Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 23	July 25 >

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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lausanne-Sports Aviron[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No indication of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is a small section about this rowing club at FC Lausanne-Sport. Perhaps we should merge there instead. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:22, 12 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) 23:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, " while there are not rules specific to rowing clubs, my reading of the other language page indicates they competed in the Moscow Olympic Games 1980 Summer Olympics which would make them notable. There is no doubt the article needs work, but the subject seems notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not because of the Olympics subject-specific notability guideline. While athletes are indeed presumed to be notable if they compete at the Olympics, the article seems to be referring to Bernard Destraz, not the club itself (see Rowing at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Men's single sculls). The teams SNG states that "Since notability is not inherited, the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club, or vice versa." The club appears to meet the general notability guideline due to coverage here, here, and here. (I'm aware that that's two different organisations as opposed to three, but I expect that more offline sources can be found due to its significance in Swiss rowing. I'd personally argue two is enough here, given the significant coverage). Sdrqaz (talk) 01:25, 26 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 17:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gakul Bora[edit]

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

No indication of Notability. The creator just wanted to advertisement of the subject. References are not enough to prove WP:GNG. DJRSD (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reviewing.. Please have a look and review on the basis of these links:

https://as.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/স্বাস্থ্য_আৰু_দীৰ্ঘ_জীৱন

https://www.xukhdukh.com/2015/11/goodnews_21.html?m=1

http://epaper.sentinelassam.com/ArticlePage/APpage.php?edn=Guwahati%20English&articleid=THESENTI_GUWE_20210117_5_1&artwidth=114.67999999999999px

http://ptinews.com/pressrelease/41277_press-subGetting-to-Know-Assam-s-Most-Loved-Pediatrician---Dr--Gokul-Bora

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/guwahati/Diseases-on-the-rise-as-weather-springs-a-surprise/articleshow/30489718.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychenaut (talk • contribs) 10:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Remember rejecting it as a draft Draft:Gokul Bora. Seems like a WP:COI case now. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and above, lacks reliable sources to support notability. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:38, 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 and cleanup required. No prejudice towards a renomination in the coming months. Daniel (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sukanya Krishnan[edit]

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

An article about a local television news anchor with no references or sources that back up the notability of the subject matter. No independent sources are used. The article is written like a resume than a biography. The one reference is a dead link and the web archive contains no information. Nor do the external links verify notability. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if it can be verified that Krishnan received a national Emmy Award rather than a local one, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But, it should be cited, which the article doesn't making it an unverified claim. And one Emmy might help if the article wasn't written in it's current format. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The format and existing references are not relevant what matters is whether the subject is notable and whether it is possible to improve the article using reliable sources coverage, as per WP:NEXIST imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. A well-known anchor in New York City, the nation's largest media market. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, a notable anchor with reliable coverage to support notability. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Please note I added 2 new WP:RS qualifying sources in an effort to improve this article. They show her as more recently extending beyond news anchoring and into hosting national TV shows. As of 2020 and 2021, she hosts shows on both TLC and Discovery+. I added clarification that the "6 Emmy awards" are for the NY market, which is not as notable as a national Emmy, but still notable none the less as the NY market is the #1 largest in the US (per Neilsen ratings). I note that the page needs additional work, the intro summary is way too long, it should be broken into a career section, the only sub-sections are currently personal life. CosmicNotes (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A citation to Google is a new one! There's obvious potential for notability here, if the claims about her significance in the Indian community are backed up by RS, but so far they haven't been. The Emmy awards (seven of them) seem all to be NY ones rather than national ones: [1],[2], etc. So... so far I'm leaning delete. Furius (talk) 12:15, 31 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 14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Al Omeir[edit]

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

There is no substantial RS coverage that indicates notability. A google search of the subject delivers nothing. The page has been tagged with "needs sources" since 2011 but nothing has been added in the last decade. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So the title of the article isn't actually the name the subject goes by, which is why sources were literally nonexistent if you searched using that name. Going by the company's website from 2006, the name he uses is actually Yousef Omair Bin Yousef, arabized to "يوسف عمير بن يوسف". However even searchign with that name, the sources that did appear were still scant, almost all primary sources, and did nothing to fulfill WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I have added sources and information to the article. The man in charge of the output of the world's third largest energy exporter for ten years, a key figure in the industry whose expansion and diversification programs are still impacting the industry today. Sails past WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - if we get beyond a deletion discussion, which we should given the sources now provided and clear notability of the subject, I'd propose a move to Yousef Omeir bin Yousef Al Mheiri as a better transcription of his commonly used name. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I find very bothersome here is that the individual who is the subject of the article gets all the credit for company decisions and successes--it's not unlike the puff pieces one reads on CEOs and university presidents. I can't easily judge the sources, but ArabianBusiness seems like just another industry website, and Plunkett's is just another directory-style document. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, the only RS on the subject is a Reuters source that says: 1. Yousef Al Omeir resigned from ADNOC in 2011, 2. Yousef Al Omeir was CEO of the org for more than a decade, 3. Yousef Al Omeir used to be the Secretary-General of the Supreme Petroleum Council.[3] If there is a decision to "keep" the article or a lack of consensus to "delete", then the article should basically only say what the Reuters article says. As it stands, the article is a string of self-sourced press releases which are presented in Wikipedia's own voice to give readers the impression that the subject is one of the great business and technology visionaries of our time. In other words, one of Alexandermcnabb's typical puff pieces for UAE's ruling elites. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright. Delete. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arabian Business is an independently owned business magazine published by ITP Ltd. Al Bayan is a national Arabic language daily. WAM is the UAE national news agency. Alexandermcnabb had nothing to do with this until you nominated this prominent businessman for deletion, as usual without even attempting a WP:BEFORE. He clearly passes [WP:GNG]]. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing the significant, in-depth coverage in independent RS. Neutrality^talk 23:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the GNG rule makes me irritated Esaïe Prickett (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, mostly because AfD is not designed to clean up articles. That said, this article needs to be cleaned up. Claims to notability and importance, like, "During his tenure as CEO of ADNOC, he pursued aggressive expansion and diversification plans." are completely un-sourced. The sources aren't great, let's be honest, and there are more important people we should be writing about. But I've created articles about some mundane and boring stuff substantially less important than this particular business boffin. And the fact that other stuff exists, or not, isn't a good reason for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What I said above was true, but I was a bit hasty. I was waiting for my Google Translate to process a couple of things. They are of even less substance than some of the others. I think it need better sources before it falls over the threshold of WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:04, 27 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 , noting the absence of source evaluation. czar 19:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Dae-hyeon[edit]

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

BLP of a young singer that does not meet WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO. The sources in the article offer no in-depth coverage and are just music industry PR. Some is about him but much is about the bands he’s been in, with only passing mentions of him. A redirect to one of these bands may be a possible ATD. Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to pass WP:NMG with an album charting on Gaon, South Korea's major music chart, and has been a member of two musical groups who have charted well on Gaon. Abdotorg (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passed WP:MUSICBIO. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ranks higher on Gaon than many artists that have Wikipedia articles about them. SkylightXO (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discarding SkylightXO's contribution as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, relisting for further review/contribution and to develop consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep– pass WP:MUSICBIO. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 07:47, 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. After 4 weeks we are not anywhere near achieving a consensus, and since repeated relistings have attracted no new participants at all, it is unlikely that we are going to achieve one. JBW (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Coria career statistics[edit]

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

Unsourced statscruft. WikiProject Tennis's guidelines permit match-by-match season articles for only "players who have won at least one Grand Slam tournament singles title". Guillermo Coria doesn't meet that bar. Despite its title, this is not a standard career statistics article, e.g. Daniil Medvedev career statistics, which lists significant finals and has performance timelines, and has a lower bar for creation. Instead, this article contains match-by-match results for 3 out of Coria's 9 years, equivalent to e.g. 2007 Roger Federer tennis season, and thus should be held to the season article requirements. Player statistics articles are created "when a player's main article gets too large"; Coria's isn't currently, so a real career statistics article isn't needed for him anyway. —Somnifuguist (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lowliest of tennis players get a career statistics article. Whether it's a brand new player like Coco Gauff who has won almost nothing, or even Amanda Anisimova career statistics, or Gisela Dulko career statistics. Coria was in a major final and won two Masters level events. He has enough career stats to warrant the article. The only problem is the content isn't handled the same way many other tennis career stats articles are. But there's a reason for that. Editors had created yearly articles for this player that really were not warranted as stand-alone articles. This was discussed at a deletion/merge request here. It was unanimous that the content should be kept and merged into a new career statistics article, which was already warranted for him. I created and moved the content. It needs sourcing and better order, but it should not be deleted. The content was already closed as keep and merge. We just need to do a better job on this poor article, but not delete it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. An accurate title for the current content would be "2003–2005 Guillermo Coria tennis seasons", and Coria doesn't deserve such an article based on our guidelines (which you were involved in creating). If Coria is to have a "career statistics" article, it must not include the current content, as no other career stats article contains match-by-match results for entire seasons—they are put in season articles if the player meets the criterion (Coria doesn't). And Coria's article isn't over long, so the stats don't need to be split off into a "career statistics" article as it stands. The current content should be deleted, and the article recreated at a later date only if the stats on Coria's article become too unwieldy. —Somnifuguist (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course consensus can change, but right now we have longstanding consensus to keep and merge the material. Since the consensus was to keep the material, at worst we should maintain it in this article's archives to be brought back as needed. That would require that we turn this into a redirect to Coria's main article with the info maintained in its history. It should not be deleted. Coria's article deserves a career stats page more than many others, but no one has taken the time to do it well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guillermo Coria - the current content does not meet the guidelines but this can be improved by editing the article, rather than deletion. Redirecting preserves the history. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Wikipedia Tennis Project has no guidelines for what is to be included in a career stats page. They do not need to all be the same, in fact we discourage cookie cutter articles. Certain charts in a career stats article must meet project guidelines, while others have no guidelines. That is on purpose. While a player, per guidelines, cannot have an article titled "2022 John Doe tennis season" unless they meet certain spelled out standards, info on that season can certainly be included in a career stats article within reason. We have no guidelines on exactly what should be included. There is longstanding consensus on certain things always being included like detailed performance charts, but no real limits except what can be agreed upon between editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So a player can have a career stats page that consists of their match-by-match results for one year only, and nothing else, and we don't hold it to the season article standards, just because of the title? That doesn't seem right to me. Think about where the current content would fit in Coria's article if it were to be merged back. It wouldn't go in the career stats section, as it doesn't cover his whole career. Instead, it would go in the yearly sections, like Roger Federer#2006: Career-best season. Match-by-match results for entire seasons are not career stats, they are season stats, and as such should be held to the season article standards. —Somnifuguist (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I simply said there is no rule or guideline that prohibits it. None. By convention it's not usually done and I would change things. If someone took this exact framework and instead of doing round by round losses they only said he won or lost that particular tournament, that would probably be fine for many editors for certain players. I'm not saying there shouldn't be changes made I was commenting on Tennis Project Guidelines for career stats articles. Considering the player's prowess on court, his main article and career stat article should be larger than Coco Guaff's articles. Because of that to simply delete this page doesn't sit well with me. It's content should be enhanced here rather than deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You would change things? By "not usually done", let's be clear here: not a single one of the 194 other articles in Category:Tennis career statistics contains match-by-match results for a player's entire season. Not one. In contrast, every article in Category:Tennis player seasons does. It is clear that this article's content despite the title falls into the latter category, and we should treat it as such. The spirit, if not the letter, of our guideline says that the content should be deleted. —Somnifuguist (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we obviously differ in opinion about the seriousness of this "guideline" infraction. This seems fixable to me as it obviously did to those who last asked for the info to be kept and merged. As for what they contain, they all differ to a degree. Djokovic's shows his match by match wins and losses at the Olympics. Most others who were in the Olympics don't that I saw. There is too much detail here in the format of year by year, but a lot of the info would still be here if the charts were standardized and he got more charts and graphs that other players have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to try and achieve consensus. This needs further participation from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:07, 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 draftify. czar 19:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Dinanga[edit]

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

Draft:Ricardo Dinanga already exists so that should be kept but this may well be a WP:TOOSOON for main space, if ever at all. Currently does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and no guarantee of passing it in the future as there are many players that sign for a professional club but never play. In terms of coverage, I found one decent hype article in the local Cork press. The rest just seems to be passing mentions in Cork match reports and routine announcements of his transfer to Coventry, which consensus would have as routine coverage and not sufficient for WP:GNG purposes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL - or merge with the existing draft. Giant Snowman 18:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to draft I don't see the point of deleting, the new season isn't that far away. Govvy (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm happy with this being sent to draft ~~and histmerged with the other one~~ Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now that the old draft has been deleted, I would support just draftifying this as per all the users above. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 29 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) 21:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Rudd[edit]

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

This actor has featured in a commercial for Microsoft, one episode of a crime drama, and two films neither of which received a single review. All of the media references to him are promotional puff pieces. Proposed for deletion as not notable under WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. Sensitivedonkey (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sensitivedonkey (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be created in tandem with the film that he starred in The Cabin House, which, as you say, appears to have no reviews or coverage. His television career to date consists of one uncredited appearance, so he clearly fails WP:NACTOR. In terms of WP:GNG, he fails this as he has no coverage outside of his own press releases, most of which are hosted on websites blacklisted by Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom fails GNG and NACTOR. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 05:33, 31 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) 21:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gigmaven[edit]

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

Promotional article created by SPA. A single RS-ish cite; no evidence of notability otherwise. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH to meet WP:CORP, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. There's no evidence this company has ever been notable. David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be enough out there to satisfy WP:NCORP. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP lacks significant news coverage. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 05:34, 31 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 List of parks in Omaha, Nebraska. Daniel (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Pilster Park[edit]

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

The park exists (with "playground, 1 ballfield, 1 soccer field, a trail, picnic area and 1 shelter"), but other than existing I don't see any sign of notability. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 20:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 20:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 20:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of parks in Omaha, Nebraska Where the notes in this article can be added to the notes section. Nate • (chatter) 21:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge > List of parks in Omaha, Nebraska Djflem (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of parks in Omaha, Nebraska. DMySon (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the short description needs to be added to the table on List of parks in Omaha, Nebraska. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:43, 29 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 delete (A7). --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rony (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, likely a promotional article. Moved by creating editor to mainspace despite being declined at AFC. WP:LINKFARM too Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Timtrent's reason. Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 20:50, 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. If the history is needed for any related investigations, any en-wiki admin can look at the deleted edits and/or temporarily revive the page(s) as needed. RL0919 (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prix Versailles[edit]

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

Here we have a set of multiple articles created by a small group of editors. Those editors have been blocked by checkusers here on en.wiki and also on fr.wiki, following this COIN discussion. Because of the sustained promotion, the notability is a bit difficult to determine. When I look around for sources the only type I see are a) the recipients saying "hey, we got a prize or got nominated", and b) some good sources reporting the winners or nominations. A large part of the reporting seems to stem from the promotional efforts of the organization, which is the same story as this wiki page. I can't find much of anything independent about the prize or the organization giving it (for example a source that does not look like it is parroting a press release), beyond the fact that it was founded in 2015 in Versailles by one person. Additional prix-related pages attached to this AfD include:

Prix Versailles 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prix Versailles 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prix Versailles 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prix Versailles 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prix Versailles 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prix Versailles 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prix Versailles 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Finally, some sources report that the prize was founded by UNESCO, but there is no published record of this that I could find; UNESCO lends them a hall where they give the prize. --- Possibly ☎ 20:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 20:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 20:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 20:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 03:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Large scale use of Wikipedia as a tool for self-promotion. Analysis of the sources available show little to no reliable sources of a significant length focused on the subject. But on fr-wp we found an architectural source stating (translation by me) it's "a prize to promote the organizers", "In short, professional projects recovered for an amateur price." All is said. Jules* (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not disputing your first two points, but I have to heavily question the reliability of your link. That article doesn't seem to provide any serious arguments to back up its assertions, nor any indication that this opinion is widely held by the architecture community. A major part of the leading, bold paragraph focuses on nationality ("Pas un Français lauréat ! Sauf l’organisateur du prix bien sûr, lequel, bien entendu, laisse à désirer. [Translation following Google: Not a single French winner! Except the organizer of the prize of course, which, of course, leaves much to be desired.]") which seems to me a complete non-sequitur. And the website appeared to have no qualms trumpeting the recognition by the Prix of a number of French projects, architects, and firms ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) back in 2019. They even dedicated a section in their newsletter to these pieces. One has to wonder what caused such a dramatic turnaround of opinion. 73.206.250.31 (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure of the reliabily of this source either, @73.206.250.31, to be honnest. It just seemed a bit more serious than the others, so the fact it was in fact criticizing the prize seemed funny to me. — Jules* ^Talk 14:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : large self-promotion on many Wikipedia. --Arroser (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self promotional article. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to take this discussion to inform you that there is another similar case being discussed here. It would be very good to have the support of the local community to investigate this case further. J ^talk 09:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral comment This nomination has nothing to do with a completely unrelated Brazilian awards ceremony in another language, and can be considered canvassing. Nate • (chatter) 03:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic interest. scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, WP:PROMO the encyclopedia should not be used for advertising, self-promotion, marketing or public relations WP:NOT. Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any way we could add something about Prix Versailles to vanity award? Edwardx (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardx that would need a reliable source clearly stating that Prix Versailles is a vanity award. TSventon (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following up Prix Versailles is continuing across sixteen wikipedias, see this meta discussion. Pinging GeneralNotability, is there a way to keep the history accessible while investigation is ongoing. TSventon (talk) 13:27, 31 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Hatakeswara Swamy Temple[edit]

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

Sri Hatakeswara Swamy Temple

Religious building which does not satisfy building notability because no independent sources have been provided. Only source provided is the temple's own web site, which is obviously not independent. Already moved once to draft space by User:Discospinster, and moved back to article space with no real improvement. A second unilateral move to draft space would be move-warring. Either draftification or deletion would be valid AFD outcomes. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there’s Tripadvisor and another tourist site but I don’t see any RIS in English. There may be sources in Telugu I can’t find, in which case I’d reconsider my !vote. Mccapra (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I always regret deleting articles about community spaces, as many temples are local landmarks and gathering places which people in the area know. In the case of this temple we simply have no information. There is a picture of the god but no sources or works to cite. I searched the English terms and found nothing, except the name from databases. We need citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:24, 28 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) 21:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rip Gerber[edit]

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

Promotional bio, created by user Ripgerber. Ill-sourced, grandiose claims of notability, but conspicuously lacking in RSes. A WP:BEFORE shows zero RS coverage of Rip Gerber as an author or in biographical depth needed to have a WP:BLP. Had a previous AFD that ended "delete". I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would need to be shown - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, likely COI page whose text cannot be trusted and which gives no reason to think it needs to be fixed. For example, it claims that Gerber wrote his anthology First Thrills: High-Octane Stories from the Hottest Thriller Authors, when he only contributed a single story to it, and someone else did the editing. It calls iUniverse a publisher. "Hudson House" appears to be a self-publishing outlet, too [9]. I don't see how a WP:AUTHOR case could be made, and even if a weak one could be pulled together, WP:TNT would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 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 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) 21:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scolani[edit]

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

The topic fails to meet WP:GNG.

The exhibition catalog (reference one) isn't available, but it almost certainly only contains promotional materials. The link to ochki.com (reference two) is broken, but there are no in-depth reviews there anyway (the only relevant post is an ad).

Googled and yandex'd the brand name but found nothing that looks like a viable source for an article. Myuno (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Myuno (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Myuno (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athurupana Walauwa[edit]

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

Google Search shows only pages that either copy Wikipedia or have little usable info. TubeOfLightTalk Less, Smile More 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Note - Article creator's name has one word common with the subject, so this might be an article by the owners of the house. TubeOfLightTalk Less, Smile More 15:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. TubeOfLightTalk Less, Smile More 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TubeOfLightTalk Less, Smile More 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. TubeOfLightTalk Less, Smile More 15:29, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Blasco[edit]

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

The sources to this article seem to be largely self published or of uncertain reliability. I was unable to find better quality refs to demonstrate that the subject meets the criteria at WP:NARTIST or WP:SIGCOV. Admittedly foreign language references may exist that I was not capable of finding. 4meter4 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added six sources where he is mentioned. He is frequently referred to in Google book sources as "the master" and "renowned". His comic "Cuto" is mentioned in the books

Maîtres de la bande dessinée européenne ,
The World Encyclopedia of Comics - Volume 1 and
Histoire mondiale de la bande dessinée, as well as in
Formas y colores: la ilustración infantil en España,
Historia y Análisis de los Personajes en el Cómic,
Cuatro lecciones sobre el cómic,
Breve historia del cómic,
Didáctica de la literatura... and so on.

He is clearly a documented part of Spanish comic history, and therefore notable. --- Possibly ☎ 18:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these sources. I am inclined to agree based on this evidence and will withdraw this nomination.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 31 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) 21:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Boswell (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Fail of WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 14:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 14:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Design Award (Japan)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. All the sources I could find in Japanese or English seem to be from the institute giving the award, social media, or press releases from awardees. There's no secondary coverage. For those editors that point to the Japanese-language Wikipedia article, that article relies almost entirely upon one source: Japan Institute of Design Promotion. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 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. The overall consensus is that there is enough evidence to consider her notable. However, the concerns raised about the risk of conflating information about different, but similarly named, people do deserve more attention. The keep result here should not be interpreted as meaning the article should stay at this particular page name. Options for renaming and using this page name for a redirect or disambiguation can be discussed elsewhere. RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ada of Holland[edit]

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

The article is merely a genealogical entry, but Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. All references in reliable sources to Ada of Holland are actually to Ada, countess of Holland. There is no significant coverage of this Ada in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 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)} 21:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several books were written about this 12th century countess. She is frequently mentioned also in other works. Meets WP:BASIC. gidonb (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- gidonb, you are confusing this Ada of Holland, who was not a countess, with another Ada of Holland, who was a countess. The latter is notable but the former is not. Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing this out. I'll look at it again later, hopefully! gidonb (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a genealogical entry article that says nothing substantial about the subject herself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 13 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]

Keep the subject was essentially the queen of the Margraviate of Brandenburg, a fair-sized country in modern Germany, from 1176 to 1184. If we can't find significant coverage about her then I strongly suspect we just haven't looked hard enough. At the very least merge/redirect to Otto I, Margrave of Brandenburg. Hut 8.5 16:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, she was not essentially queen or notable, just like the current minister-president of Brandenburg's wife is not notable or anything akin to a queen. Brandenburg was not a country then just like it is not now, but a fief. Being married to a vassal, or indeed to anyone no matter how powerful, is not one of the grounds for inclusion. I write articles about medieval figures, and I can assure you that there being no coverage of an obscure 12th-century vassal's spouse is not surprising. I have looked for coverage in German language too, but there is not any. Please feel free to look and prove me wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Holy Roman Empire was not remotely comparable to modern Germany but was a far looser confederation: The empire never achieved the extent of political unification as was formed to the west...a decentralised, limited elective monarchy composed of hundreds of sub-units...The power of the emperor was limited, and while the various princes, lords, bishops, and cities of the empire were vassals who owed the emperor their allegiance, they also possessed an extent of privileges that gave them de facto independence within their territories. So Brandenburg was effectively an independent state at the time, and she was married to its hereditary ruler. If suitable sources are likely to exist then deletion on notability grounds is inappropriate (WP:NEXIST). Hut 8.5 12:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - How amazing ! Are u trying to compare absolute monarchy with today's ? Respect your brain. The monarchs of Brandenburg can't be compared with modern minister-presidents, there is definitely a greater notability as the monarch fills both political and communal functions. VocalIndia (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That comment comes across as rather rude - perhaps more so than you intended? Furius (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, Brandenburg was certainly not an independent state to any degree under the Hohenstaufen and this Ada was in no way a queen nor has any historian ever described her as such. Being married to someone notable explicitly does not translate to being notable anyway, under WP:INVALIDBIO. And if sources are likely to exist, you are welcome to cite them. Merely stating that they must exist is unhelpful; see WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. Surtsicna (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. There are many source in Italy Wikipedia it:Adele d'Olanda. Unfortunately I can't read Italy text but Italian can. If you are not an Italian, you should not jude on Italian source. Best regards VocalIndia (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not need to be Italian to speak Italian or to see that the sources cited there are primary sources. Notability is established by significant coverage in secondary sources, per WP:GNG. This means that sources on Italian Wikipedia do not indicate notability. Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Most of the sources are came from books. Have you check Italian language books?? 🤔 VocalIndia (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The sources are primary sources. Those are not indicative of notability. I have done my share of checking. Do some checking yourself and cite secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth if you find them. I am telling you there are not any. Surtsicna (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @VocalIndia: wrote on the Italian Wikipedia's Help Desk asking for help.
        
        How Surtsicna pointed out, the whole bibliography is made by primary sources: there are just Latin documents.
        
        There are three secondary sources: [10], [11] and [12], which doesn't seem to prove notability of any kind. ValeJappo (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this academic source from Columbia University's the Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning website, which showing that she was Margravine and still actual historic significance. I also found A letter from Ada Printed source: Oorkondenboek van Holland en Zeeland tot 1299, ed. ACF Koch, 1.453-54, #273. It is enough to meet WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That does not constitute significant coverage in secondary sources. There is no dispute about her having a title. The contention is that there is no in-depth coverage, and you have not demonstrated any. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hum? you mean media coverage ? She lived in the thousand years ago. We not live at that time, so for know what's her ability, birth and death date, her activity is so hard and in records, there just info about her name, family (even there is some are didn't know who's their families) and general information. historic source only available in the books or academic papers. How much do you need? VocalIndia (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if this were about someone from the 1940s or 1950s, then I would say that they do not meet WP:GNG, but this type of a Queen consort from millennia ago, clearly an important figure in the historiography of modern Germany. VocalIndia (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- She was not a queen in any sense. Historians do not call just about anyone a queen, and if she were an important figure in history, there would be coverage of her in historiography. But there is not. Surtsicna (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Italian wiki article shows that there are a substantial range of sources on this figure. Furius (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for discussing coverage in sources. The Italian article is purely a genealogical entry and very much goes off topic. The sources cited there are primary sources, while WP:GNG requires a topic to have received significant coverage in secondary sources to be considered notable. Therefore, the sources cited in the Italian article do not indicate that the article passes English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Surtsicna (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am thoroughly unconvinced by the arguments for keeping this article. They mostly boil down to WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST and WP:JUSTNOTABLE. Firstly, that doesn't demonstrate WP:Notability. Secondly, notability is not the sole issue here—the fact that this is a purely genealogical article in itself constitutes a reason to delete it per WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia), specifically because Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY.
That being said, deletion is also not an ideal solution because of the risk for confusion with Ada, Countess of Holland that has been amply demonstrated above, and the further risk of confusion with Ada van Holland (died 1258). There are several possible solutions here. The simplest is to just convert this title to a disambiguation page. Another is to turn this into a redirect somewhere appropriate (I would suggest List of consorts of Brandenburg#Margravine of Brandenburg, 1157–1356 rather than Otto I, Margrave of Brandenburg for reasons outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spouse of the Prime Minister of Singapore and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Grant Bennett) and create Ada of Holland (disambiguation). TompaDompa (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a fair point. What this should redirect to is Ada, Countess of Holland, as virtually every reference to Ada of Holland is a reference to the countess of Holland. Surtsicna (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This claim that she married Otto I and then her step-son Otto II seems strange to me and there doesn't seem to be a source for it. Have we combined two separate Adas? Furius (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent catch. Such a marriage would have been impossibly incestuous in the 12th century. The German Wikipedia's article, which for some reason is not linked from English Wikipedia's, states that she did not marry Otto I at all and that this was mistakenly stated in older sources, but does not cite a secondary source that discusses this supposed confusion. It looks like this conclusion comes from an editor. Anyway, that article too rests on primary sources, though it also cites a 4-sentence entry in the 1912 Dutch Biographical Dictionary, which is so far the most extensive coverage of the subject I have found. TompaDompa, is that something you would consider sufficient? Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The German article should be linked now. Opera hat (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, that's a big catch! Getrman Wikipedia article looks very deep. There are many sources going to dig a bit more here. Thank you VocalIndia (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Amazing! she was the consort of two Margraves, Otto I and his step-son Otto II. At first I was very confused. VocalIndia (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        She was not. Please read more carefully. Surtsicna (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing what the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy says (this is currently cited for the statement Around 1175, while still young, Ada married Otto I of Brandenburg, becoming Margravine of Brandenburg., despite explicitly saying The identity of Ada´s Brandenburg husband is difficult to establish with complete certainty.) to what the Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek says, I'm getting increasingly concerned about what we're doing here. It's possible that we're creating a WP:FRANKENSTEIN, but it's also possible that not enough is known from the extant primary sources for the secondary sources to be able to say anything with certainty (or reasonably close to certainty). This needs to be resolved regardless of the outcome of this AfD, because it affects other articles (Otto I, Margrave of Brandenburg, Otto II, Margrave of Brandenburg, List of consorts of Brandenburg, and so on). I'll also note that the Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek says Zij liet hem geen kinderen na en overleed in 1205, vermoord door een ridder te Schönewalde bij Frankfort aan de Oder, toen haar gemaal op reis was naar het Heilige Land. which if my translation from Dutch is correct contradicts the article's claim that A knight tried to murder Ada in Schönwalde and was sentenced to death by Otto II.
  To answer the question asked by Surtsicna: no, I don't consider that source sufficient. It of course meets WP:ANYBIO criterion 3 which means she is likely to be notable, but the entry contains little besides genealogy meaning we still don't have the WP:Significant coverage which would make her meet WP:GNG, and the article itself remains a genealogical entry padded out with things that aren't really about her, such as In 1184, Otto I founded a nunnery at Arendsee and in the founding charter, Ada appears along with Otto's three sons, giving assent to the foundation. Especially in light of the concerns about contradictory and unclear information, I don't think this is satisfactory. TompaDompa (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has an entry (though admittedly not a very long one) in the Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek and therefore meets WP:ANYBIO. Opera hat (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agree per User:Opera hat; passes WP:ANYBIO#3. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know it this could be helpful or not but, based on Kroniek van Johannes de Beke, page 117, her mother was the daughter of Henry of Scotland, a prince.--Tre di tre (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by familial relationships (WP:INVALIDBIO), so her being a great-granddaughter of a king is not relevant to the discussion. The goal should be to determine whether there is a significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No...Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. A granddaughter of a prince does not make her notable automatically. However, Thanks for your comment and source. Cheer Taung Tan (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO, based on inclusion in the NNBW. gidonb (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I'm inclined to agree with the fact there's still actual historic significance and substance therefore enough for an article showing this. Also passes WP:ANYBIO. ~~She lived in thousands years ago, more offline sources may available in national libraries.~~ Taung Tan (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taung Tan, WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST is not a valid argument. I am perplexed that this needs be said - again. Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my keep is the first two sentences that passes WP:ANYBIO but the last one is extra comment. Why so serious? Taung Tan (talk) 03:02, 28 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. Would have been good to see some discussion as to the quality of sources in the article, but it looks like we have sufficient consensus. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Smith (actress)[edit]

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

It doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Only appearances in very small and/or independent productions. None of the references on the article are in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources. It seems a case of use of the WP as a WP:SOAPBOX. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 13:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 13:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 13:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 13:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: at least in The Stripper, she played a major character. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Aussie Article Writer, to pass WP:NACTOR, an actor has to have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Multiple not only one and notable. The Stripper is a drama web series that is barely notable. It's not a major production. So, again, it fails WP:NACTOR. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 03:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: too, the actress plays the protagonist of The Stripper and also A Melhor Amiga da Noiva, which seems to be even more popular than The Stripper, is already in its third season. Several actors who were the protagonists of just one production have a page on wikipedia. Ricardo Fett (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ricardo Fett, Please read WP:NACTOR. You only cite two examples. Not "multiples" as required by the policy. The Stripper is only a web series not a major production and A Melhor Amiga da Noiva is not even notable. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 04:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also plays the antagonist in Poesias Para Gael. So that's three. But, anyway, "multiple" only requires more than one. Furius (talk) 11:56, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shaji issac (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adani Enterprises[edit]

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

This article should be merged to Adani Group#Adani Enterprises. No special article needed because there is a main article about Adani Group. Shaji issac (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shaji issac (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shaji issac (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shaji issac (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Earlier I was skeptical and was not sure about the difference between the two - Adani Group and Adani Enterprises. But, after following and participating in the discussion at Talk:Adani Group, I realized... the attempt by editor Pillechan is acceptable under the following conditions; WP:NCORP, WP:LISTED, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS. And as per my understanding,the enterprises is a listed holding company of the group and it seems to be independent from other Adani listed companies.If anyone has a different opinion, then I'm open for it too. - Hatchens (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:There is no point to suggest merging this with Adani Group as this entity is independly notable. Passes both WP:LISTED and WP:NCORP quite easily

1.News reference as per WP:RS - [13],

2.The independent analyst reports as per WP:LISTED- [14],

3.Significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV in a book - [15]. Several other sources are there in the article giving enough sigcov to the company. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:25, 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. ✗plicit 13:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Anthony Ler case[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS; WP:LASTING does not seem to have been met either. (Also, not a ground for deletion, but title is awkward) Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i feel that we should be keep it, in due respect to those who disagree. i feel that this is a notorious crime, and has significant coverage and a sort of legacy behind it. besides, should it be that all murder cases has to have lasting effects in order to remain in wikipedia, it would be the case where even the Toa Payoh ritual murders and Murder of Huang Na do not deserve its own article. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, among other things. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And i want to highlight, many people still remember it today for the notoreity and it was unusual to see someone using minors to kill people in Singapore. This case was also ranked as one of the most notorious crimes people would remember, where the national newspaper still acknowledge it in the publication of its book Guilty as Charged. The title, i acknowledge, seems awkward but can change. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME as demonstrated by the fact that the case has been covered extensively by various national Singaporean news outlets, TV series, and books over a span of about 20 years. Surachit (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Surachit. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Surachit. – robertsky (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the biggest killing stories of the 2000 decade. Even more notable that the death of the sales lady while a customer was taking a test drive of a Mazda car around 2006. Charliestalnaker (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very obviously notable. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 28 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. ✗plicit 12:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tay Chow Lyang and Tony Tan Poh Chuan[edit]

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

A double murder of questionable notability. WP:NOTNEWS Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I want to highlight that at the time, there is mass coverage of the trial and its aftermath, and there are books written about it, as well as the trauma of the families, with due respect to them. there may be the problem of not enough sources. Besides, we need to think of the possibility that the real murderer will be caught one day, which might allow some degree of impact and coverage. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a related AfD: "Wikipedia is not a compendium of true crime stories or accounts of isolated awful events covered by newspapers as part of their daily business." I also hope the "real murderer" gets caught some day, but that is largely irrelevant to this discussion. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the start to the end, the case had significant coverage in two countries, Australia and Singapore, even if it was by virtue of the locality of the event and the nationality of the people involved. That should qualify for general notability guidelines. Side note: the possibility of real murderer being caught, see WP:CRYSTAL, so let's not consider that as a valid reasoning. – robertsky (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual for a violent crime to have detailed coverage in the media from start till end. NOTNEWS & LASTING are much more pertinent here. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability issues aside, there may be BLP violations in this article considering that the accused was acquitted of murder. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King of lettuce, we can rewrite it in such a way that it is about the case instead of blp, and like that no violation will happen.NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes it needs a bit of tone fix and BLP review, but there is sufficiently sustained coverage and also multinational coverage to support GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very obviously notable. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 28 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. ✗plicit 12:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Darren Ng Wei Jie[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Darren Ng. While this does not seem to be a recreation of the deleted article, the grounds for deletion listed in the AfD still seem relevant to me and this present article is mostly made up of tabloid fodder. A pity, since the author has evidently invested much time into it. Sorry, Nelson! (Actually, upon further scrutiny, a whole slew of other articles created by the author also seem to have questionable notability but I hesitate to mass-nom at this point in time...) Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per first AFD keep reasons. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Darren Ng Wei Jie (2020) discussion, which came much later than that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Darren Ng (2013). One also have to note that further details came to light after 2013 that established its notability and lasting effects on society. Such as in 2014, Ng's parents deciding to guide Ng's friends for their betterment; and that the case being cited in 2020 as an example of non-preferential treatment in the judicial system. – robertsky (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are trivial things IMO and I think even if this article survives this AfD, it is rather problematically worded (the "M" word). Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per robertsky.NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And kingoflettuce, shouldn't we just rewrite it if you feel the article is not worded in the right way? there is always a solution for those who deserve their own articles and need amendments without having to delete anything. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The case was widely reported in the international media from what I recall. Kingoflettuce is also right the article needs a massive overhaul. The section on the Orchard Towers case should be purged or significantly reduced. Seloloving (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Seloloving, i want to ask, if we should transfer the orchard towers murder into another article. i admit, its quite lengthy. though not sure if got time to do so NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very obviously notable. Heavy coverage. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable due to an abundance of coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:10, 31 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. Nominator presents no deletion reason besides the deletion of a similar article in 2013.

The article discussed here meets the General Notability Guideline via the following reliable sources. They are already in the article: ref 1 (2016) and ref 4 (2005) (non-admin closure) ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 19:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kallang River body parts murder[edit]

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

See previous discussion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Liu Hong Mei. It doesn't seem like this is a recreation of the deleted article from some eight years ago, but the grounds for deletion as listed in the AfD still seem relevant to me. A pity, since the author of this article has evidently put in much effort. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. i feel that this is a notorious crime, and has significant coverage and many people still remember it even till today. besides, like my previous reason in another discussion, should it be that all murder cases has to have lasting effects in order to remain in wikipedia, it would be the case where even the Toa Payoh ritual murders and Murder of Huang Na do not deserve its own article.NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, consider the comments of the people involved about the unusual way of dismembering the body and the defence made by the suspect against the charge he was tried for. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As written in the article, the case has been covered in several mediums: TV and books (local and internationally), many which were after the previous AfD discussion. – robertsky (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very obviously notable. Heavy coverage. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 28 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. ✗plicit 12:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Daemyeong[edit]

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

Bio of a royal consort of the tenth century. The content is all genealogical. The sources in the article are a blog, a one line entry in a database, and an entry in something offline. The ko.wiki article sources look similar. There may be other Korean sources I can’t find or analyse but for the present, notability is clearly not established. A possible outcome would be to redirect to Gyeongjong of Goryeo. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She was a royal consort. According to the old Korean absolute monarchy political system, royal consorts were high-ranking members of the royal court where each senior prince or princess can be considered to hold national or international office, making articles about them inherently valid as a US Senator or UK Minister of Parliament. The consorts of monarch can't be compared with useless first ladies, there is definitely a greater notability as the consort of monarch fills both political and communal functions.
"The Holy Roman Empire was not remotely comparable to modern Germany but was a far looser confederation: The empire never achieved the extent of political unification as was formed to the west...a decentralised, limited elective monarchy composed of hundreds of sub-units...The power of the emperor was limited, and while the various princes, lords, bishops, and cities of the empire were vassals who owed the emperor their allegiance, they also possessed an extent of privileges that gave them de facto independence within their territories."
The king built a palace for her and named "Daemyeong Palace" (대명궁) [16]. Moreover, she was portrayed by Jang Hee-soo in 2009 series Empress Cheonchu. VocalIndia (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I’m not sure why you’re quoting something about the Holy Roman Empire. What does that have to do with Korea? Is the Daemyeong palace named after this consort, or was the consort given this name because she lived in that palace? As far as I know there is not a consensus that consorts are default notable in any historical period in any country. To take your own example, we do not have and would not default keep articles on the consorts of each Holy Roman Emperor. For most of them we have basic genealogical information and nothing more, so they’re not notable and would simply be mentioned in the article section about the Emperor’s family. It’s not clear to me why Korea would be an exception to this. Mccapra (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you should not compare Goryeo dynasty with today's Republic Korea. The Holy Roman Empire is the best example! The Korean Queens hold the political power especially Goryeo and Joseon dynasty. Her information is still important though, even if this specific consort has not made much (that we currently are aware of), any consort and any action related to one, of a king over here in Korea in those days was an act of political significance. Btw, As you are a reviewer, I respect you and I don't want to oppose you at Afd. Thanks for your review on my articles. Cheers VocalIndia (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi please go ahead and oppose if you think I’m wrong! There are many articles waiting unreviewed because their notability isn’t clear and the sourcing is poor. By bringing them to AfD we establish what the community view is. At the moment I think that like for any country/period, some consorts and other members of royal families are notable and some aren’t. If all we have is genealogical data then we don’t usually have a stand alone bio article. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If she was a Maharani, then I would say that she do not meet WP:NPOL because under the British Raj, the title of Maharani (Queen consort) was more of a ceremonial position in the Princely states of India. In this case, she was a royal consort of major historic kingdom, the rank she held is high, which makes her a high-ranking member of the Royal Court of Goryeo. Wikipedia is accepts articles even that are only one sentence like --- is/was a member of parliament or former MP, because they passes WP:NPOL. So member of royal court also considered. Being a stub article is not a problem. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the spirit of WP:NPOL and many of the same arguments presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Gyeongchang. We don't know much about her because she lived a thousand years ago, but notability is not temporary. pburka (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included. in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. VocalIndia (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Comment, like Mccapra said, Korea royal consort isn't an exception to this and it's true that some of consort of the King may be famous or may be not, but as we not live at that time (Goryeo dynasty), so for know what's her ability / birth and death date / her activity is so hard and in records, there just info about her name, family (even there is some consorts that didn't know who's their families) and general information...Also, not every korean consorts will always came from noble family and some of them who didn't came from noble, they're not passes WP:NPOL as it just uses from they who came from nobles. But, seeing VocalIndia's meaning, it's makes sense that Lady Daemyeong must be keep because it has already portrayed in the TV series Empress Cheonchu that based on the Goryeo's royal families real life and for this woman, she must be passes WP:NPOL because her parents were both the child of Taejo of Goryeo, the Goryeo dynasty's founder. Ningsih ODINN (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've added some sources like How Goryeo people survived which show her notability and to pass NPOL. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Royal consorts should be (and are) generally seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Royal consorts are notable, and notability is not temporary.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the "something offline" is the Goryeosa. That's very very old, but it should nevertheless count as a dictionary of national biography. Furius (talk) 12:03, 31 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 12:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABG Neal[edit]

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

Non notable musician and rapper who is away from WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG DMySon (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has a couple of friendly introductions at the usually reliable XXL (already cited in the article) but they give him the softball treatment and don't really add up to significant coverage. Otherwise he is only visible at the typical streaming and promo sites. If those XXL intros go anywhere, this may just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comment by doomsdayer520. GermanKity (talk) 06:32, 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 12:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duani Pasatria[edit]

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

Playing 4 mins of professional football is, by consensus, a very, very weak presumption of notability; a presumption that has been proved invalid on a number of occasions. The best coverage I can find is a trivial mention in a local Gresik paper, basically stating that he is now a coach of a 3rd tier Indonesian side. I also found an old match report in Bola, which contains a passing mention of him. There is nothing here that establishes him as a notable sports figure as per WP:GNG, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what GS said. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:32, 28 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 due to lack of WP:ORGDEPTH coverage. RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18by Vote[edit]

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

Promotional WP:ADMASQ on a non notable NGO that’s fails to me WP:NGO. The organization lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would even consider a Speedy Deletion. I searched the user who created the page. Their talk page showed a Conflict of Interest regarding 18by Vote and per their LinkedIn page, they are the social media intern at 18by Vote. I do not believe this page was created in good faith. Coopman86 (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I am the social media intern at 18by Vote, I have no intentions of using Wikipedia as a way to advertise myself or the organization that I work for. Prior to creating this page, I tried to be as transparent as I could by showing Conflict of Interest. As I created the page, I also did my best to format it in a neutral way by not stating any personal opinions and by providing accurate sources that were strictly independent to the organization. I did want to demonstrate the impact that the organization has by including a few of our activities, which again, are referenced using independent sources. I am very open to other editors going through the article to standardize, copy-edit, or add/remove anything if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSchmir (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SamSchmir, you can’t !vote twice. Celestina007 (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references provided in the Coalition subsection does not support the claim that the org belongs in Youth in Gov. The first paragraph of the Activities section cites an article which does not mention the quotes "rising voters". This demonstrates careless referencing at best. – Xingyzt (talk | contribs) 05:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is a reliable source containing significant coverage of the organization. Furthermore, both of the above arguments for deletion are flawed. Regarding the conflict of interest argument, while COI editing is "strongly discouraged" and may warrant sanctions against the editor in question, it isn't a valid reason to delete an article. The page does not come across to me as overly promotional, so the fact that the editor has a COI is irrelevant. As for the "careless referencing" argument, article quality is not a valid reason to delete either (excluding WP:TNT situations, which this clearly is not). Mlb96 (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article not meeting WP:NGO was the argument which is the inverse of “flawed” the potential COI can be neglected. Having said, one source does not doesn’t meet in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them as required in WP:ORG, I fail to see how one source confers Notability for an organization. See WP:ORGDEPTH. Celestina007 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also add that there is coverage in more than just that one source. There are several reliable sources, some of which I have referenced in the article, that thoroughly and independently demonstrate the significant of the organization and its impact throughout the United States.SamSchmir (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some so called "reliable sources" but coverage is not in-depth or significant. Mostly small blurbs and quotes by employees. This does not satisfy ORGDEPTH. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only mentioned in one reliable source as a list entry; not enough coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The organization and it's work has been mentioned in several reliable sources dating all the way back to 2018. SamSchmir (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails CORPDEPTH and SIRS. Sources contain passing mentions or routine coverage or trivial coverage as delineated in COREDEPTH. There may be a couple of reliable sources but there is no significant coverage. Quotes by employees or managers of an organization does not constitute significant coverage. Please post sources here that satisfy the criteria for notability, because I am not seeing them. Thanks. Also, there is an obvious conflict of interest ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:15, 28 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 Vijetha (2018 film). WP:ATD-R czar 17:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyaan Dhev[edit]

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

An actor who fails NACTOR Iamfarzan (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vijetha (2018 film). WP:TOOSOON, starred in only one notable film. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 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 restructure based on the play. czar 17:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lorilei Guillory[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being the parent of a crime victim doesn’t confer notability. KidAd • SPEAK 06:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article about the murder of Jeremy Guillory might have a case to make for notability, but an article about the mother of the victim does not. Surachit (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Lorilei. She's the subject of a notable play (The Guardian (London), The News (Lahore), BBC (London)) and the page could be trivially rewritten to focus on the play. pburka (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @KidAd, Johnpacklambert, and Surachit: would any of you support renaming the article to Lorilei and changing the lead to focus on the play? I've already added relevant content about the play to the current page. pburka (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there enough sources for the play to meet WP:GNG? I don't know if theatrical works have notability standards, but Loreli seems a bit obscure to have its own page. KidAd • SPEAK 20:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are three independent reviews of the play referenced in the article currently (all from major newspapers), and its radio adaptation won a Sony Radio Academy Award in 2007. It was also reviewed in Dawn, The Express Tribune, The Nation (Pakistan) and The Theatre Record. I'm not sure that we have subject-specific guidelines for plays, but generally multiple reviews indicate notability for creative works (see WP:NFILM, WP:NALBUM and WP:NBOOK). I'm convinced these are more than enough for WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering the whole focus is really on the play, and this is really a coatracking to get in information on the play, it would be better to rename the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 26 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 12:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Panjaitan[edit]

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

Despite the plethora of references present in the article, all of them fail verification as none of them actually mention him even once! An Indonesian source search and Google searches all fail to yield a valid result. As things stand, no evidence of passing WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. More than likely, an autobiography that evaded detection back in 2011, when notability criteria were not as strict. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL JW 1961^Talk 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALLDr Salvus 17:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:47, 28 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 2021 Formula Regional European Championship#Race calendar. WP:ATD-R czar 18:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Nürburgring Formula Regional European Championship round[edit]

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

This round will no longer take place due to the 2021 European floods. This renders the article pointless. Alternative to deletion, the article can be modified to reflect the cancellation of the round, although in my view it would be easier to just delete the article. BestNamesJeff (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. BestNamesJeff (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We do, of course, have some articles about canceled sporting events (e.g. 1916 Summer Olympics, 1940 Winter Olympics, 1940 Summer Olympics, 1944 Winter Olympics and 1944 Summer Olympics). That doesn't mean, however, that all such events are notable. Gildir (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it wasn't notable to begin with and certainly isn't notable now that it won't happen.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor event which has been cancelled. Any relevant information which has been sourced can be merged into the season article or the article about the venue. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Formula Regional European Championship#Race calendar where this cancelled event is discussed. A7V2 (talk) 23:59, 27 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 12:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tri Setyo Nugroho[edit]

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

Has played 13 mins of football, which, by consensus, is a very weak presumption of notability. An Indonesian source search brought up results on unrelated people only. Google searches also brought back plenty of irrelevant results and only the one trivial mention on Tribun News, which is just confirmation that he was an unused substitute. This footballer is required to pass WP:GNG but I can't find any evidence to support a pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per GS. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Pasinetti[edit]

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

Looks like a self-pub promo – no evidence of notability. Most references are to self-published sources. The subject was once featured 8 years ago on ChinaNewsweek, an obscure website no longer in existence, obviously unrelated to the Newsweek. The subject's sole claim to importance is that he has been the founder of the non-profit organisation Teach For China, whose article was speedy deleted from Wikipedia three times as promo. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 甄宏戈 (2011-12-26). 仇广宇 (ed.). "美国潘的中国实践" [American Pasinetti's practice in China]. China News Weekly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2013-12-16. Retrieved 2021-07-18.
  The article is a detailed four-page profile of Andrea Pasinetti. The article notes from Google Translate: "When he was studying in Princeton, Andrea Pasinetti was an Italian-American with a cleanliness habit. Living things are required to be very clean. Even if you are on a business trip for a day, you will bring a box of shirts, and the clothes you wear are neatly folded and stored in your suitcase. Now he often travels between cities and mountain villages in China by various means of transportation that he has never seen before. Andrea Pasinetti's habit of cleanliness disappeared as soon as he arrived at a rural school, rolled with dusty students, and lived in a damp and dark dormitory with a local teacher."
2. Liu, Xiangrui (2013-07-02). "The education of Andrea Pasinetti". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2021-07-18. Retrieved 2021-07-18.
  The article notes: "Unlike famous college dropouts Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, Pasinetti is not interested in building a fortune with his own business. He has a very different story to tell, starting from when he left Princeton University without completing his degree. ... Since 2008 he has endeavored to change the future of rural children with his Teach For China program, styled after the Teach For America program, which sends groups of graduates from top universities to classrooms in underprivileged areas. ... In 2005, a language program brought Pasinetti to China for the first time. He was then studying public and international affairs at Princeton. He returned to China in 2007."
3. Bruno, Debra (2012-01-05). "Andrea Pasinetti: Runs 'most influential nonprofit in China'". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2021-07-18. Retrieved 2021-07-18.
  The article notes: "Even though Pasinetti was born in Los Angeles and grew up in New York, he's adopted China and hopes to make Teach for China "an enduring Chinese institution.""
4. Lam, Sara (2020). From Teach For America to Teach For China: Global Teacher Education Reform and Equity in Education. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-32536-4. Retrieved 2021-07-18.
  The book notes: "Like Teach for America, Teach for China's story starts with an ambitious Princeton student who became obsessed with an issue while working on an undergraduate thesis. In 2007, Andrea Pasinetti was enrolled in a year-long Chinese language program at Tsinghua University in Beijing while conducting research for his thesis on China's New Socialist Countryside Campaign. Although Pasinetti had visited China once before, he admits [quote from the 2013 article by Xiangrui Liu in China Daily]". He progressed very quickly from knowing nothing about rural China and Chinese education to founding an organization and deciding upon a program strategy that would remain in place for 10 years to date. While enrolled in the language program, he visited a school to which a friend of his had provided financial support. What he experienced there inspired him to establish Teach for China, or what was then called the China Education Initiative. ... In 2008, Pasinetti officially founded the China Education Initiative in collaboration with Rachel Wasser, a recent Yale graduate who was also studying Chinese in Beijing (Wasser, n.d.), and Hu Tingting, a Tsinghua graduate who was Pasinetti's Chinese teacher (Pasinetti, n.d.). Andrea Pasinetti served as CEO of Teach for China from its founding until he resigned and enrolled in an MBA program at Stanford University in 2018."
5. 庞清辉 (2012-03-12). "透视中国教育差距：农村地区仅5%的学生可上大学" [Insight into China's education gap: only 5% of students in rural areas can go to college]. China News Weekly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-07-18. Retrieved 2021-07-18 – via Sina Corp.
  From Google Translate: "Andrea Pasinetti, one of the founders, is an Italian-American born in the 1980s. In 2007, in his early 20s, he also studied at the Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and applied to the IUP Chinese Center of Tsinghua University to study Chinese. American teachers gave him the Chinese name Pan Xunzhuo (weibo), while friends are accustomed to calling him "Xiao Pan" affectionately. While studying in Princeton, Xiao Pan accidentally saw an article about the development of China's rural areas. With a huge population and a huge area, how to use a unified policy to develop such a vast area, which aroused his interest. So, he began to pay attention to China's New Countryside Movement. After studying at Tsinghua University, this became his research direction and the topic of his thesis."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Andrea Pasinetti to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject received significant coverage in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2020. The subject received significant coverage in international sources outside of China in The Christian Science Monitor and in a 2020 Routledge book. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread WP:NBIO - the policy does not mean that anyone who has been interviewed by the media once or twice should automatically receive a Wikipedia article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough non-interview coverage in the sources to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by User:Cunard showing that he passes WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 10:50, 31 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 12:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabin House[edit]

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

Despite the big budget specified on the IMDb page, I was unable to find any meaningful reviews. The best that I could find was a user-submitted review and a trivial mention in a Jeremy Rudd press release (please note that the press releases are all hosted on blacklisted websites so I have linked to the nearest thing instead). No evidence of WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero evidence of notability. Sensitivedonkey (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything out there for this movie. There's mention of this in relation to a later film, but not in any way that would make this pass NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:57, 27 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 Royal Dental Hospital. Consensus is that this is the notable topic, not the building that housed it. Sandstein 21:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Edwardian Hampshire 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) 06:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is not notable, and, like all the others in this group (for which I also prefer delete) it reads like a piece of advertising. Both of the sources cited are publicity puffery. Athel cb (talk) 07:21, 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) 12:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. ✗plicit 13:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft, but with the intent that this should be expanded and very likely kept. The fact that this is a Radisson hotel is of no moment, but the fact that this is apparently a substantial nearly 150-year-old building in the middle of London suggests that a notable history will be found. BD2412 T 20:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note according to the edwardian.com reference the building was formerly the Royal Dental Hospital, which is a redirect to St Thomas' Hospital. TSventon (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to check out. If better sources are found to add this information before the end of the time for discussion, my !vote will be to keep. BD2412 T 04:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- BD2412 the link you added has a list of references at the end, including a book on the hospital. ~~The Victoria County History~~ The Survey of London suggests that edwardian.com is confused (and so is the article). The hospital moved to a new building at 40-42 Leicester Square in 1874 and then to another new building at 31-36 in 1901, which is now used by the hotel. TSventon (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I have adjusted this in the article. BD2412 T 16:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~ Redirect to Royal Dental Hospital ~~possibly via draft~~. The hospital is just about notable. TSventon (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon: Now I am thinking that it should be titled 31-36 Leicester Square. It hasn't been a hospital for over 35 years. BD2412 T 16:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @BD2412: I have drafted an article about the hospital at Draft:Royal Dental Hospital without using the hotel article. I think the sources listed by "Lost Hospitals of London" establish the notability of the hospital, although ~~The Victoria County History~~ The Survey of London also discusses the known history of the site. As the building was built for the hospital and the hotel which took over doesn't seems to be notable, the hotel article could be redirected to the hospital article. TSventon (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tend to agree that the hotel is not independently notable, and should not be the subject of its own article, but I think that the Royal Dental Hospital and the building that once housed it may be separately and independently notable. BD2412 T 15:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BD2412: Do you mean that the building may be notable separately from the hospital? I have made a WP:RM/TR to publish Draft:Royal Dental Hospital. You are welcome to add your text about the hospital from the Hampshire Hotel article to the new draft/article. TSventon (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Andrew Davidson: I have written a short article about the hospital which occupied the building before the hotel, the Royal Dental Hospital and think the hotel article could be redirected to the new article. My WP:BEFORE search did not find significant coverage of the hotel. What do you think? TSventon (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - This discussion was started by a disruptive deletionist who has now been blocked. It should have been speedily closed per WP:DENY but instead it has been relisted and so the troll will be now enjoying the fact that we are still spending time picking up the pieces – tsk. The proposal to delete this is nonsense because, when one looks into it, as TSventon has done, one finds that there's a lot to say about this historic place. TSventon's new page is something of a fork but, as it focusses on the hospital and that had several locations during its long life, that's best kept separate. My position remains that we should Keep the page in question as no-one has yet provided an accurate, policy-based reason to delete anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Andrew Davidson: I stumbled on this discussion and, following up BD2412's comment that a notable history would be found, discovered information about the RDH. At that stage the article did not mention the original purpose of the building and had the wrong construction date. I considered adding to the hotel article, but after discussion here decided a separate article was justified. According to the journal Medical History (link) the RDH was the "first British dental school", so the article could be suitable for DYK if I can expand it sufficiently within the next 6 days. I agree the original nomination was poor, but it did start a discussion about improving the article. TSventon (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Andrew Davidson:, @BD2412: I have found more sources for Royal Dental Hospital, expanded the article and nominated it for DYK, so this discussion has served some purpose. TSventon (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- just so nobody is deceived, the speedy keep policy doesn't allow a discussion to be closed after there's been a good-faith delete !vote, even if the discussion was started by a sockpuppet. if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's blocked or banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed. Reyk _YO! 13:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Dental Hospital. Hard to follow the different "move" arguments above but this target appears to be a complete overlap for the content scope. The article's title can be discussed on its talk page. czar 18:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: sorry the discussion is confusing, when nominated the article didn't mention the hospital.

@BD2412: do you want to update your vote, then I could collapse the conversation above to make the nomination easier to close. TSventon (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My vote remains the same. The building, as a structure, may be independently notable. It has a history that precedes and proceeds the dental hospital. BD2412 T 20:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Sorry, I had not previously understood what you were saying. By the way, the hotel building at 31-36 Leicester Square does not predate the hospital: it was built for the hospital in 1897-1901, see the Lost Hospitals of London site you linked to previously. I believe the 1873 building was at 40-41 Leicester Square, which was occupied by the hospital from 1874 to 1901 and is now the Odeon West End site. TSventon (talk) 20:57, 31 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 21:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YouthCast[edit]

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

The sourcee are mainly from youtube and spotify. No significant coverage from reliable or any independent sources. Fails GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - YouTube and Spotify are only referenced as the source material. Coverage from both NewsMobile and the New York Times, both of which are reliable and independent sources of news. Passes GNG User:Zuko1050 05:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the user who proposed this article for deletion raises valid points with regards to the article, I am inclined to believe it should not be deleted. the article references NewsMobile and the New York Times, both reliable sources - a quick google search reveals that NewsMobile in fact runs a fact checking division as well. Yes, the use of Spotify and YouTube is not ideal but is still justified given that the article is about a podcast. A problem I did see was that the articles external link section contained social links which I have since deleted, but the rest seems fine to me. Should not be deleted. User:Thinpop 10:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:This [17] is the source from NY Times that users Thinpop and Zuko1050 mentioned here. But this is just a routine coverage announcing the winners of a contest. It does not talk about YouthCast at all... Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've heard of it, but it has very little coverage in media or social media. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 09:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previously mentioned New York Times reference doesn't even mention the subject. Lacks reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. The award is a trivial mention of a specific episode without even mentioning the podcast itself. The award could maybe qualify the episode for WP:WEBCRIT, but that's quite a stretch. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:GNG and seems self-promotional in nature. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return a handful of passing mentions, including the NYT article indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to Draft - (Not a second vote but rather a suggestion based on the comments of other users) In light of the concerns other users have expressed about the article, reverting it to draft status would be appropriate. Rather than delete it entirely, it would be better to convert it to a draft so it may be worked upon and reuploaded once it sufficiently meets GNG guidelines. As user Bearian mentioned above, he has heard of the podcast and the podcast has won a NY Times award for one of their episodes so it is is not obscure, but perhaps does to meet GNG guidelines just yet. Reverting it to a draft seems like the best option rather than a deletion. User:Zuko1050 14:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of reliable, secondary sources to apply, there is nothing to incubate if moved to draftspace. czar 18:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:GNG. NYT source had zero hits when searching for the word "Youthcast" so I'm not sure what's going on there... Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 31 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 List of programs previously broadcast by GMA Network#News. czar 18:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Network News[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG ----Rdp060707|talk 08:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 08:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 08:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is the former flagship newscast of GMA Network in the 1990s. Though it currently lacks reference, it surely does not fall under WP:GNG. -WayKurat (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anyone versed on Filipino television please go through and tell us when these newscasts actually aired during the day? The big issue overall is that these are just renames of certain newscasts for a time of day (mid-morning, noon, early evening) that should really be part of an omnibus article rather than all being separate articles about a newscast which is the same, just under a different title, which is how most western world newscast articles are organized. Nate • (chatter) 21:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mrschimpf: This program is a weeknight newscast (11:00 pm). It was replaced by a Filipino language newscast (Frontpage: Ulat ni Mel Tiangco) in 1999. I would agree, GMA Network then had a clumsy way of naming their newscasts in the 90s. -WayKurat (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - WayKurat, would the change from an English- to Filipino-language newscast merit a split? It might, in my opinion: perhaps group the pre-1999 English late newscasts and the post-1999 Filipino late newscasts. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sammi Brie There can be a section split within the article itself, since GMA Network still considered this the same program even after it transitioned from English to Filipino language. -WayKurat (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_previously_broadcast_by_GMA_Network#News where it is mentioned --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the condition that the references are added. Shows broadcast across the country are generally notable per WP:NTV. So far, the only thing I have found is this tweet by GMA, itself. HiwilmsTalk 18:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by GMA Network#News. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by GMA Network#News. Fails WP:TVSHOW per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:43, 31 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arch-Con Corporation[edit]

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

Construction company does not meet WP:NCORP- this is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL company with references consisting of largely non-independent or WP:ROUTINE coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not meet standards for inclusion.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH with the in-depth articles such as Houston Business Journal, BISNOW and CHRON. Also, the organization is operational across 7 major US states. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to get plenty of coverage in the construction and national press, which cover the construction industry of the Southwestern USA. The fact that these cover lots of other constructions facts too is not a reason to delete as that's the nature of industry journalists works.--Rupertdonovan (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is very well sourced indicating its notability on regional and national levels. It certainly meets WP:NCORP.--Chartwind (talk) 22:11, 29 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 deleted by Bbb23 as CSD G5: creation by blocked user in violation of block. (non-admin closure) -- Sable232 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kia KY[edit]

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

Speculative vehicle with no source, a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and speculative, and I can find only a smattering of speculative references to it elsewhere and not from reliable sources. Article creator appears to be a vandalism-only account. --Sable232 (talk) 13:59, 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 Artemisia Gentileschi. ✗plicit 12:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pierantonio Stiattesi[edit]

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

It's a stub that has remained so for more than a decade, mainly because, in my opinion, it fails WP:GNG. Pierantonio was a very minor artist, notable only through his marriage to Artemesia, as the current references attest. In a more recent article on Artemesia, we have "most traces of Stiattesi have since been lost". Web searches too show an absent of sources. I'm sure that he might appear in a catalog of artists, but being in a list in and of itself does not denote notability. I move that this page be either deleted or redirected to Artemesia's article. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Artemisia Gentileschi. It seems the husband is only notable in relation to his wife, and little can be written about him. Curiocurio (talk) 15:57, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oak and Gorski[edit]

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

Non-notable music duo, fails WP:BAND. The article has four sources: Billboard and The Johns Hopkins News-Letter both take quotes from the band, which is not independent coverage; Allkpop, which has been identified as an unreliable source; and a Kickstarter for Oak and Gorski's EP. Searching for references yields only one other citation from the Daily Bruin, which is another quote-ridden source that is not independent coverage, thus failing WP:GNG. ✗plicit 05:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 05:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 05:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 05:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 05:35, 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 speedy delete per A7, G11. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Sudarshan DZ[edit]

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

A promotonal article. The musician has no significsnt coverage. Fails GNG and NMUSIC. Iamfarzan (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not just because of the complete lack of notability, but also the COI edits and likely sockpuppeting involved in removal of the AfD and blanking of this actual discussion. Shows a clear lack of good faith. --10mmsocket (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — as per nom. All refs are unaccessible or fake (actually related to some other singer Arjun Kanungo) except this 50-worded source from nbpnewshub.blogspot.com. Nothing on Google worthy enough to show his notability. Clearly fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Thankew. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG; likely another autobiography Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT/QUESTION - given that the sockpuppetry AfD avoidance and COI have now been dealt with by both accounts being blocked, is there any reason this article needs to go through AfD? Surely it meets the Speedy Deletion criteria for blatant promotion of a non-notable person? --10mmsocket (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a speedy delete so hopefully this gets removed as soon as possible. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Deb (talk) 10:29, 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. If there is inaccurate or unsupported content, it should be corrected or removed, but there appear to be adequate sources to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Layla Love[edit]

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

I found this biography to be advertising a Shopify page firstly. As I researched the claims within I found no proof Bjork and Pink posed for this photographer as claimed. I soon found that the picture of Pink was a snapshot of her talking to another person in profile so it was a gross exaggeration. A more unsettling claim was that Gloria Steinem, social activist icon, formed a nonprofit with this person. It was a fundraiser project not a nonprofit and not Steinem’s project. Steinem is not connected by any admission or credible journalism. A blog post mistakenly identifies her as a cofounded and is not a credible source. Almost every citation I requested was a reverted edit as was a notability claim I put forth. There was even a claim this photographer was in the White House permanent collection. That would be easy information to find if the truth. The Women’s Museum mentioned has no mention of the photographer besides it closed over a decade ago so a photograph could not be in any collection. The galleries listed doesn’t mention this photographer either in searches. The year born was incorrect. There is no L.E.A.F. Foundation. Sennagod (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: since none of the above actually constitutes a proper rationale for deletion (which would address the issue of whether sourcing available was sufficient to demonstrate that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia notability requirements, rather than consisting of ill-informed evidence-free assertions regarding Wikipedia article content, and likewise evidence-free attacks on the integrity of more or less everyone except the initiator of the discussion), this AfD should probably be speedily closed as malformed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I agree the article needs better referencing, I believe that Layla Love has a career and publications written about her and her career that confirm notability as an artist and author. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep by WP:SKCRIT 1: no rationale for deletion has been provided that has any connection to policy. Arguably there is a case too for WP:SKCRIT 2: the nominator appears to be a single purpose account who has been repeatedly warned that their single-minded focus on gutting this page and launching personal attacks against its original creator violates core policies. There is nothing to be gained from a prolongued notability discussion under these circumstances. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Much of the opposition to the article voiced by the nominator is about the philanthropy content. Any decision on notability should rest on Love's art and writings. David notMD (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- David notMD, No, our decision should not "rest on [her] art and writings". It should be informed by the quantity and quality of coverage in independent, reliable sources. That has been sorely lacking. A source like https://www.richmond.ac.uk/art-loses-its-ego-when-its-paired-with-purpose/, were Love is quoted as "I count my years as a student at Richmond among the best of my life. They were the catalyst for my successful career as a world-renowned artist." (Really, can anyone be so immodest?) is pure PR. Any source that says: "Please contact Robin Anderson at [email protected] for further info." should have been dismissed as neither independent nor reliable. Vexations (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I meant was reliable source coverage of her art and writings. I agree the Richmond ref is perplexing, as it is from the school (?!?), yet has that link to website. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside various oddities in the nomination, I don't see good evidence that she meets either WP:PERSON or WP:ARTIST. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After filing the AfD, Sennagod deleted referenced content and refs (reverted) David notMD (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sennagod has again deleted referenced content and refs, stating the ref (DUGGAL Visual Solutions) is a blog, which it is not. [My statement here disputed by an editor on the Talk page of the article.] David notMD (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this AfD should be withdrawn. The nom contains no policy rationale; it contains unverifiable statements about a living person. While there is no rule that says a new user can't PROD or AfD an article, perhaps it's better to wait until one has a deeper understanding of how WP works. Netherzone (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of good sources, The Daily Beast, as if, NY Daily News, and Psychology Today are some easy ones to find. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rationale for deletion is not based on policy. (came from ANI btw). Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost every claim made in the article fell apart under closer scrutiny. Sources repeat what the subject has been telling them, but the claims in the sources are so extraordinary that cannot be used in the article without much better evidence in multiple independent reliable sources. The remaining claims are based on those same sources that we already know to be untrustworthy. Vexations (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Gorezi ref has several photos of Love with Steinem (and text), so not fiction. David notMD (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs cleanup, there are enough sources for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:03, 31 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 05:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Herrity[edit]

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

State-level politician fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 04:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County board of supervisors is not a level of political office that automatically confers guaranteed inclusion in Wikipedia — but the article neither claims that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of serving in county government, nor shows the depth of reliable sourcing that it would take to deem him a special case of significantly greater notability than most other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 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 05:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AVO Automation[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search leads me to user generated sources, pr sponsored posts and mere announcements, invariably there is 0 WP:ORGDEPTH. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A lot of the references are PR type. I counted only two references which were reliable sources. Remainder were all promotion for the insurance industry, prevention of fraud, laudable though that is. Alack, not enough references to give notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Kolma8 (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that's about as thin as sourcing can get. Best wait until (perhaps) the company actually becomes noteworthy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 14:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above all. -Hatchens (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company doesn't meet Wikipedia Notability Requirements --Rupertdonovan (talk) 23:58, 27 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 05:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Vida Abundante[edit]

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

This Spanish-language Christian radio network has just three stations and is not notable on its own—I cannot find any SIGCOV on it. Having worked on articles for the three network stations (KIRV, KDBV, KJDJ), there is no RS coverage on the outfit as a whole. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~No. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Comment Struck through; no rationale given, and we don't do no/yes voting. Nate • (chatter) 02:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone notability. Delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KMRO Much more sourced information in the flagship station's article, while this is overly vague. It sounds like the other stations in the network merely simulcast KMRO. Nate • (chatter) 02:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mrschimpf, that isn't even the same network (Radio Nueva Vida vs. Radio Vida Abundante). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I do agree; I'm trying to figure out who owns who because RVA's website is a mess that changed from last night to this morning, and the names are somewhat similar. Nate • (chatter) 23:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mrschimpf, I know of tons of Christian stations, including another network (KBIC etc.), using the name Radio Vida.
      Centro Cristiano Vida Abundante owns the three aforementioned stations in California and one television station, KYUM-LD. The TV station airs its television service, Tele Vida Abundante, which airs on obscure subchannels in a number of other markets. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's just nothing out there to establish any notability for this network. (It certainly doesn't inherit any from the three affiliate stations.) I do get the impression that KJDJ is the closest station to headquarters and was the first station to become part of the network, but I'm not entirely sure if that would make that particular station a viable redirect target — there otherwise doesn't seem to be a clear-cut flagship, and a redirect does carry the risk of too-easy article recreation. (KMRO and Radio Nueva Vida are not associated with Radio Vida Abundante to the best of my knowledge, despite the two networks' similar names, programming formats, and being California-based, so a redirect target in that direction would not be accurate.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wcquidditch, that is correct. The network is headquartered in Santa Maria (and they list KJDJ as a Santa Maria station when the license is to San Luis Obispo). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:30, 29 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 05:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belize at major beauty pageants[edit]

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

No indication that this set of data is notable per WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. Seems like an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. JBchrch talk 00:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 00:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 00:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD came out of an ANI discussion about several similar pages created by Kannweame7961 (talk · contribs), which was originally concerned about MOS:COLOUR violations. There are 121 other articles of this kind, which are listed at Template:Countries at major beauty pageants and Category:Nations at beauty pageants. I would recommend going through those other articles if this AfD closes as delete. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant subject. NavjotSR (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, doesn't appear to be notable. LaundryPizza03 raises a good point in what should be done with the rest of the articles if this closes as delete, as they are basically the same info (notability wise). -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 12:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep – Meets WP:LISTPURP as a functional information source and navigational aid just like the Big Four international beauty pageants. As previously stated in previous deletion thread of the other articles of this kind that survived the AfD ((kept and not deleted) by wiki admin, North America for example the Philippines at major beauty pageants would force readers to click through many various articles to find the information that is summarized in this article.---Richie Campbell (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTPURP is not a notability criteria. It is part of MOS:LIST, which also applies to both embedded lists and standalone lists—provided that they are notable. JBchrch talk 08:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability per GNG. Also Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information. WP:LISTPURP is not a criteria for notability. And, this WP article is most likely a fan page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the related ANI discussion is here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication at all that this is a notable topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 30 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.