalised can be included in Rashford's article. Dougal18 (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: National news coverage at its creation, and international news coverage after vandalism, easily makes for a significant piece of public art here on Wikipedia. $ɱ$ (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International news coverage, including from newspapers of record. And editor Mlb96 pointed out "Two separate pieces of sigcov in The Times and BBC from BEFORE the defacing." Meaning there was interest in this piece before the defacing and not just on the vandalism; there's ongoing interest here. --Kbabej (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant change has happened to this article since nomination. Widespread continued coverage takes this well past WP:1E and passes WP:GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was doubtful about whether it needs own article rather than a section at Marcus Rashford's article, but I think the arguments for keeping it are strong and it meets notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the coverage from before the vandalism. Just because something is in the news doesn't mean it isn't encyclopedic. Star Mississippi 15:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Edwardian Heathrow Hotel[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is an essay and so has "no official status, and do[es] not speak for the Wikipedia community". See A;B;C and D. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu City Centre[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is an essay and so has "no official status, and do[es] not speak for the Wikipedia community". See A;B;C and D. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Hotel Chennai[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is an essay and so has "no official status, and do[es] not speak for the Wikipedia community". See A;B;C and D. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Hotel, Chittagong[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is an essay and so has "no official status, and do[es] not speak for the Wikipedia community". See A;B;C and D. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Toronto East Hotel[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is an essay and so has "no official status, and do[es] not speak for the Wikipedia community". See A;B;C and D. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Daugava Hotel[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

GloriaJFM (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Delete. As it happens I have stayed in this hotel (August 2019). It's just a hotel, like many many others. I didn't notice anything to suggest that it needed an article. Athel cb (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is an essay and so has "no official status, and do[es] not speak for the Wikipedia community". See A;B;C and D. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is all looking very unsatisfactory. We're keeping all these articles because (1) GloriaJFM got blocked, and (2) WP:MILL is an essay with no mandatory status. Neither of those are great reasons. What actually is the policy on typical run-of-the-mill chain hotels? Does each hotel get its own article? What standards of sources do we require to demonstrate notability? Would we really want articles on every one of the 800-odd Premier Inn hotels in the UK, for example? I'm not really sure of the encyclopedic value of this article, and its fellows. Elemimele (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of articles about hotels and so there's no particular problem with them because WP:MILL is not an accepted policy or guideline. If they are numerous, then that's not a problem either per WP:NOTPAPER which is a policy. And we're not talking about Premier Inn here, we're talking about Radisson Blu which is quite a high-end operation. This particular hotel was the first business hotel in Riga which is a capital city. It is easy to find detailed studies of the hotel such as Enhancement of crisis management system in 'Radisson Blu Daugava' hotel. And, as we don't have a legitimate nomination here and nobody seems to have followed WP:BEFORE this discussion should closed before more trolls turn up to waste our time. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I have no problem with WP having hotels, provided they're notable hotels, and I just want to know what makes a hotel notable. The not-paper argument is also valid: I don't care how many notable hotels we have. Being up-market doesn't automatically confer notability (in fact a budget chain could be notable for being budget). Nor does a hotel automatically inherit notability from its being in a capital city (most of which have large numbers of practical, rather dull, generic hotels). In this particular article, I like the comment that it's the first chain hotel in Latvia, and I like the culture section, but the history section reads like a set of publicity press-releases, and the references are much the same. This is a real risk in hotel articles: that they will sound like write-ups from a review site. Do we have any guidelines on hotel articles, and their notability? Elemimele (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generic chain hotel with no indication of notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Hotel, Yerevan[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

GloriaJFM (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is an essay and so has "no official status, and do[es] not speak for the Wikipedia community". See A;B;C and D. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Hotel Shanghai New World[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

GloriaJFM (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 10:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 10:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is an essay and so has "no official status, and do[es] not speak for the Wikipedia community". See A;B;C and D. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Iveria Hotel, Tbilisi[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article. See Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. GloriaJFM (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

GloriaJFM (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is an essay and so has "no official status, and do[es] not speak for the Wikipedia community". See A;B;C and D. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Formula 4 United States Championship[edit]

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

The article contents does not cover the title, this is only a copy of the drivers list from the 2021 season article. SandoLorris (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft space - Obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Is there any point moving to draft space? It's just the 2021 drivers with old references (well, old in the context of next year). A7V2 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it does not contain any information relevant to the title subject (the 2022 series) and has not passed GNG.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no votes in favour of deletion. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelis Thaliath[edit]

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

no significant coverage and fails GNG Iamfarzan (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Iamfarzan (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The subject of the article is the holder of the title of Servant of God of the Catholic Church which has a strength of over 1.3 billion worldwide. Compare this with the Sir title of the UK, which has only a population of 68 million. It is very evident that the subject is notable per WP:ANYBIO - as the holder of a well-known and significant award or honor. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Screencastify[edit]

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

Notability concerns. I see no coverage about the company, just the product; and that coverage is user-generated review sites. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no reliable sources and appears to lack notability. Coopman86 (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found some additional sources that are just more of the same. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there appears to be no coverage other than just of the product. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, No evidence of notability. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amudhey[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage from reliable sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing notable found. Kolma8 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alice of Ibelin[edit]

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

No apparent notability; the article is all about who her family was, not who she was or what she did. All Google Book search hits refer to Alix of Ibelin, a queen, except one that refers to the wife of Philip of Ibelin (1180–1227). Thus it appears that there is no significant coverage as defined by WP:SIGCOV. Deleting this article will enable us to move the one about the queen, who is a notable person, to this title, since she is the one who is called Alice of Ibelin, not Alix. Surtsicna (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a geneological database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. (changed to redirect) English results are very scarce because she came from Kingdom of Cyprus (1374 circa). She was essentially the queen of a major kingdom. Her other language search may have a bit more info. VocalIndia (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please have another look. She was not queen of anything. You are confusing her with a namesake who was indeed notable. There is no signiciant coverage in French- or Greek-language sources either. Surtsicna (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think she is really exist person as the second wife of John of Lusignan, regent of Cyprus. We should wait opinion from editors who have knowledge on the History of Cyprus. VocalIndia (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have knowledge of the history of the Kingdom of Cyprus. Historian do not write about this person. Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John of Lusignan. They were real people, but the subject was a noblewoman by marriage; she was not actually queen of anything, and her father was a courtier. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree that there's no substantial coverage sufficient to meet WP:BASIC etc. While I'd ordinarily support a redirect, in this case I think it would do more harm than good: as noted above, "Alice of Ibelin" can refer to a number of other people, and this one likely isn't the primary topic. It may be preferable to either move one of the other Alices to this title or to make it a disambiguation page. But that can be discussed outside of this AfD: for now, the most prudent thing we can do is to free up this title. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Dawgs[edit]

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

Sports media company does not meet WP:NMEDIA- coverage is largely puff-piece articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Segmented file transfer[edit]

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

No pages named "Segmented file transfer" exist to disambiguate. Gjs238 (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm fine with page deletion if it is no longer helpful to anyone (does not work as a search query disambiguation). In short, there previously was an article called "Segmented file transfer" which had basically no references, very little useful content and too many factual mistakes to rescue the article. We decided to delete the page and create a dismbiguation instead. Please see prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Segmented file transfer. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't disambiguating anything. Perhaps a soft-redirect to Wiktionary could be called for, if the various definitions of the term are listed there? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Metric to Flow[edit]

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

Not notable. Wikipedia is not a software manual. PepperBeast (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dream City Film Club[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Not the subject of serious independent, non-trivial coverage. There's little more than the standard all music biography, which most bands have. Most other results on google are a one line mention in an article. No charting singles/albums. No award nominations. Very little coverage. Album release on a niche indie label - not one of the major record labels. Fairly niche and obscure band - fails notability requirements. FirefoxLSD (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple albums on Beggars Banquet meets WP:MUSIC, and there is some coverage available online (for a defunct band whose work is more than 20 years old). See [32] (Allmusic), [33] (Popmatters), [34] (CMJ New Music Report). Those are three American (i.e., international) publications; no doubt searching contemporaneous Brit mag archives would uncover more. Chubbles (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as this staff written bio at AllMusic here as well as the reliable sources reviews identified above.Together there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The City Sleeps in Flames[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM, Punknews.org does not appear to be a reliable source, since it accepts community based input, very similar to Wikipedia. Absent that, and the simply ubiquitous Allmusic blurb, does not meet any of the requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both sources are acceptable per WP:A/S. Articles meets criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM.RF23 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just to try to wrap this up, there is enough non-trivial coverage in Billboard, AllMusic, and Alternative Press to qualify for a basic article under #1 at WP:NALBUM. Just note that most of the coverage is tied to the album's re-release many years later. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article seem reliable. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:ahk8rd.2.2

[1]