Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 26 June 28 >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ahsanullah2015 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MEMZ[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG; scanning the sources shows only a couple of articles from the same publisher that provides significant coverage. Multiple links listed are to YouTube, and a simple web search fails to garner significant media attention. From my understanding, multiple sources are needed to satisfy notability. Aasim (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple sources aren't necessarily required in order for a topic to be notable, it is merely a good indicator that a topic is notable. I'm leaning towards a weak keep under the assumption that Motherboard is a satisfactory source. Mlb96 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Although many of the sources already cited in the article aren't massively reliable, the two Motherboard articles and this Vice article might be enough to keep it. pinktoebeans (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collectabillia[edit]

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

almost all the references here are mere notices. about investments or individual items being sold. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No evidence of notability; coverage is of unremarkable things that have inherited their notability. Is thjere any limit to human gullibility?TheLongTone (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited through what is being sold on the website. pinktoebeans (talk) 13:41, 4 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 03:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Austin (journalist)[edit]

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

Comes up short against WP:CREATIVE (no major contributions) and WP:NACTOR (both were uncredited roles), and overall fails WP:BASIC. There is some coverage in sources of varying quality but all four read like regurgitated press releases and intellectual independence is lacking (the original press release appears to have been removed, but this may be the closest). Either way, all four cited sources are merely announcing her as a new entrant and lack the depth required to substantiate a real claim to notability. ninety:one 23:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 23:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 23:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear example of an overly promotional article. Austin is a 20-year-old who has dabbled in some free lance journalism, had roles in films that do not amount to meeting actress notability, and has modeled in ways that do not amount to being notable as a model. She might some day be notable as an actress or sports journalist or maybe even as a model, but she does not yet pass notability for any of these endevors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the two films she was in, she does not appear on our cast lists, which have 13 and 15 people on them. Also, the article does not even tell us what roles she played in them. For all we know she may have just been an extra who lacked even a speaking part, but it clearly would not meet any definition of a significant role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Street Scene[edit]

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

already an active draft at Draft:Brighton Street Scene, delete until notability is demonstrated per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Perhaps the draft will be sufficient once it is complete. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentThere really is not enough here to justify a stand-alone article; I'd suggest a redirect to William Freese-Greene but a (skim) read didn't find a mention. I don't think an entry in Imdb as sole reference is enough to establish notability, either.TheLongTone (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe adding it to this (List of lost films) list will do? Kolma8 (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandela: The Struggle Is My Life[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jo Perino[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Insufficient in-depth independent coverage in RS. MB 15:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MB 15:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MB 15:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:BEFORE brings up nothing to suggest pass of WP:GNG, nor a pass of WP:JOURNALIST. nearlyevil665 17:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage.Tec Tom (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete back when this article was created in 2006 Wikipedia was the wild west with very little actual notability guidelines and the ones that did exist were blatantly disregarded. When the only source we can find on an individual is the bio published by their employer we have no sign of notability. There is nothing at all to sugget that Perino is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks notability, and has no reliable information source.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Note to closer: The above votes merely looked at the article in its current poor state, or folks didn't do adequate investigation into the notability of the individual. With just 10 minutes of research I've beefed up the lead graf with: "She was named Kentucky Sportscaster of the Year in 2009 and 2010 and in 2011 was the first woman elected to the board of the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association," with references from a reliable established newspaper. With these accomplishments, she quite reasonably crosses into the domain of notable, having been a national news anchor, an award winner, and the first woman to be a board member of the leading professional body. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the sources identified by Fuzheado?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live Rushfeldt Deila[edit]

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

WP:SPORTCRIT states that competitors of the smaller sports are inclusion-worthy if they "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". The Norwegian handball league is an amateur competition with semi-professional elements and a select few pro players, and not among the leading leagues of Europe. She has only participated for youth national teams, which isn't enough in comparable sports, there must be senior play. In addition I do not see the criterion of multiple non-trivial coverage being met. Geschichte (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to weak keep due to a couple of sources found when searching for sources about her sister [1] [2] Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First as information: handball is not a small sport it is under the five biggest team sports in the world and the clear number two in Europe. To the AfD: I found several sources about her and according to this [3] she signed in February a professional contract. According to zip.news there are 50 articles about her. I my eyes she will pass WP:GNG.--Malo95 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The sources found so far have been interviews or routine transfer coverage, with the possible exception of the VG.no site which is paywalled. JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Coladangelo[edit]

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

Classic BLP1e, notable only for her affair with a politician. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as creator): This isn't true; she was criticised for being part of the "chumocracy" prior to her affair with Hancock: [4][5][6].
The scandal is notable, and imo merger of content would be undue for either her husband's article, or Matt Hancock's. Perhaps the page could be renamed/altered to reflect the scandal aspect (i.e. Matt Hancock affair or Matt Hancock scandal). People have already made comparisons to the Dominic Cummings scandal in terms of public trust in the UK govts pandemic messaging, and brushing this off as some simple gossip about a politician's affair is wholly inaccurate. The issue is the more to do with the hypocrisy than the infidelity, and that is reflected in the reliable sources given in the article. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of which can be dealt with in Hancock's bio. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Philafrenzy on this. She isn't particularly notable, only really for her affair with Hancock. Possibly some of the information from this article could be moved to the section on Matt Hancock's article about the scandal, if necessary. Typhlosionator (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable per Bangalamania. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I understand she was a very well paid professional aide, and it is inconceivable she would not be unaware of the possible consequences of the relationship leading to pressure or resignation of a key UK government figure during Covid 19 pandemic. The crucial point is it seems the failure to adhere to social distancing guidelines/rules. It is somewhat pragmatic as high access government aide in a work site if professional guidelines were followed. There may be scrutiny over appointments and possible cronyism and a bio has become reasonable in my view. She is not an A7 victim. Expansion on her husbands article page would be UNDUE and possible in breach of guidelines. Any expansion or merge on Hancock's page would likely be UNDUE. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reliable sources about her and her role in government, dating back to 2020 (listed above), which predate the blowup of the story in June 2021 and subsequent ministerial resignation. Uhooep (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel she is notable regardless of the recent event. HelpfulPi (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If kept, the article should be revised to reflect her notoriety for something other than the Hancock issue. With the recent 'issue', an additional footnote. Textualism (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just about enough notability before the Hancock scandal Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Bangalamania points out, in November three reliable sources gave coverage to her appointment to a £15,000-a-year advisor role in Hancock's department. Together will all the recent news, including coverage of her father and brother and their senior roles in companies with significant NHS contracts and/or connections (which we could not easily add elsewhere), this is enough to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily satisfies WP:GNG. IronManCap (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, likely search term arising from a breaking news story so deletion would not be a net improvement to the encyclopaedia. I don't like the solution of covering her in Matt Hancock's article -- Wikipedia should treat women as people in their own right and not appendages to articles about men.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. This was exactly my feeling when I realised her article originally redirected to that of her husband. – Bangalamania (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I made Coladangelo a redirect to Hancock, before realising that her husband Oliver Tress was notable, and started his article. Then I changed the redirect to Tress, as it seemed to make more sense to collect any content about her there. Edwardx (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't it cross your mind that rather than looking for a man's article to redirect this title to it might actually be possible to treat a woman as a separate person? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger Assuming good faith is a "fundamental principle". Our readers were going to be searching for Coladangelo, so creating a redirect to whatever might be the most relevant article makes sense while determining whether or not a separate article is yet merited. In the cirumstances, a redirect to Matt Hancock was appropriate. 46 hours later in the rapidly evolving news cycle, Bangalamania started the article, and as the article history indicates, other editors must have considered whether or not to begin one. Also, that there has been an AfD 55 hours after my initial redirect suggests that starting a separate article rather than that redirect may well not have been the right call. Edwardx (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - Google suggested searches have 'gina coladangelo wikipedia' as the 4th suggestion when typing 'gina co'. People are clearly looking for this and will likely be surprised/disappointed if they can only find news stories about her as Wikipedia is far more trustworthy. Caraar12345 (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the consensus is pretty clear, I suggest to speedy keep this to avoid a deletion message on a highly visited Wikipedia page. - The9Man (Talk) 13:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agreeing with S Marshall above, the inclusion of this article is an improvement of the encyclopedia but she passes GNG anyway. It is past time that women on Wikipedia be treated as individuals and not exist in the shadows of men, whether their spouse, fathers or siblings. --ARoseWolf 14:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Edwardx. More than just an affair - it was also the hiring for a government role. Please don’t close this before the 24-hour mark, though. starship.paint (exalt) 16:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP- Popular topic in the UK right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amillionways1211 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bangalamania and Edwardx. There is far more to her notability than just the recent news about the affair. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Drill it (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wilding[edit]

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

I am aware this has gone through two previous discussions, but believe this requires another one. Since the last discussion, you can see from the talk page that the page has gone through a major change, as more and more of it was found either to be unsourced or embellished. She wasn't the White house photographer, she was part of the photographers pool, She wasn't a White House correspondent, her movie isn't notable and hasn't won any major awards. You then have the issue of her, and assumed to be her husband, editing the page and getting into wars about it. I believe this article written by David Farrier sums up the issues with this article best. I feel she fails WP:FILMBIO and WP:GNG and the last vote is invalidated due to incorrect information being taken into account. I ask that you look carefully at everything before you vote. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 20:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as I hate people who game the system, she has done an exceptionally good job at it. The sourcing currently included in the article seems to pass all the requirements. If someone can make a persuasive argument for deletion, I'd be more than happy to change my !vote. Mlb96 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My understanding is we let secondary sources decide notability and she would not be the first person to be notable for being notable (WP:BIO pass). If anyone should think that a Wikipedia page is a badge of honour then reading this one will dissuade them. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current version of the page is neutral and relatively well referenced. pburka (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It'd be helpful if those voting Keep said which role Wilding had reached the standard of notability for. As a film-maker? As a photographer? As someone who sends out a large number of press releases? -- haminoon (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No particular achievements or great deeds are required for an individual to be notable. All that's required is significant coverage in independent sources. pburka (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note if I might read between the lines, Jessica Hammond is heading towards deletion right now and this page is heading towards keep. This feels wrong, but I can not articulate why using Wikipedia's notability rules. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All the fluff and drama aside, it's clear to me that she's not a notable person.-KH-1 (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC, therefore not notable at this stage NealeFamily (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's good at self-promotion and even senior journalists fall for it. But when you take the stuff away that she's made up (i.e. the reason that journos talk to her), there's nothing left that establishes notability. Needs salting as otherwise, it'll be back. Schwede66 10:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My view is similar to what Schwede66 said. I would argue her self promotion is a type of gaming of the system. This never would’ve been accepted at AFC and is well below our standards. I also agree that this should be salted. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite claims made in earlier versions of the article, no actual evidence of notability. Agree with salting the article.-gadfium 19:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are nine articles in independent reliable sources about Wilding or her work. As they are mostly very short and not in national publications, then they just fall short of being "significant coverage". Please note that the article has been salted before. -- haminoon (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Yes if this does get deleted and salted. It was salted previously under her name but someone rewrote the page under Anna Wilding (director) instead to get around it and it was kept (I believe incorrectly due to fluff), then moved to current name.— NZFC(talk)(cont)
  • Delete as per others Nexus000 (talk) 11:19, 2 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 Procedural keep. I think procedural keep is the best outcome here at this stage. There is a split between this and draftify, but nothing in the discussion to indicate all are worth draftifying and individual discussions would likely give clearer consensus. Fenix down (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club season[edit]

2021–22 Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly does not pass WP:GNG nor does it pass WP:NSEASON, and is also a case of WP:TOOSOON since this has yet to pass. -- Tautomers(T C) 19:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as they are a series of articles created by the user user:III69, all on Bangledeshi future soccer seasons, all of which fail the guidelines for the same reasons and have parallel content, hence bundling them together. I made an AfD yesterday for one of the articles this user made, which can be seen here. While checking that I noticed the author had created many others that are worthy of AfD for the same reasons. I am not adding that AfD to this bundle since it has already began. Included articles:

2021–22 Saif Sporting Club season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2021–22 Dhaka Second Division Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2021–22 Dhaka Senior Division League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2021–22 Bangladesh Police FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2021–22 Sheikh Russel KC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Tautomers(T C) 19:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I believe we've kept seasons on Saif before on GNG grounds, Police and the Senior Division might be okay as well apart from possibly being WP:TOOSOON, the Bangladeshi clubs which receive SIGCOV there's no issue with a seasons article in my mind. Since these could possibly be kept in the future, draftifying allows us to move these into mainspace when they're ready - taken as a whole there's nothing here so non-notable that it needs to be outright deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Am I to assume I should have set some of these individually as AfD's? I think I'll leave that to someone else as I know very little about sports and there might be factors there I am unaware of. Thanks. --Tautomers(T C) 21:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - these really need to be discussed separately. I suggest this is closed and individual AFDs opened. Some might be notable, some might be not. It will get too messy otherwise. GiantSnowman 10:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - given that a few Bangladeshi seasons have gone through AfD before and been kept, although a few have also been deleted, there is no clear consensus as to whether they are generally notable or not. These seasons haven't started yet so it's WP:TOOSOON to judge their notability. Moving them to draftspace gives the creator a chance to develop the articles as sources get published throughout the season. Following WP:AfC would be a good idea. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep Per GS comments above. Govvy (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

District Jail, Jhajjar[edit]

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

Broken external links, one citation is a PDF of a photocopy and does not qualify as a source, the other is an uninformative list, the article is uninformative, shows no signs of WP:GNG at all. Article creator seems to have a track record of creating weak articles that get deleted suggesting they will unlikely improve this. --Tautomers(T C) 19:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a local jail with no evidence of particular notability. As the nominator says, this does not meet WP:GNG. Laplorfill (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Internet search reveals nothing of note. Fails WP:GNG. Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a search indicates no evidence that this jail meets WP:ORG Star Mississippi 16:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Jail is a place where it is populated like a village and always have inmates many a times more than a small village and it deserves a Wikipedia page.I love to be honest (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply not remotely a valid SK criteria, and does not indicate how it meets WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 23:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Generally in jails undertrial prisoners and convicts are kept. As per notability guidelines it is not important that he or she is positively notable. The negatively notable persons are kept in Jails and no doubt it is a decade old jail and day by day it will be searched by masses. It is overcrowded jail and the article may be kept as we create articles of villages, this is also a populated place. I love to be honest (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read WP:ORG and explain how the jail passes it. Star Mississippi 16:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. I have nominated four articles of a similar subject by the same user over the same concerns with this one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the addition of multiple reviews (sources) to the article, it appears that there is consensus that it should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterwolf[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep One review found at Dread Central [[7]] Donaldd23 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • One review is not sufficient evidence of notability. Two is the bare minimum per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 20:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with people only able to find one review we have no where near the sourcing to show this is a notable work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not have access to the Chicago Tribune article, but I believe if it is a lengthly review than that should satisfy NFILM? Anonymous 7481 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep exercising WP:AGF here as all three reviews from Dread Central, Chicago Tribune and Spielfilm have been used by admin Reader of the Pack to build a reception section since the article has been nominated, passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on reviews mentioned above.★Trekker (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lolita from Interstellar Space[edit]

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

Non-notable erotic film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources or any other indication of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Road North Shopping Precinct[edit]

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

This article is about a completely non-notable shopping area. It was prodded in 2010 by Eeekster but deprodded by Brownam the following day. About a week later MegaSloth redirected it to Lowestoft (the town it is located in), however it is not mentioned there and as far as I can tell hasn't been since 2011. That's the way it stayed until today when I undid the redirect to nominate the article here (an RfD would likely have concluded to restore the article and send it to AfD). Note that although the article was created and entirely written by Wikiadencart and both that user and Brownam are blocked as socks of the same editor, the master (Sacsomgerine) was not blocked until after this page was redirected so it is not eligible for G5 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but how will we know if the centre has music such as; band? if this is deleted? Delete clearly passes WP:GNG, can probably be redirected to Lowestoft. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It previously did redirect to Lowestoft, but as it is not mentioned there (and hasn't been for a decade) that is not an appropriate redirect - someone looking for content about it will not be helped but left confused by the lack of mention, and it will also hinder search engines by obscuring links to sites that actually do have information about the topic. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable: a Google search for the exact phrase returns nothing relevant. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely nothing notable about this shopping precinct. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any suitable sources, this may be but it mainly appears to be photos so probably doesn't count. I would just have used RFD since it was only an article for about a week but has been a redirect for over 11 years so I doubt that a RFD would have resulted in sending to AFD. It could perhaps be redirected back to Lowestoft if it was mentioned there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSeven shops and maybe a busker and a hotdog stand? It'sbarely more notable than my back garden.TheLongTone (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as outlined by others above, the subject of the article lacks significant coverage and any evidence of notability. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 2 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Verma[edit]

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

There are no roles that could be considered significant enough for WP:NACTOR. They are recurring roles but not significant enough in context of the entire show/film. All sources cited are interviews or what the actor is saying or feeling about his own roles/work. None of these sources discusses his work or provide any independent reception/comments of his work. I had moved this to draft with a request to improve and then bring to mainspace. Bringing it back to main without improvement leaves a bad taste. A WP:BEFORE is giving similar announcements or takes that don't contribute to notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC alike. Was also deleted in 2020 via AFD. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love in the Time of the Bakunawa[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion (1995 film)[edit]

Dominion (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM.

PROD removed because "added citation and the actors in the film all have wikipedia aritcles."

However, the citations listed are a listing at a video collector's site, Rotten Tomatoes...which has 0 critic reviews, and TCM which is just a database. As for all the actors having Wikipedia articles, Notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator of the article, I believe the article warrants deletion. I had mistakenly gone with the "inherited notability" princiiple, since quite a few high-profile performers starred in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooonswimmer (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is also available on Ukrainian Wiki. Brascoian (talk to me) 16:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can see first revision and you can see current revision i have improved the article by alot. Brascoian (talk to me) 16:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brascoian, how is anything you've said above relevant to the notability concern voiced by the nominator? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brascoian, being on another language's wiki does not warrant automatic inclusion on every wiki. Notability must be established, which, even in the current revision, it has not. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each Wikipedia has different notability rules, so being kept in a discussion on one Wikipedia does not gaurantee being kept on another. For example, at least at one point the Polish Wikipedia considered every university professor notable. We have never embraced such an inclusive standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; fails WP:NFILM. Entries on other Wikipedia language editions is not grounds for notability. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried looking for coverage in newspapers.com, as well as in a general search but couldn't find anything. I suppose I could go through my college database, but I'm not finding anything that would give me any faith that there would be coverage there, particularly as Newspapers.com would be the most likely outlet to find coverage of a 90s film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Donaldd23. Shoestringnomad (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love at the Thanksgiving Day Parade[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many, many Hallmark films. Sometimes one will gain coverage enough to pass NFILM, but the majority will typically get only the smallest smattering of attention - or none - before they vanish into the cornucopia of holiday films. This seems to be one of the latter, as I can't really find anything other than typical TV listings. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hallmark films are a dime a dozen, and we need good sources to show they are notable. A trailer is not an indepdent source, and IMDB is not reliable, so we have no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nom as it fails WP:NFILM. Pahiy (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nutana Mohan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a singer, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim on offer here is that she exists, with no indication of any particularly notable achievements beyond just doing her job, and the sourcing consists primarily of glancing namechecks of her existence in unreliable sources that aren't support for notability. There is one actual newspaper article here, a promotionally toned "local girl does stuff" human interest piece in her local newspaper, but that isn't enough coverage to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only acceptable source on offer. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Her works as singer in various films is a notability factor. Need other community members contribution for the same. Vijayabhaskarjatoth (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simply having work out there is not a notability factor in and of itself. To be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you need to show that she would pass at least one of the notability criteria at WP:NMUSIC, such as by having won notable awards for her work, having had one or more of her songs be charting hit singles, or having been the subject of several (not just one) published pieces of journalism in reliable sources to establish the creative significance of her work. Simply existing as a singer is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked some of her predominant films includes Katamarayudu, Red, Oh baby! And many more Produced by T-Series and Aditya Music. Providing below references. A Song from the Oh! Baby movie has the top charts with 10 Million views on YouTube.[1][2][3] [4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka13JF4CZt8
  2. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/music/music-review-oh-baby/articleshow/70092289.cms
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aditya_Music
  4. ^ https://www.jiosaavn.com/artist/nutana-mohan-songs/Jb2Yq-tJzos_
  5. ^ https://open.spotify.com/artist/0RGaIKSEzZnlNTLCJKnv0H
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh!_Baby
Vijayabhaskarjatoth (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Notability is determined by pre-established guides. WP:SINGER is fairly broad and this subject doesn't meet that very low bar. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per the sources research can keep it live and make more encouragement towards the article contribution.Vijayabhaskarjatoth (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
@Vijayabhaskarjatoth: The sources you listed above are not of good quality, sorry. If you think there will be more (better) sources soon, you can always request to make it into a draft, so you can keep working on it. But the article is not ready for the Wikipedia main area. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:50, 6 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maalan Narayanan[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BASIC. Among the three cited sources, only TheHindu makes a passing mention, the entire Baasha India site is dead and the other one is not a news source and is also dead. Can't find any other WP:RS about the subject on the internet. SUN EYE 1 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SUN EYE 1 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST. He is (or at least was) the editor of a major magazine (per the second source) and appears to be widely cited (e.g. [8], [9], [10]) by his peers. Brycehughes (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Brycehughes, He was the editor of the magazine till 2015 per his linkedin profile (now there is a new editor) and the magazine is a Tamil language magazine primarily known in only one state in India. The links you gave were WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, is there at least one source with WP:SIGCOV because I couldn't find anything with Significant coverage about him. SUN EYE 1 12:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at this and note how many times he is quoted as an expert commentator in various news sources around India and the world, including the Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, the Times of India, and Gulf News. Moreover, note that that "one state in India" is larger than most countries in the world. He is clearly notable. Brycehughes (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Brycehughes, I do not disagree with you on that but what wiki policy supports the notability of him based on his comments if there is no WP:SIGCOV about him. SUN EYE 1 14:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Suneye1, you neglect to mention that the one state in India in which the magazine is primarily known is more populous than all but two countries in Europe. And what does it being in Tamil have to do with notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the other user might think that the magazine is circulated in all of India where Tamil is spoken only by less than six percent of the population. SUN EYE 1 03:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the absolute number that matters, not the percentage in a nation state. There are about 70 million native speakers of Tamil, so anything published in that language has a very large potential audience. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @Suneye1: Thank you for bringing this now I have added more references and details to evaluate the Notability. -Neechalkaran (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Neechalkaran, I appreciate the effort but you have added awards from his linkedin profile and a government pdf and some content from his personal website. I doubt these are WP:RS and none of those sources were WP:SIGCOV. SUN EYE 1 05:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RationalPuff:: Please reevaluate. The article doesn't represent the person as a editor but also an advisory of Various National and State level institutions.-Neechalkaran (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Brycehughes -- the guideline (XNGs aren't policy) that supports his notability is NJOURNALIST. "Merely being editor with the major newspapers" is NCREATIVE#3, and Brycehughes also demonstrates he passes NCREATIVE#1. Vaticidalprophet 23:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't the article pass WP:BASIC before WP:NJOURNALIST. WP:BASIC states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable...". There is currently no WP:RS with Significant coverage about the subject.SUN EYE 1 08:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not justified. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GermanKity: Please refer Significant coverage on citation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15-Neechalkaran (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neechalkaran: None of these references are about him. Merely news articles quoting his words doesn't count. Article written by him is his job. He doesn't meet either WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:CREATIVE. Have you got anything else that makes him notable? RationalPuff (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RationalPuff:He is a Translator, writer, Journalist, Political Analyst and State Government Award Receipient. as per Creative professionals, his work thappu kanakku is his well noted work, which has been translated in various languages. I can't list his all books, as it's reference are citied in commerical websites. He travelled along with various Indian Prime Ministers as member of official journalist crew. Council member of Sahitya Akademi, Lalikala Academy, Raja Rammohum Roy Library Foundation and more. Senate Member of Various Universities.-Neechalkaran (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neechalkaran: why don't you add all these to the article backing it up with WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. Quality of information in the article dictates whether or not an article should be on Wikipedia, not solely the the points being made on the AfD. RationalPuff (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backwards. The question is whether the subject is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, not whether the quality of the encyclopedia article renders the subject notable. Brycehughes (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Suneye1:Finally I found the collection of citation for your initial claim for Bharatiya Bhasha Parishad award from http://maalan.co.in/bharatiya-basha-parishad-award-for-creativity/ can you please confirm does this help you? -Neechalkaran (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neechalkaran, please see WP:RS, that is his personal website, also these references you recently added are not reliable too. Please don't take this deletion discussion personally, I nominated this article as it lacked notability.SUN EYE 1 08:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy Defense (series)[edit]

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

Article as it currently exists has no secondary sourcing and most of it falls outside of WP:VGSCOPE. The generic name makes searching somewhat hard, but I wasn't able to find any reliable, secondary coverage of this. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A more focused discussion might at some point result in a consensus, but that was not well developed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Indian scripts[edit]

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

This article has been created by a series of cut and paste moves from other articles. Wikipedia requires attribution when material is copied from one article to another. The article does not add much compared to Brahmic scripts and is a case of WP:CONTENTFORK. Besides that, the scope also has a big problem, what even is "ancient"? The Indus and Multani scripts are seperated by about 4500 years in earliest attestations. So then, are we just talking about "scripts found in the subcontinent of India"? Then why not include Latin and Arabic too, both with centuries of usage. I don't see a reason to keep this article Glennznl (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra, Chaipau, and TrangaBellam: Pinging you here to request you to repeat your arguments. Glennznl (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the original subject of this article was “Pre-Islamic scripts of Pakistan” which has some coherence. Now it is much wider in scope and since it consists of cut and paste sections from existing articles about individual scripts, I’m less sure of the value of it. It seems to me better material for template than for a compendium article, as a template would alert readers to the existence of other scripts and allow navigation between them. But I don’t really have a view on the proposal to delete this. Mccapra (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not for resolving content issues. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhishek0831996: The issue is not a content issue, the issue is that the page should not exist, since it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, copy-pasting pieces of other articles without any research or scope on what "ancient Indian scripts" even are. --Glennznl (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG. It is alright to have a page providing summaries of all ancient Indian scripts. Dhawangupta (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhawangupta: Please explain what an "ancient Indian script" is. --Glennznl (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhawangupta: This would mean half the page would have to get deleted because only a few of the scripts are that old. If we do not delete the page, the only solution I see is creating an article called "Writing systems of India" (for example see hi:भारतीय लिपियाँ) and turn Ancient Indian scripts into a redirect to that page, where it directs to a subsection for ancient scripts. --Glennznl (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Dhawanagupta. I agree with your proposal and the page with new title can have "Ancient scripts" section under which some of these can be added that came before 5th century CE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not an easy one, as the article looks like it is notable at first glance. However, I agree with nom that this is essentially a worse version of articles like Brahmic scripts. There is nothing "holding the article together", so to say: Every individual script itself is quite obviously notable. But simply putting all these notable scripts together in an article does not make the "compilation article" a notable subject. There are no sources about "Ancient Indian Scripts" as a reasonable category. As a fictional example to illustrate my point: I could make an article called Famous Ancient Indians and then make sections for Buddha, Ashoka, Kalidasa and the like. These are all well-known and notable, but simply putting them into an article together does not make sense. What do they have in common? Not enough!
As in this fictional example, it does not make sense to put all these scripts together here. Have them be in articles about their scholarly categories, such as grouping all Brahmic scripts together. There are sources to justify that grouping, unlike for "Ancient Indian scripts". --LordPeterII (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I note that name change has been proposed above and that can be done outside AfD. AnM2002 (talk) 15:13, 6 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. Any future discussions of this article's title should take place via the process discussed at WP:RM, although I note that there seems to be a clear consensus in favor of the present name. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian War[edit]

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

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, war is when "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations". There was nothing declared. Russia is also not in a war and Ukraine is officially also not in a war state.

This article definitely can't be called as it is. It is a civilian war in Ukraine and yes, there are several parties taking part direct or indirect in it. Now it is absolutely against the Wikipedia rules. It's political propaganda Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not And articles on Wikipedia should have neutral point of view. It would make sense to rename the article to "Ukraine crisis" or "Civil war in Ukraine" but as long as first version already exists it makes sense to take just part of this article and put it there and this article to be deleted. --Sputnik13 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic's title is a matter of common parlance as no-one seems to make formal declarations of war nowadays. Here's some books on the subject:
  1. Ukraine's Maidan, Russia's War
  2. Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine
  3. Ukraine and Russia: From Civilised Divorce to Uncivil War
  4. Putin's War Against Ukraine
  5. Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine
Andrew🐉(talk) 15:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They use a thing called “authorization of military force” which is basically the same thing as declaring a conventional war against another country. Ridax2020 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove structure of this article is almost 1:1 of War in Donbas and it is also about it. Some parts could be moved to Ukrainian crisis. But it is still definitely against Wikipedia rules as not neutral and as clear propaganda tool. In this case just apply Duck test. The only question, what parts should be kept.--Sputnik13 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw. good that all these wars were mentioned. Exactly because they were complicated and different parties took part there is only location in the name and for this conflict there is an article already War in Donbas--Sputnik13 (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Russian military intervention in Ukraine or Russian involvement in the War in Donbas. There was never an open war between Ukraine and Russia and neither countries are officially in a state of war as the nominator said. Most sources don’t call it the Russo-Ukrainian War and I don’t think a bunch of books with metaphorical names are a good source to use for the name of this article. Al jazeera, france 24, CNN, fox news, reuters and many other articles do not use such a name either and back when Russia was building up it’s military in the border earlier this year, they published articles about russia and ukraine being on a “brink of war” rather than an escalation or anything like that. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/23/world/europe/russia-putin-navalny-ukraine.amp.html, https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/4/13/is-russia-moving-towards-war-with-ukraine. Instead of removing it, let’s revert the name to what it was before. Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Ridax2020 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC) — Ridax2020 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of IbrahimWeed (talk · contribs). [reply]
    To be honest, War in Donbas is the only article that should exist and present different points of view and this one exists only in order to have "Russia" in the title and influence social opinion about the current situation. The only goals are political and anti-Russian policy in different countries. We don't see here "American-Iraqian War" but just Iraq war, why? We don't have here Argentian-British war, but Falklands war, why? And in case Russia it is like normal. It is not a neutral point of view.--Sputnik13 (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with Sputnik13's criticisms about the name change of the Ukraine War article. To me, the name change seems to be oriented towards giving the conflict an ethnic-nationalist overtone. The goal (of these editors) is to highlight the perception that the conflict concerns Ukrainians fighting Russians. I believe that this editorial attitude fails to respect the truth, is irresponsible and, to be blunt, rather chauvinistic.
    Let's not overlook also that the decision to rename the article was made by a very small group of editors who appear to share the same biased attitude towards the subject. Those editors, I have noticed, are relying exclusively on pro-Ukrainian, and anti-Russian sources. I am deeply concerned that this small group of persons is not willing to listen to people who have different viewpoints. Worse yet, these pro-Ukrainian editors are refusing to consider a wide range of sources of information, including New York Times reports which contradict the facts expressed by the pro-Ukrainian sources they are using.
    Right now, the Ukraine War and Donbass War articles are looking more and more like anti-Russian rhetoric. This editorial attitude violates Wikipedia's policy of writing neutral, factually balanced articles. This is not good.
    I am surprised that Wikipedia doesn't appear to have a panel of neutral administrators who can adjudicate disputes between editors of articles. As things stand now, biased editors have the opportunity to hijack and control the content of articles, enabling them to push their biased POV or the propaganda and rhetoric of the governments and institutions whom they favor. This is not a good way to write encyclopedia articles for the benefit of the greater public.
    Kenmore (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OSCE is the primary source of reports incriminating Russia in the Donbass conflict. OSCE reports are now mentioned 68 times in the article, documenting military transports crossing from Russia into Ukraine overnight, presence of Russian advanced weapon systems in Donbass[11] and Russian military personnel crossing into Donbass. Can you elaborate on how OSCE reports are "anti-Russian rhetoric" granted that Russian Federation is an official member of OSCE and has its representatives in the monitoring mission all the time? Cloud200 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cloud200 - The article is using sources such as Unian and the Euromaidan Press. Unian is controlled by a Ukrainian oligarch who has very close ties with the Ukrainian state. It is well known that Unian echoes Kiev's rhetoric. As for Euromaidan Press, that's an anti-Russian propaganda outlet that came into existence shortly after the Maidan Revolution. The editors writing this article are treating those two publications as if they're respectable, credible media outlets, when in fact they are not. This is just one of many ways that the Wiki articles have devolved to the level of anti-Russian rhetoric. As for OSCE reports, I think they're fine. But, as I've already explained, the Ukraine War and Donbass War articles are using sources (bad ones) aside from OSCE. Hope this answers your question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmore (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking !vote of blocked sock. Also, @ basically all of you: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article contains years of laboriously collected records and sources detailing the background and, if I remember correctly, it was originally called Russian military intervention in Ukraine, and only then renamed into Russo-Ukrainian War. The current split between War in Donbass and this article is confusing, but certainly the latter doesn't deserve to be deleted. Quite the opposite, because both articles have significantly grown, we need to start splitting both into smaller articles and deduplicating their content. As for the "war" terminology, I'm not a specialist but evidence from reputable sources, such as OSCE SMM, is overwhelming in support of Russian state being the party that started the war in 2014 and has been fuelling it ever since. It's calling an armed conflict "civil war" that is a textbook example of political propaganda when a neighbouring state sends soldiers and covert military transports almost every night. Cloud200 (talk)
The main idea is to put this information to articles War in Donbas and Ukraine crisis, because this one is violating rules of Wikipedia--Sputnik13 (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that, but your argument is based on the article being "political propaganda", an accusation which you have never proven in any way, while the body of evidence collected by OSCE and linked in the article tends to show otherwise. Cloud200 (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Open to renaming like "intervention" per Ridax2020, but this is not just about Donbas. This article includes sections on Crimea and "Other regions" and deals with the variety of Russia-Ukraine sub-conflicts at a higher level than War in Donbas. If there are duplicated bits, fix/summarize those instead of deleting everything. Neither declaration nor openness are essential to the definition of "war". Oxford[12]: "a situation in which two or more countries or groups of people fight against each other over a period of time". Cambridge[13] has similar. MagteiContrib 21:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Main topics are concerning War in Donbas, all other topics are here Ukraine crisis.--Sputnik13 (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HI Gloucester - I hope you don't take this personally, but it's my impression that your contributions to the article (although quite intelligent) are highly biased in favor of the Ukrainian state, and hostile to the cause of the Russian Federation and the DPR/LPR. I've noticed that you are relying on sources (publications and scholars) that/who are outspokenly partisan in favor of the post-Euromaidan Ukrainian government. Those sources make no effort to understand and articulate the motives of the DPR/LPR and Kremlin for becoming embroiled in this conflict. Hence, the question must be asked if you in fact are the one who is "pushing POV." I'll have more to say about this in the future, when I find time to respond to your many other contributions to these discussions. Kenmore (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"understand and articulate the motives of the DPR/LPR and Kremlin for becoming embroiled in this conflict" — I would like to remind you that Russian Federation officially denies any involvement in the conflict and repeatedly denies any presence of military personnel and arms from Russian Federation. This position kind of naturally takes away their chance to "articulate the motives for becoming embroiled" simply because they deny the very fact of "being embroiled". Your accusations of "Kremlin for becoming embroiled in this conflict" therefore must be biased and Russophobic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cloud200 (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That the Russian Federation's official position is to deny its (obvious) involvement in the war is beside the point. The deeper reality is that the Russian Federation has two very well articulated reasons for meddling in the Ukrainian crisis. First, is the Kremlin's long-standing policy of seeking to stonewall any further NATO expansion to the east, and into Ukraine in particular. Second is the Kremlin's position that it champions the cause of ethnic Russian and pro-Russian minorities in former Soviet republics. Regardless of whether one sympathizes with or abhors the Kremlin's policies, the article really should contain some content that elaborates on the RF's real reasons for intervening in this conflict. Presently, such explanatory content is missing in the article. The current Wiki article merely repeats (almost endlessly) that Russia's doing something illegal (under international law) in Ukraine, word's that seek to portray Russia as a malevolent interloper of sorts. The Wiki articles (the group of them focusing on this conflict) would be improved if it made a better attempt to explain what, in fact, is the real reason for Russia's interference in the Ukrainian situation.Kenmore (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is not neutral. There are many articles in Wikipedia concerning war conflicts, which were mentioned before. All of them have just one main article and there is only location in the title, so in this case War in Ukraine is the only logical one. Parts of this article to be shifted to other articles War in Donbas and Ukraine crisis.--Sputnik13 (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SS. In the first place, this is not just one conflict, but a set of related conflicts as I described. Second of all, we could not possibly have only one article on the subject, as it would simply be too long. We follow RS, and the way we present the conflict is the same way RS do at the present time. What you suggest is WP:OR. RGloucester — ☎ 13:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you think is 'neutrality' would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to the Russian position, ignoring the consensus in RS on this subject. Neutrality does not mean creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE of different views, but giving weight proportionate to what RS say. RGloucester — ☎ 13:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral means have same rules to all topics without some special accent on any party. There are enough examples here in Wikipedia. Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Falklands War in this case War in Donbas + Ukraine crisis + this article. It is very logical to combine everything in War in Donbas (Ukraine) or similar. This is neutral--Sputnik13 (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian crisis is about the political crisis, this one is about the military events that resulted from that crisis. This article isn't just about the war in Donbass, it's about the broader conflict between Russia and Ukraine, including Crimea and a few things in Odessa, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 21:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the topic is obviously notable. And propose a SNOW close. That said, I think there may be a legitimate question in regards to the article title. I don’t have an opinion on that, but suggest compiling a list of what reliable sources call this conflict, and taking the various options to WP:RM for further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not sure if "war" is the right framing, but the topic itself is obviously notable given the sourcing. Zaathras (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something else. As pointed out by Sputnik13 the title of the article amounts to propaganda in favor of a particular narrative. Albeit anecdotal, this article is the first time I find this conflict or course of events named a "Russo-Ukrainian War". Lappspira (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable, per WP:GNG, as it has received significant coverage. A request to move would be more appropriate for what you've proposed. Curbon7 (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and recommend WP:SNOW close. The topic clearly passes WP:GNG, as it has received in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. This is not redundant to War in Donbas; this article includes the annexation of Crimea (which is not a part of the War in Donabas) and the two topics are not equivalents. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This request should be speedy closed as insincere: AFD is not for disposing of article titles we dislike. It should also be closed as WP:SNOW. To boot, it is built of false logic. “There was nothing declared,” “not in a war state” – there have been a couple hundred wars since 1945, and only about a dozen of them officially declared by any party. “It is a civilian war in Ukraine and yes, there are several parties taking part direct or indirect” – ahem, what parties? The International Criminal Court made a finding that both Crimea and the Donbas constitute an international conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (so the RF left the court). “It’s political propaganda” – I know you are but what am I? —Michael Z. 02:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am unpersuaded by the arguments put forth for deletion. The lack of a formal declaration of war may or may not mean that the title should be changed (noting that the same can be said for e.g. the Vietnam War), but it does not constitute a reason for deletion. As for duplication of scope with War in Donbas and/or Ukrainian crisis, I'm seeing overlap but not duplication (see e.g. comments by RGloucester and Mikehawk10). TompaDompa (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename So far, most mainstream media outlets (i.e., New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal et al) do not refer to the conflict as a "Russo-Ukrainian War." Respected journals that focus on international relations and conflict (i.e., Jane's Defence Weekly, Stratfor, Foreign Affairs, International Studies Quarterly et al) are not using that name either. As other editors here have pointed out, the term "Russo-Ukrainian War" seems to have originated only with certain persons who are compiling the article. I propose that Wiki names the article by using terms that are, at present, commonly used by mainstream media and respected analytical publications (such as those that I list above). If, in the future, these publications suddenly start referring to the conflict as a "Russo-Ukrainian War," then of course, Wiki could follow the same course. But let's hold off on that name until that point in the future, if it ever arrives.Kenmore (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a number of groups that are using the term "Russo-Ukranian war". The Atlantic Council (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), Foreign Policy (1, 2) The U.S. Army, slate, a journal article in World Affairs, a journal article in the Journal of Strategic Security, and several other journal articles. It seems like academics and military(-adjacent) groups are widely accepting the term "Russo-Ukranian war"; academics and military-focused publications are probably better sources than popular press on this sort of topic. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mikehawk: I appreciate the point you're making, but I disagree with your argument. Kindly allow me to explain why. Several of the sources you listed are known to be media outlets that are partisan in favor of Ukraine's government. Those same sources have committed to a staunchly anti-Russian (or anti-Putin, if you will) position in this conflict. For this reason, those sources are not neutral. They shouldn't be used as an inspiration for anything we write in this article unless - and only unless - they counterbalanced by sources that are partisan to the Russian (i.e., Kremlin) and LPR/DPR side. Concerning which specific sources I'm talking about (that are in the fight solidly on Kiev's side), the Atlantic Council, and the US Army publications are foremost on my mind. Why is this? Well, the Atlantic Council is NATO's think tank. It's been the Atlantic Council's job for several decades to publish studies that justify the expansion of NATO in an eastward direction. Therefore, the Atlantic Council's publications, by default, ignore the valid foreign policy concerns of the Russian Federation (primary of which is to stonewall NATO expansion). Not surprisingly, the Atlantic Council produces publications that depict Russia as the "bad guy" in the conflict while simultaneously playing up Ukraine as the "good guy." As for the US Army publications you listed, well, the Pentagon is the power behind NATO. Therefore US military publications are only going to propagate a pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian position regarding the conflict. In the end, each of these partisan publications has a motive to dramatize the conflict in a way which uses "loaded language," rather melodramatically, to conjure a state vs state or nation vs nation aspect of the affair. I'll repeat myself here for the sake of emphasis: using the term "Russo-Ukrainian War" enables the Atlantic Council and US Army media to make the conflict sound as if it's about one supposedly "good" state's struggle (i.e., Ukraine) against the aggression waged by a second supposedly "bad" state (i.e, Russia). I propose that we try to avoid echoing the rhetoric of media outlets and think tanks that are clearly not neutral in their analysis of the conflict. Hope this makes sense to you. Thanks,Kenmore (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kenmore. Just to briefly respond, even if we hold aside the Atlantic Council and the sources published by the U.S. army (and I'm not sure that we should), wouldn't that still leave multiple peer-reviewed journal articles articles that treat this as one topic? The point that I was trying to make was more that these groups consider the conflict to be a topic in and of itself, with the conflict encompassing more than either War in Donbas or Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation can cover in either individual article. If the opposition is to the term "war" in the title of the article, then maybe a move request discussion would be a proper to discuss that. But, why would we consider the title of the page as a compelling reason to delete it, when the topic of the page is notable and not substantially equivalent to that covered by another single page or a section thereof? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 articles about one topic There are three articles about current conflict in Ukraine: War in Donbas + Ukraine crisis + Russo-Ukrainian War. Talking into account similar conflicts like Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War it is logical and neutral to merge them all into War in Donbas (Ukraine) or similar. It is not neutral to have any country names, except the location of the conflict, in the title, because such articles in encyklopedia as Wikipedia can be misused for achieving political goals or influencing social opinions--Sputnik13 (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ^^ Above comment is not a vote. Sputnik13 already posted once in favor of removal. MagteiContrib 16:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More than three, likely more to be written, and who knows what future history may bring. See, for example, the wikilinks in Russo-Ukrainian War#Other regions and articles in Category:Russo-Ukrainian War, with 7 subcategories and 40 pages (cf. Category:Vietnam War, with 26 subcategories and 143 pages). —Michael Z. 14:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple sources provided by Andrew🐉, RGloucester, and Mikehawk10 which link the events covered by this article within a single framework, under which Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and War in Donbas serve as sub-topics rather than CForks. Whatever that conceptual framework is called is a matter for WP:RM, not AfD. This article also needs cleanup, but that also lies outside of AfD, with this article not being so bad as to need WP:TNT. CMD (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like there is a lot of non npov from a Russian narrative. But the RS are saying war, perhaps hybrid but still an undeclared war by the Russian government. Ip says (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per synthesis. This article combines various diplomatic disputes and armed conflicts between Russia and Ukraine to defend a thesis that war has existed between the two countries since 2014. It does that by combining material in existing articles rather than using sources about the alleged war, since such reliable sources do not exist. The only use I could find was a few right-wing editorials that use the term to promote a partisan agenda. TFD (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Such reliable sources do not exist' seems like a shockingly ignorant statement, given the number of books and journal articles cited in this discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 13:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple, independent, reliable sources that cover the topic as a whole, which is in line with WP:GNG. At minimum, the sources presented above are sufficient to establish that this isn't Wikipedia synthesizing this. Rather, it appears to be a framing that's discussed in the relevant literature, and it's certainly got enough coverage for an article in its own right. The arguments for deletion are unpersuasive, and at times, would appear to rely upon the highly questionable notion that sources thus far presented in this discussion have no merit. Additionally, the proposer's comment that the naming is mere political propaganda also rings hollow in light of the extant scholarly literature. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While there are plenty of sources about conflict between Russia and Ukraine, it's synthesis to put them together and call it the "Russo-Ukraine War." It is similar to grouping together all the wars between Britain and France over the centuries, along with periods of peace, and calling in "The Franco-British War." Compare this with the Russo-Japanese War. A google book search returns 9 books of the first 9 hits using the term in the title.[14] The same search for Russo-Ukraine War returns none. TFD (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry TFD, I usually agree with you, but on this one I simply cannot. No one is grouping all conflicts between Ukraine and Russia, including 'periods of peace', into a synthesised 'Russo-Ukrainian War'. Instead, we are following reliable sources, which refer to a conflicted called the 'Russo-Ukrainian War', and documenting it as it has existed since 2014. Your book search clearly was not sufficient. Plenty of sources using this terminology were linked above. Nothing was made up out of thin air, or synthesised. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 3 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. There is clear SPA/COI going on here, and arguments clearly influenced by that are discounted. That leaves some argument over the sources, and the analysis presented indicating that they are not acceptable is persuasive and was in no way refuted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ClearTax (company)[edit]

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

Appeal as here. (കാവിന്പുറം is Kāvinpuṛaṃ) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Blatant WP:PROMO article.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 17:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherites Fails WP:GNG. Kieem trra (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company has signicant Coverage on Forbes[1], Techcrunch[2] , Entreprenuer[3] websites and is covered extensively in Indian Media. As per the Notability guidelines "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." These references is covering enough Notability Guidelines.-- User:കാവിന്പുറം for page ClearTax (company)
  • Keep ClearTax is a well-known brand in India and is known for its Free ITR software which helps Taxpayer file their income tax without any complication.The brand is covered in non PR articles by all popular Media in India like The Hindu[4], Times of India[5], IndianExpress[6] and strongly disagree with Notability issues other editors pointed out. User:AnitaTejwani
  • Keep The Indian taxpayers are well-acquainted with the company as nearly 10% of them have filed through their platform [7][8]. The company has been covered multiple times by the Indian mainstream newspapers as well as in the Indian and global venture capital publications[9]. Notable bias might exist among non-Indian editors on the coverage and significance as the operations are limited within the Indian boundaries.

References

  1. ^ "How ClearTax Is Transforming To A Full-stack Fintech Player". Forbes India. Retrieved 2021-05-09.
  2. ^ Catherine, Shu (June 24, 2014). "YC-Backed ClearTax Tackles India's Fast Growing Online Tax Filing Market". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2021-05-07.
  3. ^ Kochar, Ritu (2016-05-26). "An Indian Startup That Has Wooed Both Sequoia Capital And Founders Fund". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 2021-05-07.
  4. ^ {{cite news|https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/how-simple-and-effective-is-the-cleartax-e-filing-app/article29030045.ece
  5. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/flipkart-partners-with-cleartax-to-simplify-financial-processes-for-sellers/articleshow/70129817.cms
  6. ^ https://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/e-portals-make-filing-income-tax-returns-easier-2891365/
  7. ^ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/5-more-income-tax-returns-filed-this-year/articleshow/80231571.cms
  8. ^ https://cleartax.in/you
  9. ^ https://pitchbook.com/newsletter/cleartax-files-away-12m-series-a-investment
  • Keep. While the COI editing and voting at this AFD is an issue, what has substantially changed with this article since the past several AFDs is the sources. There are three sources from 2021 of those listed above which are significant: the one from Forbes India, The Hindu, and TechCrunch. I'm not sure how independent or reliable the Entrepreneur source is (it may be fine), and the other sources are purely promotional garbage or not significant. Ultimately, I do believe that the sources prove WP:SIGCOV and meet the criteria at WP:NCORP. It appears the promotional language of the article has been cleaned up (see this edit), so I think the article is passable at this point. It still needs weeding of some inappropriate sources, but AFD is not cleanup. 4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOTADVERT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Lets look at the references posted above which have been put forward as meeting the criteria for establishing notability:
    • TechCrunch article is a company profile which relies on a generic company description an interview with the founder. There is no "Independent Content", the journalist has not provided any opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation of their own and has simply repeated the information provided by the company. This reference fails WP:ORGIND.
    • Entrepreneur reference is "contributor" piece which is not regarded as reliable for supporting content as per WP:RSP. If it can't be relied on, it cannot be considered for establishing notability, fails WP:RS
    • The Hindu reference starts by posing a great question, whether the topic company can be trusted. The article then provides an outline of the "problem" and uses quotations from the founder to explain the "solution". The journalist then describes the experience with the app and includes reactions from social media and som eusers who claim that the app is not easy to use. The article is negative on the app - but there is no criticism *of the company* nor any in-depth information *on the company* which is what is required for a reference to support the notability of the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
    • Times of India reference is based entirely on a press release. Several similar "articles" including identical text and quotes can be found including, for example, thenewsminute.com, mint, Apparel Resource, Fashion Network and lots others. Fails WP:ORGIND
    • Indian Express reference lists a number of companies who assist users with their tax obligations. The topic company gets a mere mention-in-passing attached to a quotation from the founder. There is no in-depth information on the company and no "Independent Content", fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
    • Economic Times reference talks about the number of tax returns having risen over the previous year. The reference doesn't even mention the topic company so I'm confused as to how anyone thinks this reference can be used to establish notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Clearly there's some confusion from the Keep !voters above who appear not to have correctly analysed the references. It appears that many stop their analysis once the company has been mentioned in a publication and claim that "significant coverage" is all that is required. That is incorrect - the guidelines make it clear that each reference must have both in-depth information and "independent content". None of those references meet the criteria. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 12:45, 5 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. BD2412 T 02:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lust on the Prairie[edit]

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

Non-notable erotic film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFILM. I found two reviews [15] [16] but those do not seem like "[…] nationally known critics" as NFILM requires. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, of the above-mentioned reviews the first is a blog and the second seems affiliated to the porn industry, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not have significant coverage in sources that we would consider to be reliable (with a reputation for fact checking) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kursverlust[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Well if "Sputnik13" assures us that there is no way that the Russian government would ever engage in cyberwarfare, then we'd better believe it, da, tovarich? But everybody else thinks that we should base our articles on what reliable sources write, and I agree. I'm dismissing this deletion request because it does not articulate a policy-based reason for deletion and is supported by nobody else. Sandstein 16:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-Ukrainian cyberwarfare[edit]

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

Good day! This article has obvious signs of political propaganda and breaks the rules Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There are just some random cyberattacks news with criminal background listed. There are no evidences of links to Russian government. There are only theories and political accusations Sputnik13 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Neutral point of view" is a key point here. As long as there are no evidences you can not just accuse someone. Editing will not help, there are no basis here, just propaganda. Another point, Ukraine or Russia are both officially not in a war state. So no reason to talk about war.--Sputnik13 (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DISCUSSAFD, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this." I have therefore struck the redundant bold !vote. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What we need is evidence that respectable people are talking about the topic. Here's an example. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talking is not enough, this is not a blog or forum, this is Encyklopedia. Please check again Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Evidences are proved facts and not theories and random hacker attacks, which happen every single day.--Sputnik13 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link btw. Have you read this article? Even the author writes that no attacks on any infrastructure or something like this were noted. Page 41 paragraph 3.--Sputnik13 (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that p41, the author (James Andrew Lewis) says "Russia has used its cyber capabilities primarily for political coercion, opinion-shaping, and intelligence gathering, ..." I suppose that includes editing Wikipedia too, eh? My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
War and attempts to some influences are pretty different things. And this is definitely not a topic of this article.--Sputnik13 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a hugely notable and well sourced subject. The subject of Cyberwarfare by Russia is becoming so big that making some subpages is reasonable. But this is not even a sub-page of Cyberwarfare by Russia. This is a page about mutual cyberwarfare between two countries. There will be more such pages in the future. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Because I WP:LIKE it just as much as you WP:IDONTLIKE it. —Michael Z. 02:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madso's War[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found this review, [[17]], but not sure if Cinelinx is a reliable source. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely questionable. It looks like a blog. There is no About section indicating if there is editorial oversight, and there is a link on top to submit reviews, so we have no idea who generated the review. BOVINEBOY2008 13:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cinelinx looks questionable. I found nothing to help this from my own research. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Geschichte (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tandoor (web series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Sources are not giving in-depth detail of a page.

Princepratap1234 (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) Drafting/AfC is optional, and 2) No deletion rationale articulated. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reviews found. The sources are what actors are saying or feeling about their or their colleagues work or about the series. There is no in-depth discussion of the work. Nominators argument is not valid for sure but the subject doesn't qualify notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close The nominating statement has twice been changed (without noting the fact), once after each comment above. It originally said "Directly created in mainspace after draft was rejected". The discussion is too badly flawed for it to continue to a conclusion. Thincat (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egot (surname)[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage that would allow for a passing of WP:GNG and no such coverage is presented in the article. If there were ever notable people possessing this surname, then it could be converted into a disambiguation but there are currently no articles on people that possess this surname. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ultraman Trigger: New Generation Tiga. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultraman Trigger: New Generation Tiga episodes[edit]

List of Ultraman Trigger: New Generation Tiga episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I redirected the article to Ultraman Trigger: New Generation Tiga but got reverted. This is complete unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. When all the same information is already on the main page. Suggest a redirect back. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The show's premier date is July 19, right? If possible, can the page turn into redirect first until the premier date? Oh and by the way, if a user reverted the redirect, I hereby admit that the act has nothing to do with me and I willing to adhere whatever this page will turn out to be. Zero stylinx (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main article is not very long: you do not automatically need a separate list of episodes article merely because there are episodes, and the list can be reconstructed perhaps when there's like a third season and a split is actually warranted. Reywas92Talk 18:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject The main article cannot been delete. Harimua ThailandTalk 19:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Harimua Thailand: Reject? Normally in this process it is either Keep, the article or Delete the article, or if you want to just provide a comment you write comment in bold like I did here. Also the main article is not up for AfD. Govvy (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect- this duplicates content already in the main article, so there is no reason for a split. Reyk YO! 12:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per norminator. Slovenichibo (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect.4meter4 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to te main article per above rationale. Chirota (talk) 05:04, 8 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goc-ong[edit]

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

Whilst there are certainly a decent number of people that possess this surname, none of them currently have Wikipedia articles, so this can't be turned into a disambiguation page for them. In terms of reliable sources discussing this surname in depth to show a passing of WP:GNG, I couldn't find any and none are presented in the article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:54, 8 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. The reasons are somewhat varied, but the general gist is that as a Wikipedia article the term is problematic on grounds of WP:NPOV and WP:N. I am leaving open the question of whether to redirect to Belarus or a related article is warranted, while some in this discussion wanted that there were others who were concerned about the NPOV implications of such a redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Europe's last dictatorship[edit]

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

The term "Europe's last dictatorship" is commonly used term for the country of Belarus, ruled by "Europe's last dictator" (Alexander Lukashenko). So there are two possibilities what this article could be about:

  • Dictatorship in Belarus, in which case it would be a POVFORK of Belarus#Politics, human rights in Belarus, etc.
  • The phrase "Europe's last dictator(ship)", in which case it fails WP:GNG. The article creator noted " It is of course highly unlikely that there exist secondary sources discussing in depth the fact that Belarus is commonly referred to as "The Last Dictatorship in Europe" and that Lukashenko is referred to as "The Last Dictator in Europe" (although you never know)." I was not able to find anything more substantive than mentions that in various RS that this is a common moniker for Belarus.

Currently the article reads like a dictdef with various uses of the term listed mostly cited to primary sources. I propose that the redirect to Belarus be restored; this phrase is mentioned in that article. (t · c) buidhe 18:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


What Buidhe fails to mention is that this is an ubiquitous term, practically synonymous with Belarus/Lukashenko. There is a very brief summary about this term under Belarus#Elections and under Alexander_Lukashenko#Second_term_(2001–2006) it is also very general. It is not a POVFORK any more than the article outposts of tyranny are POVFORKs. This is how Western media and politicians have very clearly come to label Belarus/Lukahshenko over a period of two decades. The article clarifies this history and can be interlinked from the Belarus and Lukashenko articles. It is much more trouble to maintain sections to address this in two separate articles. By having an article, the concept stays independent of later possible regimes. Consider also what people find if they google the terms. Finding an article with context is helpful. I can confidently say that this term is being translated and used in media in several Western and non-Western countries. Buidhe also twists my words, the two books mentioned are of course about how Belarus/Lukashenko are the last dictator/ship in Europe. The frequency and consistency in the use of the terms make them notable. --Jabbi (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability isn't related to commonality. My objection is mainly based on lack of sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. The books are about Belarus, not about this phrase. (t · c) buidhe 20:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you have too literal an interpretation of notability. This article is about a term or a concept that's been applied to both a state and the head of that state. Similar to Outposts of tyranny like I have already mentioned, which has then even less notability than this article going by your guideline, or axis of evil, Reagan's evil empire. The former are examples of American political rhetoric whereas this one, although originating from America, has been embraced it seems by most Western cultures. --Jabbi (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There has been a contentious history around this title. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_30#Europe's_last_dictatorship and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_15#Europe's_last_dictatorship. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I concur with the nominator that this article does not establish general notability for the term. This has been discussed in the past. Not much has changed. (Tragically, not much has changed in Belarus either.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This has been created in both article space and draft space, which is sometimes done in order to game the system. See also Draft:Europe's last dictatorship. If this page is deleted, the draft should also be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a fairly commonly used phrase, similar in kind to Sick man of Europe or Least of the Great Powers. I think it might pass WP:WORDISSUBJECT as such. I'll have to look into it some more before I make up my mind about it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't found sources that discuss the term itself as such, so the argument to keep is fairly weak. However, since it is such a commonly used phrase, it is a plausible search term and should at minimum redirect somewhere. Keeping in mind that per WP:RNEUTRAL redirects need not be neutral, I don't have any strong opinions about the target. Politics of Belarus, mentioned below, might be one option (at time of writing it explains the context for the term in the WP:LEAD, which is handy). The suggestion below to create the article dictatorship in Europe is another possibility. TompaDompa (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the title violates WP:NPOV. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No more NPOV than 'axis of evil' or 'sick man of Europe' mentioned above. Besides, if the article is about a derogatory term, how would you avoid reflecting that in the title? I don't think that is a reason to delete. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of other articles violating NPOV doesn't mean that it's fine to ignore the fundamental WP principles. It's possible to rewrite an article in a more balanced way, but it's unlikely that it will remain like that. Such articles are always biased. The former US president used even stronger words referring to several other countries. They may appear published here as well if we don't enforce NPOV. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just jotting down my thoughts while I try to make up my mind about this... I've no doubt the term (or variants of it) is widely used, but I don't know that it has been much discussed in secondary RS. It's also not entirely clear what the term actually is — "Europe's last dictator" or "...dictatorship", "last dictator of Europe", etc. — and if the term is uncertain, that might suggest it's not fully established. On the other hand, would I expect to come to WP and be able to find out about the term, its background and origins? Yes, I think I would; and if I found nothing, I'd be surprised and disappointed even. If I only found a redir to Belarus, that would help me understand what the term refers to, but not how it came about etc. On the other hand, could this be covered in the article on Belarus? Yes, it could, and already is, so this could be considered something of a fork. Tricky... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cited sources seem to be mentions of the term, or discussion of the persona and role, but not discussion of the term. I support a Wikipedia article on the concept of dictatorship in Europe and some of this content could go into such an article, but the sources do not back a stand-alone article profiling this title, term, or word choice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aside from the OR, SYNTH and COATRACK problems; everything appropriate covered by this concept can be quite reasonably incorporated into the NPOV-titled articles Politics of Belarus and Elections in Belarus. The term has no meaning per se outside of those articles. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While a straight head count of the numbers suggests a "delete" close, there's a significant minority making an argument for a redirect, which I'd like to see discussed more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether to delete or to redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to Belarus. The term is very common as a synonym for the country, or perhaps the Lukahsenko government of Belarus, but I can't find any sources discussing the term itself. Redirecting to a more specific topic, such as human rights, would be inappropriate, as many uses of the term will not be in that context. It's possible this term might mean WP:GNG in the future, it seems a reasonable research paper topic at the least, but those sources haven't been provided so far. CMD (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would be an inappropriate location for a redirect; the title under discussion is not a transhistorical designation, it's specific to the Lukashenko regime. Goldsztajn (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per norminator. Slovenichibo (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association of Azerbaijan[edit]

Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been looking at this page for a few days now. The association doesn't seem notable in the slightest. The user who created it, Elshad Iman (Elşad İman), is connected to the association (and has not declared a COI yet, even after it was mentioned in Administrators' noticeboard). I've made a lengthy analysis of the sources and external links in the article, which results in quite a few deadlinks, non-independent sources and other stuff. Nothing that makes me think this association meets WP:CORP.

Source analysis.
Nr. Source Analysis Independent? Reliable? Significant? Attributes to notability?
1 [18] International Standard Name Identifier page. Doesn't have any information.
2 [19] Source published by the Azerbaijani State. Since the association is connected to the state, sources published by the government cannot be considered independent. Apart from that, the source only briefly mentions the association.
3 [20] Source published by the Azerbaijani State.
4 [21] Deadlink.
5 [22] Exact same source as the second one, but just in Russian. The sole purpose of it is to contribute to the REFBOMBING.
6 [23] Deadlink.
7 [24] Even the article on Az-wiki says "Qafqazinfo's main source of funding is advertising and PR articles". I don't see this being independent.
8 [25] Deadlink.
9 [26] Doesn't look independent. The source is about the "Order of Pomegranate", not the association.
10 [27] Copy of the eleventh source.
11 [28] Source published by the Azerbaijani State. Again, the source is about the "Order of Pomegranate", not the association.
12 [29] Source about someone getting the "Order of Pomegranate".
13 [30] Doesn't look independent. About the third year anniversary event of the association.
- [31] Deadlink.
- [32] A letter sent to the President of Azerbaijan by the association.
- [33] The source announces the opening of the website of the association. The text says: "During the solemn event, awards were presented to everyone who took an active part in the activities of the association. Among them are Ilgar Pashazade, Director of the National Representative Office of the Mir Interstate TV and Radio Company, and Narmin Abasova, Editor-in-Chief". The publication was given an award and they are reporting on that.
- [34] About the third year anniversary event of the association. Mostly repeats the words of the president of the association.
- [35] Haqqin.az "is known to be "pro-Azerbaijan", "criticizing Azerbaijani opposition parties", "offensive" and "a site about Azerbaijan's security services"". Don't think this sounds independent.
- [36] Deadlink.
- [37] Deadlink.
- [38] Mostly repeats the words of the president of the association.
- [39] Mostly repeats the words of the president of the association.
- [40] Source is about the Goychay Pomegranate Festival, not a mention of the association.
- [41] Source is mostly about the Goychay Pomegranate Festival. Repeats the words of the president of the association.
~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gentlemen, I ask you to seriously consider this article from various angles, it is necessary to dive deeply into the subject under discussion. If some points in the significance are controversial or unclear, they should be discussed. Reliable references are many.
There are authoritative sources.
  1. https://isni.org/isn/0000000478655314/
  2. http://www.fruitnet.com/eurofruit/article/176960/azerbaijan-eyes-europe-for-pomegranates
  3. https://www.freshplaza.fr/article/9059272/azerbaidjan-augmentation-des-exportations-de-grenades-en-2019/
  4. http://files.eacce.org.ma/pj/%5B1540387328%5DAz_UE.pdf
  5. https://president.az/articles/28610
  6. https://www.dunya.com/sektorler/azerbaycanli-ureticilerden-turkiyeye-is-birligi-cagrisi-haberi-603832
  7. https://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/azerbaycan-nari-unesconun-somut-olmayan-kulturel-miras-listesinde231220
  8. https://komikli.net/azerbaycanli-ureticilerden-turkiyeye-is-birligi-daveti/
  9. https://acikerisim.uludag.edu.tr/bitstream/11452/4642/1/Adil%20H%C3%9CSEYNOV.pdf
  10. http://www.azpromo.az/news/view/azerbaijan-pomegranate-producers-and-exporters-association-held-a-session
  11. https://www.eurofresh-distribution.com/news/eu-authorises-imports-pomegranate-azerbaijan
  12. http://qafqazinfo.az/news/detail/azerbaycan-nari-dunyada-layiqince-taninmaga-baslayib-ferhad-qarasov-fotolar-209069
  13. https://bbn.az/nar-istehsalcilari/
  14. https://www.trend.az/business/economy/2908484.html
  15. https://news.day.az/economy/1203130.html
  16. http://vzglyad.az/news.php?id=155205
  17. https://report.az/ru/apk/azerbaydzhan-nachinaet-eksport-granatov-v-polshu-i-latviyu/
  18. https://news.day.az/economy/1182177.html
  19. https://mir24.tv/news/16381563/korol-fruktov-associaciya-proizvoditelei-granata-prazdnuet-trehletie
  20. https://haqqin.az/news/124594
  21. The page has a Primary source that provides direct evidence of the facts — a document, statistics on the production of pomegranates, and export supplies. it is a significant organization, is one of the key areas of international cooperation in the economic sphere and one of the key factors affecting the productivity of agricultural crops.
Strong keep: ref. 1, ref. 2, ref. 3, ref. 4, ref. 5, ref. 6, ref. 7 In December 2018, "Azerbaijan Pomegranate" badge was established by the Association with the consent of the Office of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The main purpose of the establishment of this badge is to reward the persons who have contributed and served in the development of pomegranate growing, Association activity in the Azerbaijan Republic.
History
"Azerbaijan Pomegranate" badge was established by the order of the chairman of the Association of pomegranate producers and exporters of Azerbaijan No. 01/2018, dated 3 September 2018 to reward the persons who contributed to the development of pomegranate growing. Patent and Trademark Expert Center of Intellectual Property Agency of the Azerbaijan Republic accepted the badge for examination on 31 January 2019.
Aims and objectives
The main purpose of the creation of this badge is to maintain the economic, cultural and social importance of the pomegranate by awarding the people who contribute and pay attention to the Azerbaijani pomegranate and services and work in the activities of the Association of Pomegranate Producers and Exporters (PPEAA). --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read what I said did you? Some of the "sources" you listed are already in the analysis. You keep listing government sources, which are not independent. Others repeat the words of the president, which are primary sources. I also don't see the point of telling the history of the badge. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 07:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see any convincing reasons for deleting the article, there are signs of encyclopedic significance.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah apart from the fact that no independent and reliable sources cover the subject and that this is obviously promotional. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 08:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider these sources to be advertising? en news, tr news, ru news, books. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should I care about sources that at best briefly mention the association? The sources need to about the association itself (at least detailed per WP:SIGCOV), independent, without repeating the words of the president of the association. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 09:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Through these links, I can see no sources about the organization but annual pomegranate exportation of Azerbaijan. Furthermore, the article wouldn't fit in neither Economy of Azerbaijan nor Agriculture in Azerbaijan, in a case of merge. Since the links you mentioned above does not have any reliable source concentrating in the organization, but annual export of Azerbaijan, it doesn't cover WP:NGO so it should be deleted. — Pamphylian ● 💬 09:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good that you got the point that we indeed delete articles about non-notable subjects. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 10:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than happy if you took this to AN/I. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 10:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the content is about Pomegranate production in Azerbaijan, a notable topic with coverage in many books and academic papers, rather than specifically about this trade body, which does not appear notable. Wouldn't it be better, Elshad Iman, to rename and refactor the article to be about the more general topic? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the article contains ads, they should be erased. Where are the advertising signs? save a significant part to become an encyclopedic one, the organization has an authoritative source, and let the about Pomegranate production in Azerbaijan remain on the plans for the time being. Similar articles - Pomegranate, Goychay Pomegranate Festival --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you aren't getting me: whole existence of this article about a non-notable association is an ad. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A non-profit organization is generally significant if it operates on a national or international scale.
  2. A non-profit association, it can not be a priori advertising, this is an indisputable proof that the organization is significant.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course non-profit associations can advertise. In my experience they do so almost as much as for-profit associations, and I have been on the boards of both. And the only proof that there can be that this organization is notable (which is the standard for having a Wikipedia article, not significance) can come from independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - brief, passing mentions here and there; nothing towards WP:ORGDEPTH Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this article can be saved. This is the only association in this field (at least in Azerbaijan), which is very popular and even has its own price. But let's be reasonable and reach a consensus. the non-profit association is an indisputable proof of the importance of the organization.--Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Araz Yaquboglu: I already expected you to eventually come (also surprised Toghrul R isn't here yet). So what you are saying is basically "the non-profit organization is notable because it's non-profit", confirm? ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 16:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Styyx are you refering me as a troll or a sockpuppet? and please, can you elaborate why you haven't pinged me when making this kind of statement? Toghrul R (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No no, never said that. I'm not on azwiki, but I'm pretty sure you two are well-respected sysops. It's just that whenever an AfD starts about an article created by Elshad İman, you always seem to pop up from somewhere, even on frwiki. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 17:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Styyx, then please, stay focused on the thread, not me. My activity is not up for debate here, particularly in a discussion i'm not involved in. "Pop up from sonewhere" is not a good choice of sentence to address me — please, be POLITE. If anything, i've nominated Elshad's one of the articles in the past, you can check it if you will: here --Toghrul R (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am focusing on the article, the full message contains a read-back of what was said by Araz Yaquboglu, just a brief mention of the "problem". But indeed, I'm not the nicest person when it comes to vote- and stealth canvassing. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A significant organization that regulates the key agricultural sector of a single state. I think that common sense will still prevail.--Erokhin (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Erokhin: common sense says that the organization still needs to pass GNG and that there isn't any evidence to show that it's "significant" in the first place. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 08:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello, I stumbled upon this article and decided to express my take on it. This association is the only one in Azerbaijan in the given field. Thus I think it can be kept regardless the small problems in references. I think this weaknesses will be addressed and fixed in the near future. --leilahuseynova (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leila1717: that's based on which policy may I ask? Also I wouldn't classify the reference problem as "small". ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think that problems in references are small. They are the whole point of this discussion, at least when it comes to what sources are available. I repeat my plea for interested editors to make this an article about Pomegranate production in Azerbaijan, which is an obviously notable subject, as opposed to this trade organisation, which can be mentioned in such an article if verified. Why are people so fixated on having an article about a trade organisation when we don't even have an article about the trade that it represents? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The essay strongly discourages you to use this in deletion discussions: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" and "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article". OSE is only valid when some stuff exist for a reason. Anyway, looking at the articles linked, all of them meet WP:GNG with their sourcing apart from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. This is a reason to delete that article, not to keep this one. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 11:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the GNG is a guideline (not a policy). At the head of the page, as for pretty much every guideline page, it says ... is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Styyx's comments above seem to treat the GNG as absolute and unchallangable. There are a number of categories of articles where secondary sources are not required to support an article. An article about a legally recognized popular place, as per WP:GEOLAND may be acepted base purely oin primary sources that show its existence. An article about a member of a national legislature is acceptable even if we have no more than primary official sources that establish that the person existed and was a member, as is the case for many historical legislators, particularly those prior to 1900. Such articles are accepted merely on official records of membership in a legislature, and perhaps official records of speeches made or votes cast. Articles about radio stations are accepted based purely on primary sources showing that they have been licensed and operated. Articles about secondary and tertiary schools are often accepted based just on primary sources showing that they existed, and perhaps were official government schools. In short, not all categories of articles require independent secondary sources. I am suggesting that a non-profit associations and trade associations officially presented by a nation should be a similar category. I am arguing that a wide group of Wikipedia articles have been created and remained in existence on that basis, and that few of these have been challenged, and that in at least one case linked earlier in this discussion, such a challenge was made and rejected. There have, if I am not mistaken, been recent discussions at DRV suggesting that an AfD discussion may in good faith make a reasoned exception to the GNG, and that such local consensus will not be overturned by DRV. I am suggesting that a new SNG should be created to cover this case. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GEOLAND is an SNG, which says that populated places can get an article even if there aren't sources. Fair, so I'm not going to start an AfD about these kind places. In case there is no SNG, we look at GNG. But I got to stop you there, because we already have an SNG for non-profit organizations: WP:NONPROFIT. This association meets criteria #1, but doesn't meet criteria #2 (both have to be met). For this association to have an article on Wikipedia, there have to be independent, reliable sources that cover the organization in detail (Criteria #2 of WP:NONPROFIT). ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association – PPEAA was recently awarded a grant from the EU for the STEP (Support to Effective Pomegranate Production) project and has a plan to provide capacity building for pomegranate producers in the central regions of Azerbaijan through development of extension services in selected communities. The extension service centers will provide required technical assistance to selected communities’ pomegranate growers. PSA will closely collaborate with PPEAA to leverage the STEP project’s technical assistance on capacity building, organizational development, community-based, small-scale processing funding, and expertise on specific production and processing topics.
Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association (PPEAA) supports pomegranate growers in the seven central regions of Azerbaijan and seeks support in organizational development and sustainability, as well as capacity building for its farmer members through improved extension services.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closer: Since there has been some discussion from both sides of this debate about WP:NONPROFIT. This association meets criteria #1 and #2. I believe both sides would be very interested in how you evaluated the arguments and made the close decision.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources linked above are also related to Pomegranate production in Azerbaijan, so there is still no way this meets criteria #2. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 12:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. European Union
  2. MOROCCO FOODEX, Food Export Control and Coordination organization
  3. United States Agency for International Development An independent, reliable sources write about the association. Speedy keep --37.26.33.99 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still finding it very hard to accept that we should have an article about this trade organisation rather than an article about the national trade that it represents, which is well covered by the article and the sources in the article, cited in this discussion, and readily available elsewhere. How, as seems obvious to me, is this not better for Wikipedia? I hope it's not that anyone has a conflict of interest, but I don't understand why there should be such resistance otherwise. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since this topic is about an organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which interprets the requirements in a strict fashion. In summary, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. *None* of the references in the article or listed in this AfD meet the criteria. They either discuss the market of pomegranite production or are press releases or announcements. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer I was invited to this discussion by Elshad Iman, the text of that email was "Hello, dear colleague, take part in the discussion please. [link to this discussion]". I don't recall any previous interaction with them, or with this topic area so I don't know how or why I was chosen, but it seems likely I was not the only editor emailed. I have no opinion regarding this article and have no intention of forming one. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading this discussion, the nom is convincing per WP:ORGDEPTH. JBchrch talk 23:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstood me, please delete the article and end the discussion, there are reliable and independent sources, but if there is such a contradiction, then let all information be deleted. OK --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per norm. Slovenichibo (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer The article covers an encyclopedic topic. It is not a question of the author of the article sending a letter to someone to participate in the discussion, the topic of the article should be the subject of discussion.

Non-profit organizations / public organizations

Organizations are usually significant if they simultaneously meet the following criteria: They operate on a national or international scale. Information about the organization and its activities is widely reflected in unaffiliated independent authoritative sources. Additional recommendations:

A non-profit / public organization of the regional (regional, district) level, having national or international fame, may be considered as significant.

The talk page of the article also touches on interesting points, and I consider the final decision fair.
Practice shows that the importance of a non-profit organization, including an association in the field of entrepreneurship/agriculture, can be shown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-profit_organizations_by_country --37.26.33.99 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no final decision at Talk:Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association of Azerbaijan. Which decision are you talking about? All I see is an unsubstantiated claim that someone from the WMF has accepted the bribe of a jolly. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: Yesterday, Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) emailed me and asked me to participate in the discussion. I haven't the faintest clue why, but I suspect I'm the not only person he has approached, so I thought I should say something. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Hello everyone who participated in the discussion, please let me know, if the text of the article is reworked and if it is rewritten, in short, if the article is dedicated solely to the association, then is it possible to save the article? Currently, the only reason for being nominated for deletion is that the text of the article covers the topic of pomegranate in a more comprehensive way than the association, and I do not see any other valid reason.--85.132.29.163 (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need to delete the article, just need to rewrite it. There are enough sources for the article. This article should be completely rewritten.

The criterion for the significance of Wikipedia is the detailed coverage of any subject or topic in independent and authoritative sources.

· The content and text of the page do not contradict the rules of Wikipedia. I note that the page contains a link to the reflected information, this information does not violate anyone's copyright, all information is relevant to the page title.

· There are no spelling mistakes, long monologues, unstructured materials, flames, information published in another language, hoaxes, lies and slander on the page.

· The page is not intended for vandalism.

· The page is unique and is not a copy of another page.

· the content of the page is based only on facts.

As you can see, the page cannot be deleted by any of the above criteria.--37.26.33.99 (talk) 15:35, 8 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. North America1000 03:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies that halted U.S. political contributions in January 2021[edit]



List of companies that halted U.S. political contributions in January 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a vague list, with the lead section intentionally contributing to the vagueness. Some listed companies halted contribution because of politicians objecting to certifying the vote count (even though that is specifically allowed as part of the process), while other companies did so because of the US Capitol event. By leaving the criteria vague, it invites bias and invites editors to use this page to connect one political party to the Capitol event. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA. Selection criteria... should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Is a "list of companies that halted U.S. political contributions in January 2021" open to several meanings? No, either a company halted donations or did not halt donations. That all of them did not halt donations to the same extent does not change the fact that "Did this company halt political donations in January 2021?" is a yes/no question. Is it subjective? Again, no, for the same reason. Is it supported by reliable sources? Yes, every entry on the list is sourced. As the list covers actions taken in a specific time period that has now passed, the possibility that future entries to the list will change the answers to those questions is not a concern. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think would it be more appropriate to include some comments on companies halting donations to the article Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack and naming a few prominent examples there instead of having this list. Companies halting donations is significant, but is a complete list really necessary? I don't think that in the long term it will matter which exact companies pulled their support, and these corporate reactions seems like a minor detail in the scope of the attack and even its aftermath, not enough for a stand-alone list. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Egsan Bacon's explanation of WP:LISTCRITERIA – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The criteria of the list is very specific, so I'm not sure that the primary claim here applies. Additionally, the last sentence concerns me, as the assessment on the 'Capitol event' is pretty much clear, given the introductory paragraphs of the 2021 United States Capitol attack article and their corresponding references in the article body. Given that, I'm not sure what concern is being alluded to here. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 20:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
  • Keep Everything is referenced, and its a valid topic that news media has given significant coverage of. Dream Focus 21:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Egsan Bacon. (Out of pragmatic concerns, seeing that a merge will not come about, and wanting to point out that my underlying rationale is still essentially a "Keep" rationale I strike my previous comment.) Merge with Sedition Caucus. The real subject of this article is the corporate/sponsor reaction to the Sedition Caucus. Both article are on the same subject, with this list presenting merely a facet of the core subject, and the substantive article lacking this (certainly notable) facet. The list would be an excellent compliment to the Sedition Caucus article, but it doesn't work that great as a separate article. Unlike the nominator who says there is vagueness in the criteria, I think that the list is sufficiently clear in that it includes companies /that/ announced suspension of donations to legislators and/or executive branch members who were challenging the vote certification. I invite the Keep advocates to consider this perspective. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is what a merge would look like: rev — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sedition Caucus appears to be an attack page, so I have nominated it for deletion as well, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedition Caucus. 03:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
  • Keep. I don't think the merger proposal reads naturally -- it's unwieldy enough as a list to warrant its own page -- and I concur with the opinion that this list is appropriate for the wiki, but I do think it needs a bit of cleanup / updates. Some of the companies listed have vowed to permanently discontinue political donations; other companies only paused their donations, or announced their suspension lifted, and have resumed throwing money at politicians. Someone might need to keep an eye on that. RexSueciae (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While on the surface, it may appear to pass WP:LISTCRITERIA, the selection criteria is far from unambiguous. How long a pause is sufficient? Did a company have to pause in the week after January 6 to be on the list? Did a company PAC have to stop all donations or just to certain members of Congress? While the page describes itself as dynamic, are companies still making decisions in the aftermath of January 6? A better way is to use prose with examples of some companies that did pause donations in the "aftermath" section and provide a couple of links to sources that did provide a (partial) list. --Enos733 (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My preferred merge target is Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Political donors. --Enos733 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the merge with the (parent) aftermath article, because the aftermath article covers a great number of notable topics and requires WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It can't accommodate either this list or an expanded passage on the companies. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The justifications for keeping the list (as seen in this discussion) are all over the place. It is far from a complete list, there are no parameters describing how a company PAC makes it onto (or off) the list as there is no distinguishing between limited suspension to certain members of Congress, full pauses, and stopping political donations altogether. Just being referenced is not a reason to keep a list. The broader point can be quickly summarized in one or two paragraphs with some example companies mentioned in the prose, the number of company PACs who announced a pause in donations, and perhaps a quote or two. Also see WP:10YT. --Enos733 (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether to keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (note: alr. !voted) on Keep/Merge specifically: Keep would be fine, Merge horizontally with sedition caucus would also be fine, but Merge upward with aftermath would be positively terrible. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- as I noted above, given the choice between "keep" or "merge" my preference would be to keep. RexSueciae (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important subject, valued by reliable sources. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the creator of this List, I believe it brings important historical value, and with 8,000 pageviews thus far, I must not be alone in that belief. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it meets list criteria. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:57, 4 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 Jeff Mangum. A merge suggested by one voter has already been done without controversy, and nobody has suggested anything beyond a simple merge/redirect. Consider this a "good samaritan" close because Admins may be overloaded; there seem to be a lot of recent AfDs without action after 8 days and more. (non-admin closure)---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korena Pang[edit]

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

I copied most of the article’s content to Jeff Mangum’s article so I think we can get rid of it now since there’s no need for an independent article. Dronebogus (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jeff Mangum. If the material was merged without controversy, this redirect could have already been done in bold fashion. We can make it official here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jeff Mangum, but make sure anything merged meets BLP rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already copied everything, so unless there’s something technical I’m missing it’s functionally been merged already. Dronebogus (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just have an admin close the AfD as “merge” so I can convert the page to a redirect? Dronebogus (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're in the AfD process we have to let it play out for about one week. Unless someone else delivers a surprise vote, an Admin will probably rule to either merge or redirect, which in this case are essentially the same thing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tortured Souls. Daniel (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tortured Souls: Animae Damnatae[edit]

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

Low-quality page for a non-notable spinoff that I nominated for merging back in December of 2020, which as you can see has gone practically nowhere. There is barely anything worth merging anyway so I thought I’d just nominate it for deletion and get it over with. Dronebogus (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the suspect through these crime[edit]

Who are the suspect through these crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unreleased short film. No significant coverage in independent RS that I can find. Maybe it will become notable once it's been released, but it is not notable now. Girth Summit (blether) 10:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 10:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 10:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memes through Enchanted of Beauty and Handsomeness[edit]

Memes through Enchanted of Beauty and Handsomeness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability that I can find: an upcoming short film, no significant coverage in independent sources as far as I can tell. Perhaps it will become notable once it's been released, but it isn't now. Girth Summit (blether) 10:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 10:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 10:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uxbridge College[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, most of sources are of college website. Don't have independent sources. Princepratap1234 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 18:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 18:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think we have generally found colleges of further education in the UK to be notable. Like most secondary and tertiary institutions in western countries there is enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep . There are already 12 references cited, 11 are independent, Ofsted reports always give significant coverage- there are 4 of them. As a matter of interest, could the posters above explain in their judgement, which bit of WP:GNG is not satisfied. On a point of WP procedure, if an article fail to have enough sources (the word is multiple) then it should be nominated for a Merge. See note above. ClemRutter (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ClemRutter: Merge to what? Although your argument seems to actually be to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The merged HCUC (Harrow College & Uxbridge College) has had a more recent monitoring visit in June 2019. (From the article) This causes us a problem, as the article is a Keep, but as the two colleges have merged, the protocol suggests there should be one article. Having followed the protocol we have a an unbalanced long article- and one of the first actions would be to spin off each college into separate articles!- ie we would come back to the status quo. As this has not been spotted it appears that editors have not read the article before making a vote. To clarify the situation- I will change the merge to keep.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A respectable institution with a long history and a good variety of sources following improvement. WP:ATD applies "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG has no requirements for what most of the sources are like. The article has independent sources (Ofsted) and also did so at the time of nomination. I think merge would be a very good idea but merges mandated at AFD can lead to unnecessarily destructive editing. An adequate nomination might have been persuasive but this one was not. Must try harder. Thincat (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't agree that Ofsted reports qualify under the GNG, for largely the reasons I explain here. Nonetheless, the remaining sources are adequate: Pearce's book and the local press coverage are enough to meet the GNG. (The fact that these sources are offline or paywalled is irrelevant; see WP:SOURCEACCESS.) While I'm not averse to a merge in theory, it probably ought to go through the ordinary process: this article can stand on its own, so merging it would simply be an editorial decision that doesn't belong at AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ofsted sources may not be appropriate to count for GNG but the claim in the nomination was that none of the sources are independent. Ofsted are certainly supposed to be independent. Other than that I agree with your remarks. Thincat (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are more references in the local paper which I haven't had time to add in, and I think there are likely to be offline sources too. I agree there is a potential issue re merging the article with Harrow College, and the need for an article, whether this one or a new one, to be named HCUC (Harrow College & Uxbridge College), which appears to be the formal name of the merged college. Tacyarg (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete From what I can tell the references in the article are mostly primary. Except for a few trivial ones that don't address the topic in an in-depth manor. So I think this is delete. Although weakly. Mainly because this is not a main school and the guidelines say "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both." Therefore, I'm choosing to go with this not passing GNG/ORG. That said, I think the keep arguments are just as valid though and I'd be more then fine with the AfD being closed that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I signed up for the free trial subscription to the British Newspaper Archive, and while I could grump about the skitterish controls and useless OCR function, I was able to read two articles listed in the article. "Changed plans" was substantive, but the "25 years ago" was a single sentence. I did also find a 1993 piece about a work dispute, "Lecturers in Work-to-rule" which was substantial. Those local news articles and the Pearce book (AGF) are enough to pass GNG. I am less familiar with Ofsted reports, which appear to be similar to accreditation reports in the U.S. However, the process here is to send a team of evaluators, who spend three days at a college to verify and also to challenge a self-evaluation written by the college. The two reports cited here appear to be written by a single evaluator? At any rate, there is enough evidence of reliable independent sources for GNG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk)
  • Keep Article has sufficient sourcing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:03, 4 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 12:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Rahmatganj MFS season[edit]

2021–22 Rahmatganj MFS season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fairly self-evidently doesn't pass WP:GNG, and also is a case of WP:TOOSOON. It might be better served to have this content merged in with the Rahmatganj MFS page itself, though not actually merge in the article. I was going to do this as a WP:PROD but as it was actively being edited, I assumed that it would be taken down immediately by the article writer. --Tautomers(T C) 06:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have reverted - @III69: please do not try anything like this again. GiantSnowman 16:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NSEASONS, delete the redirect also. Govvy (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify Neither it has yet been confirmed that the club will participate in 2022 season, nor it is confirmed that 2022 BPL Football will take place. No substantial coverage about the season, so fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSEASONS, it is way too son to have an article. Perhaps, draftifying will be a suitable WP:ATD here as articles way too soon with a prediction that it will take place are generally created as drafts. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 03:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Gielgud, roles and awards. Sandstein 16:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A duplicate of material in the existing featured list article John Gielgud, roles and awards. Suggest replace with redirect to the latter. - Smerus (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely concur with Smerus. Best to keep the stats together and get rid of the superflous spin-off page. Tim riley talk 09:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you two, must be friends, but Hello, User talk:Smerus I saw your message regarding, Proposed deletion of List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud, and instead of deleting the page, why not simply remove awards content from John Gielgud roles and awards? You could rename that page, "John Gielgud on screen and stage". Given Gielgud's extensive acting credits and award nominations it makes sense to devote two separate articles which is the norm. I feel like this would be a simple and constructive solution rather than deleting the article. The awards content featured in "roles and awards" is so crammed in there at the bottom, and it's hard to for the reader to follow. The "List of..." article gives the viewer and easy to read, comprehensible list. The One I Left (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I try not to guess about the nature of other editors, nor to let that influence my comments. I follow User:Tim riley's talkpage, and saw there your interesting comments, in an exchange which you initiated, which led me to inspect the two pages concerned, of which otherwise I would have had no knowledge. If you wished to split the page John Gielgud, roles and awards, you could have suggested that on that article's talk page and obtained a consensus. Instead, without seeking any consensus, you have chosen to create what is, in my opinion correctly, described above as a 'superfluous spin-off'; and I have chosen to recommend its deletion. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You spent more time defending your relationship with Tim Riley then defending your actual position. Anyway, I truly don't understand how you can look at both pages, and think that the crammed hard to read section at the bottom of his extensive credits in stage, film, and television is superior to the article "List of awards...". "superfluous spin-off" only applies if you keep that inscrutable chart at the bottom of his "roles and awards" page. I worked in good faith, I truly didn't think people were happy with what is there now. I guess knowing how strongly you feel about it now, I wish I had done things differently, but regardless we are discussing it now. The simple and best solution is to just remove the little chart at the bottom of "roles and awards". Why delete a perfectly thorough, clean, easy to read article for viewers that is "List of awards..."? The One I Left (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What an unpleasant post, implying improper collusion! If two people think your proposed change a rotten idea, please do not malign their motives. I see you have moved on to attempt to rewrite the Olivier article to your own satisfaction. Please don't park your tanks on people's lawns like that. Tim riley talk 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here for speculation and did not malign any motives. Rather defensive chap aren't you? And "rotten idea"? Look at Laurence Olivier article, does he not have two separate articles for awards and roles? Aha! The One I Left (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your assertion of good faith. I support deletion of the superfluous article. Tim riley talk 15:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't making strong arguments, or really any arguments other than "rotten idea" and "superfluous". The awards section as is combined with the extensive acting credits, is hard for the casual viewer to easily comprehend. The "List of..." is crisp, and clean cut, and easy for the viewer to look and go "oh there are all his Academy Award nominations" or "I wonder how many Primetime Emmy Awards was he nominated for?" It just simply is the norm to have another article like Laurence Olivier has, given the amount of awards they have received. The One I Left (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you keep saying. Others disagree. Wikipedia works by consensus, not diktat. Let us see with whom other editors concur. Tim riley talk 15:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to John Gielgud, roles and awards. This is a peculiar case procedurally, but I'm seeing the following: 1) The awards article was split recently from the main one, without discussion, 2) The proposed split would require a change in scope and in title for the main article, 3) Changing another article's scope and title is beyond AfD's power, and 4) Unless and until the main article's scope and title are changed, this article is redundant and must be redirected. If you want to separate the roles from the awards, the proper way to do that would be to start a discussion on the article's talk page, following these directions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct that sums it up. I made a good faith decision to separate the articles seeing no harm in it myself thinking it was a mistake anyway. I didn't realize there was passion for the awards to be lumped into https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_John_Gielgud&action=edit&section=1the roles article. Renaming the article from "roles and awards" to "on stage and screen", and removing awards content from that article seem like a simple solution. I thought we could just make a decision here in regards to separation of two articles instead of having the lengthy process of deleting a page that might be restored anyway.The One I Left (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, then, TOIl, you agree that the article be deleted? Just to be clear - because, if so, and there are no further disagreements, we can move immediately I think to make it a redirect, as I originally proposed.--Smerus (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read what I wrote, I’m making the case for the simple solution is to remove the awards content from “roles and awards” and just rename that article. Keep my article where it is. It’s fully sourced, and a clear readable look at his awards. I never agreed to deletion of the article, you need to read carefully.The One I Left (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, you don't therefore maintain that User:Extraordinary Writ is correct, even though he is clearly in favour of making your article a redirect, and even though you wrote of his comment, "correct, that sums it up."--Smerus (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with his general summary, as well as “Unless and until the main article's scope and title are changed, this article is redundant and must be redirected”. I agree that the “roles and awards” article should be changed to thus making “List of awards” non redundant”The One I Left (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, why hve you not started a formal WP:PROSPLIT process, as recommended by User talk:Extraordinary Writ? --Smerus (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did, you even commented on it. You and Riley were the only ones who did. The One I Left (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The One I Left, you have not done so. You perhaps need to comprehend that assertion is not the same as performance. You started a talk header, but this was not in accordance with the WP:PROSPLIT procedure to which User talk:Extraordinary Writ referred you, and therefore will have no effect on this discussion. If you seriously wish this matter to proceed, then you should commence the WP:PROSPLIT process; the instructions for how to do this are very clear on the PROSPLIT page. If you do not do so, then the seriousness of your intent will be evaluated accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An official proposal has been added.The One I Left (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, The One I Left, I remind you that assertion is not the same as performance. Being a careful reader is an essential part of being a good Wikipedia editor. You have completed step 1 of the PROSPLIT procedure, but omitted step 2. As you seem to have a problem here, I set out for your benefit Step 2 in full (which I invite you to check on the PROSPLIT page):

Step 2: Add notice

Use {{split}} to notify users of the proposed split. On the article (not the talkpage) add {{split|'''Article 1'''|date=May 2024}} or {{split|'''Article 1'''|'''Article 2'''|...|date=May 2024}}. This template adds a box to notify users about the split. If the new page name is unknown, use {{split}} by itself with no parameters.
I trust you will find this of assistance.--Smerus (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have taken issue with the Proposal, what is wrong now? I have never done this before and trying in good faith. The One I Left (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I can't see any reason to retain this superfluous article. The history of muddle and high-handedness hasn't helped, but the main point is that the article needlessly duplicates an established and better article. Tim riley talk 15:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "superfluous", and "better" are subjective vague adjectives. You surely agree that Laurence Olivier should have two separate articles correct? or do you disagree? The One I Left (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I disagree. For the umpteenth time: we have one good article with all the stats in. Splitting it is idiotic. I realise everybody but you is out of step, but that's the way it is. Tim riley talk 15:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't had a proper debate or discussion, it's just been you and one other person. You keep repeating the same unimpressive and unmoving statement. Should Olivier have to suffer both awards and roles in one argument? No? Why does Gielgud have to? The One I Left (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There is no reason to make two list articles for the same person, and force readers to go to more than one place, when one list article contains all of this information and has very clear headings and is easy to navigate. Make the new article a redirect. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, which articles are you referring to? The One I Left (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am perplexed by The One I Left's inability to stick to the point. Please refresh your memory by looking at the header of this discussion. It would be helpful to refrain from dragging in references to articles about other actors. Let us concentrate on the present point. Tim riley talk 18:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am constantly perplexed by Riley’s attachment to an incomprehensible awards chart. The Olivier article illustrates the point I am making.The One I Left (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you persist in addressing me by the hostile "Riley", may I address you as "One-Eye"? Tim riley talk 19:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - for the reasons outlined here, and on the John Gielgud, roles and awards Talkpage. I would also ask that User:The One I Left drops the personal attacks. They’re unnecessary, uncollegiate and inappropriate. KJP1 (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks have I made? lol. I'm maintaining my position, while trying to understand others. I'm genuinely curious as to what others think, but I just keep getting vague adjectives, like "rotten". I've remained in good faith. The One I Left (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. As all have outlined above, this is duplicate content to the page that deals with Gielgud's 'career stats' page (for want of a better term). Why make people visit so many pages for information about Gielgud? Keep it on the one page. - the editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing as 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:5CAD:D89E:6ACF:3A3F (talk) 08:08, 5 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 08:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Schwartz (politician)[edit]

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

Local politician who has not received anything more than the usual spattering of local coverage that all local politicians receive. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Smerus (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vice Chair of one of the largest Democratic political organizations in the country and an elected official.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The coverage is local and minor. Being elected does not confer automatic notability; small-town mayors don't get a pass either. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even the chairman of a county level political party organization would not be default notable, the vice chairman is no where close to being notable, and the coverage of Schwartz is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The position is probably not inherently notable, but it's the lack of reliable and verifiable sources about the subject that clinches deletion for me. P.S. I'm pretty sure the word sought in the nomination was a "smattering" of coverage, but I think we all got the point. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Vice Chair of the Brooklyn Democratic Committee" and "Democratic District Leader for the 48th District" are not "inherently" notable offices that would guarantee inclusion under WP:NPOL — so getting him over the bar is a matter of getting him over WP:GNG on the sourcing — but three of the four sources here are hyperlocal community blogs, not notability-building reliable sources, and the one source that is technically acceptable ("Yeshiva World") isn't enough to get him over the bar all by itself if it's the only strong source he has. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 02:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Arattukulam[edit]

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

All of the sources for this article are from the diocese in which this individual worked, or are publications of the Roman Catholic Church. These sources are too closely connected to the subject, and therefore don't establish notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLERGY and WP:NBISHOP. That is, 1) the Roman Catholic church is not considered too closely connected for its publications to contribute to notability, 2) The sources likely exist in local language(s) that have not been identified, or 3) both. I just cannot see deleting a verifiable Catholic bishop who existed before the Internet just because we can't conveniently find online sources about him. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Arattukulam was a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore any sources by the Roman Catholic Church can not be considered independent per policy at WP:Verifiability. If this were any other organization we would be saying employers writing on their employees can't be considered independent when verifying notability. Bishops aren't exempt from basic sourcing policy. Like all biographical articles in all fields, secondary and tertiary sources other than the organization for which a person works need to be used to establish notability.4meter4 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One bishop does not control the Roman Catholic Church, which is a sprawling multinational bureaucracy with its own city-state and various religious trappings attached. Your position would be like saying something written by a U.S. Government agency about, for example, a House of Representatives member is not usable. To the contrary, WP:NBISHOP necessarily assumes that the Catholic Church itself is a sufficient reliable source for bishops who existed when there were not independent sources. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I hadn't considered that the Roman Catholic Church actually does have many similarities to a national government, and that its sources would be treated in the way that we treat other government sources. It's definitely given me food for thought.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is irrelevant in this case whether publications of the Roman Catholic church are sufficient to show that the subject is a bishop, because other sources can be found by simply clicking on "Books" in the nomination statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Bishops of major denominations are normally notable without more. This is not a BLP case, so that the kind of verification sought by the nom (though desirable) is not necessary. The nom is seeking a kind of perfection that will not be easily achievable. A source from within the diocesan office would not be independent, but Catholic publications nor closely connected to the individual are likely to be quite as good as newspapers. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the book sources that provide verification and Roman Catholic bishops articles are usually kept as per WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which is a form of case law or should be treated as such in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As shown by the campaign to kill articles on people like Michael J. Teh and Benjamin de Hoyos, we do not accept articles produced in any way by a religious group as reliable sources on people in leadership with that religious group. If we are going to show such views towards members of other religious groups, we need to do it for Catholics to, and delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you present any evidence of a "campaign" to kill articles about people who held office in a church with a couple of per cent of the adherents of the Roman Catholic church, and which has had an impact on the history of the West over the last 2000 years which is far less than that? And have you taken any notice of my edit above in which I point out that there are non-Catholic sources? I say all this as an atheist who holds no allegience to any church. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 05:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLERGY, as well as the significant coverage of this individual that can be found in print, particularly their contribution to Vatican II. I would also consider the sources of the Catholic Church to be sufficiently independent from this Bishop to be contribute to establishing his notability, unless said source has been generally depreciated or found unusable for those purposes. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to WP:NBISHOP--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uroš Peterka[edit]

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

WP:SPORTCRIT states that competitors of the smaller sports are inclusion-worthy if they "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". The highest level of ski jumping is the World Cup, which Peterka according to his FIS profile has not done. Only the second highest level, the Continental Cup, and the third highest level, the FIS Cup. In addition I do not see the criterion of multiple non-trivial coverage being met. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unconvinced that the coverage is non-trivial and significant. Death coverage does not in itself amount to significant coverage per WP:ONEEVENT. Why not write up the article with the stuff that you claim is significant? Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So 50 (establishes) news sources wrote articles about someone complete unnotable? You link to what significant means in GNG: “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” as the person is the main topic in those article, criterea is met. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. News reports on someone's accidental death are clearly routine and BIO1E, especially when they are all regurgitated press releases providing the exact same minimal coverage. The only reason many of the news stories exist in the first place is due to his more-famous brother (and indeed source #6 listed by SO above is strictly on Primoz, not Uros). Ten thousand newspapers reporting on his death still wouldn't satisfy GNG if they all contained the same information. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, @Geschichte: General info: You should take style of reports and news in Slovenia, especially how they write about death of XX person. You do not find only information about date of death and its manner, but also about its past life, competitons won etc. Looking through the heads of above articles may seem that only thing reported is his death. But it isn't. Sincerley A09090091 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at all the sources provided. They are all regurgitations of the same extremely minimal biographical information:
Sum of all news sources
Competed in the Continental Cup from 1996 to 2004, and twice stood on the podium, in 2001/02 season
    • 1: However, twice in his career, he stood on the podium of the Continental Cup.
    • 2: Cannot access source.
    • 3: Former ski jumper Uroš Peterka, who twice stood on the podium in the Continental Cup ... he has twice won podiums in the Continental Cup.
    • 4: Despite great potential, Uros Peterka († 40) usually jumps in the Continental Cup, where he gets several podium places.
    • 5: From 1996 to 2004, he played in the continental cup.
    • 7: he managed to stand on the podium of the Continental Cup competitions twice
    • 8: For most of his career, the younger brother competed in Continental Cup competitions. In the 2001/2002 season, he was on the podium twice in this series.
    • 9: Identical to #3.
    • 10: Uros was also considered talented, but the Slovene did not get beyond two podium places in the Continental Cup in the 2001/02 season.
Younger brother of Primož Peterka
    • 1: The brother of the two-time Crystal Ball winner Primoża ... Although he was hailed as a great talent, he remained in the shadow of his brother Primoz.
    • 3: Thirty-nine-year-old Uroš Peterka, the younger brother of two-time winner of the large crystal globe Primož Peterka
    • 4: Uros Peterka, the brother of ex-ski jumping star Primoz ... During his career as a ski jumper, he stayed in the shadow of his famous brother Primoz Peterka most of the time.
    • 5: He is the brother of Primož Peterka
    • 7: Uroš Peterka, former jumper and brother of Primož ... brother of the two-time Crystal Ball winner Primož Peterka ... The younger brother [of] Peter was considered a great talent as a child, but he was always deeply shadowed by his brother
    • 8: Uros Peterka, Primoz Peterka's brother
    • 9: See #3.
    • 10: Peterka, the younger brother of the former World Cup winner Primoz Peterka ... Peterka's ski jumping career has always been overshadowed by his brother Primoz.
Former member of SK Termit Moravče and SSK Mengeš
    • 7: former representative of the ski jumping section of the SSK Mengeš club.
    • 10: 39-year-old former member of SK Termit Moravče and SSK Mengeš
Never competed in World Cup matches
    • 1: Uros Peterka has never competed in World Cup competitions
    • 3: Uroš Peterka has never competed in World Cup matches
    • 5: Uroš Peterka has never competed in the World Cup
    • 7: He has never competed in the World Cup competitions
    • 9: See #3.
Ended career in 2006, but continued to compete in veteran matches and participated in practices at Planica
    • 1: He retired from sports in 2006, but in the following years he competed in the competition of veterans.
    • 2: Although he did not compete, he still jumped, as he did six years ago during the preparations for the then Planica.
    • 3: He ended his career in 2006 and for the next few years competed in veteran competitions.
    • 7: He ended his career in 2006, but for the next several years he competed in veteran competitions.
    • 9: See #3.
Last appearance was at 2010 Slovenian Championships
    • 10: Peterka made his last ski jumping appearance at the Slovenian Championships in 2010.
Appeared at the 2018 Summer Oldboys world championships at Skalite
    • 7: In 2018, he appeared in Szczyrk at the Skalite complex during the summer oldboys world championship.
JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 05:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Tyler[edit]

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

Sources cited are either non-independent or fail to mention Tyler even once. I found a brief quote from him in Looper but this falls way short of significant coverage; no evidence of WP:GNG being satisfied. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with the COI comment. Plus he seems to derive all of his alleged notability from a company that isn't even notable itself. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 05:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh boy that is WP:COI alright. I agree with the above, and it is very obvious this is doesn't meet WP:GNG, or was I able to find anything noteworthy upon searching. --Tautomers(T C) 07:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very clearly fails WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBIO. No sigcov. Rogermx (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In most circumstances where there is a close-to-even split there is no consensus, but the policy issues need to be considered as well. There are some valid concerns that the sourcing in the AFD are more about the company than Mr. Sascha, but looking through the sources there seem to be several companies, not just one, a fact noted by some of the sources in the article (e.g. the Czech Forbes article). As such, there is some merit to the keep side, and the lack of consensus therefore defaults to the article being retained at this point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Sacha[edit]

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

Not much reputed reference available that covers him significantly other than few media announcements. Fails WP:BLP and WP:SIGCOV. Dixiku (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No possible notability independent of the company. As far as I can tell, the references are almost entirely about the firm, not the person. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 05:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High Elms Manor School[edit]

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

Primary schools are rarely notable. Not seeing anything that raises this one above the norm. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we would need way better sourcing to show a school at this level is notable. There are notable schools at all levels, but below full secondary level they are only a small minority of schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No clear indication of notability. This applies to 90% of primary schools. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Primary schools have a high bar to pass in order for them to be notable and like Scorpions13256 says, most (including this one) fail it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:27, 1 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. GNG shown to be met, although consensus states that many current citations should be removed as unencyclopedic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kruttika Susarla[edit]

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

Non notable person filled with the references that do not qualify for a Wikipedia article. do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO GermanKity (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article reads like a resume and should be cleaned if its not deleted. YashPratap1912(CONT.) 03:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't signifcant enough and I couldn't find enough notability to meet guidelines. Sources in the article are poor too. Tautomers(T C) 04:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete News coverage is not significant enough, fails GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the creator of the page so I'll refrain from a !vote. I had created this page quite some time ago as part of the Women in Red project along with a dozen others so I don't particularly remember this person. That said I'd still like to present an arguement for keeping this article, first of all one should take note that with regards to biographies, WP:BASIC states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The current article itself has multiple references from independent reliable secondary sources which provide non-trivial coverage to her. The Indian Express article is entirely about her and her work, the FII English 2017 article is entirely about her and one of her works, the FII English 2018 article has a paragraph on her, the Verve 2018 article has a paragraph on her as well, the Verve 2017 article is an interview but provides an independent introductory paragraph on her and Platform magazine has a feature piece on her. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Tayi Arajakate, and the article could be further developed with other sources that are available, e.g. Design Dialogue with Kruttika Susarla (PrintWeek, 2019, includes education/career background), Women power, rebranded (Deccan Chronicle, 2017), 5 Women Illustrators From India Who Use the Power of Art to Shatter Taboos and Change Mindsets (The Better India, 2017), Four Indian artists to follow online (Bangalore Mirror, 2015), which all add further support to WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Am I missing something here? Many of the sources are literally about her. Why are so many people saying that the coverage is only trivial? Mlb96 (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Contrary to some of the Delete suggestions above, the subject does receive significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources as per the criteria for inclusion. That article can be expanded but AfD is not for article clean-up. --ARoseWolf 14:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I, too, am baffled by the delete !votes. Who could confuse two short, well-referenced paragraphs with a resume? pburka (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I think this article may be slightly WP:TOOSOON, I think the coverage is probably just substantive enough. I made some edits to make the article read less like a resume, although incorporating the sources above would help. Suriname0 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verve - not independent of the subject NPOV. feminisminindia.com- a biography list of many artists on an Unreliable resource/website. platform-mag- self published biography. welcometocup- paid list of non notable Graphic designers. verve - again a list of non notable designers/artists. Indianexpress - self published/paid article NPOV. Deccan - self published not independently covered. feminisminindia.com - again self published/paid article on a non reliable website. Thebetterindia - This can be consider but again this is a list of non notable artists. Verve - again a paid article on Verve. Caravanmagazine - Autobiography/Self published/Paid NPOV. Not a single resource that satisfies WP:GNG. I would also like to ping Praxidicae and HighKing who are experts to check references. GermanKity (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GermanKity, What evidence do you have that this Indian Express piece is a self-published/paid piece? Goldsztajn (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GermanKity, I tend to steer clear of WP:BIO, mainly for the reasons you've just run into. The standards of references deemed acceptable are a lot lower that WP:NCORP which is the only guideline that explicitly requires "Independent Content" (as per the definition in WP:ORGIND). While all guidelines, even GNG, requires "Independent of the subject", this is not correctly or properly defined. IMHO it is simply not worth the effort to argue this point, because even though the BIO guideline says that references must be "Independent of the subject", that statement in turn simply links to WP:IS which *only* states that the *publisher* should be independent of the subject. Nothing about content. The very large hole that leaves behind is that a publisher (who is not connected to the subject) may publish word-for-word an interview/essay/self-promoting-bio of the subject and it somehow meets the BIO guidelines. It's rubbish and lowers the quality of articles but it requires a change to the guidelines rather than a debate at each AfD. HighKing++ 15:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Taneja, Richa (26 September 2016). "Delhi Autorickshaw Gets A Thoughtful Makeover, Hails Women Crusaders". Everylifecounts.NDTV.com.
  2. ^ "Delhi rickshaw's interiors give lessons on India's feminist movement". Deccan Chronicle. 27 September 2016.
  3. ^ Apr 14, Lalitha SuhasiniLalitha Suhasini / Updated (14 April 2019). "Insta poll: How graphics artists are using social media to influence voters". Mumbai Mirror.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ "Webcomics provozieren Indiens Establishment". www.tagesspiegel.de (in German). 29 May 2020.
  5. ^ Ludewig, Julia (2 January 2020). "Different beasts? National and transnational lines in the German-Indian anthology The Elephant in the Room". Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics. 11 (1): 52–73. doi:10.1080/21504857.2019.1621915.
  6. ^ "Design Dialogue with Kruttika Susarla". Print Week. 30 January 2019.
  7. ^ "These Artists From All Over the World Are Reimagining Valentine's Day". www.vice.com. 14 February 2019.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a lot of inappropriate sources which lack independence which should be removed (such as Verve, FII English, Platform , The Better India) However, there are also high quality references (The Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle, The Caravan in the article; and some of those listed by others here at the AFD) which do count as RS and show the subject passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the improvements and rationale provided by Tayi Arajakate, there are enough references and coverages about Kruttika Susarla. Passes WP:CREATIVE. Chirota (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andar Char[edit]

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

The article is a stub. After a quick search on Google, I found only one result with notability (and even this one is questionable):

Other avenues were empty aside from google books where I could only find one-off mentions of the village on censuses. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 03:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 03:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 03:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would honestly be better for PROD but this is my first request and I want to see consensus to ensure I am making the right call. Super sorry. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 03:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just started participating in AfD a few days ago myself and have set up some PROD's. If I were to guess this would have passed for it, but no harm no foul this works too. One of my PROD's was removed and the person who did came across as rather pushy and impatient, but ultimately all he did was remove it and, well, come across as pushy and impatient. If it happens, it happens and you can do an AfD. Learning Wiki is an ongoing process and bumps are bound to happen. As Mrs. Frizzle would say; take chances, make mistakes! Or as wiki would say, be bold :) Tautomers(T C) 04:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per WP:GEOLAND point one, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable." We know it exists.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: It does appear to be a legally recognized populated place, given its listing in census documents (This one, for example), although I can only view them through Google Books snippet view so I can't tell what those documents are saying about the place. Besides that, this source from 1932, also from snippet view describes it as an island serving as "[a centre] of fish-trade", and this one lists it as an island as well as further describing what a "char" is. Those aren't exactly significant coverage, but they could help flesh out the article a little. Altogether it looks like this place just barely squeaks by due to WP:GEOLAND but I'm fine keeping based on that. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears in Bangladeshi census documents as Under Char (eg p.50), which has 466 households, 2,173 people and thus easily meets GEOLAND. Please take the following as a comment made in good faith: in general a WP:BEFORE process here would include a search of the appropriate census data, not just "quick" Google searching. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly a recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:GEOLAND. It is legally recognized, and is therefore notable. The "delete" voteseem to be unaware of the guideline. Sources likely exist in Bangladesh. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:05, 4 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Catharines Collegiate Secondary School[edit]

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

I'm the article creator. I could G7, but I don't think it's warranted in this case. I made a mistake by creating an article before I was entirely certain of its notability.

The most significant coverage I could find was a few pages from a journal and a few paragraphs in a book. There's more details on the talk page. I've thoroughly searched Google and Google Books, but the most coverage I could find was relatively trivial. It's possible that someone else has access to sources that I don't have that could prove notability. Clovermoss (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sourcing around to satisfy WP:GNG, as with any other secondary school in a western country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the references in the article except for one are primary and the only other thing I could find was a WP:MILL article about some students from the school preforming at a festival. Maybe there's some local trivial newspaper coverage about them out there, but if so I couldn't find any and it probably wouldn't be enough to make this notable anyway. I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep if Necrothesp or anyone else can provide WP:THREE in-depth, non-newsy secondary references though. It should be pretty easy to do if there's really plenty of sources around about it like Necrothesp is claiming there are. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 03:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per source analysis by Adamant1. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As secondary schools don't automatically pass notability and there is not enough significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:56, 4 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 09:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purabi Konwar[edit]

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

Non-notable civil servant. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 02:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Nothing more to say. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been told that district commissioners aren't generally notable [48]. You can delete it. This page was created by me and it was a mistake. Nalbarian (talk) 08:54, 2 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 Lego Star Wars#Short films. ✗plicit 09:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Star Wars: Bombad Bounty[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF, good candidate as a redirect to an article about Lego Star Wars franchise BOVINEBOY2008 00:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hog Farm Talk 01:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last Man Standing (2011 film)[edit]

Last Man Standing (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage from independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is difficult to search for information on this due to "last man standing" being a fairly commonly used phrase. I gave it a decent try and could not find meaningful press coverage, articles, etc. that would enable it to pass WP:GNG. The sources in the article are basically just places you can buy the film (apparently it's a decent film based on reviews). The director Ernest Dickerson seems well accomplished, but this work of his would be better suited as a mention on his Wiki page instead of its own article. As it stands, the article is also basically just a single sentence with the plot summary acting as some cushy fluff. Tautomers(T C) 04:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. I can find nothing on this film or reason to think there is anything beyond any other TV movie. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tautomers. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as WP:CSD#G5. Any editor in good standing is free to re-create the page. ✗plicit 14:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick DiGiovanni[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO no WP:SIGCOV that meets qualifications. Only really known for being a reality show contestant. SanAnMan (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SanAnMan (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SanAnMan (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has gained a lot of popularity from YouTube, having around 2.4M subscribers. If the YouTube part can be added to the article then it can be eligible. YashPratap1912(CONT.) 03:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @YashPratap1912: YouTube channel added. Brascoian (talk to me) 07:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep DiGiovanni i also ranked 6th in 2021 Forbes 30 Under 30 and i thinks that a big thing. and have 6.1 TikTok follower and also i didn't mentioned in the article that he also have 2.4million subscriber. Brascoian (talk to me) 04:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brascoian (talk to me) 16:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samentha Fernandes[edit]

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

it fails WP:GNG and has lack of reliable sources Preetykaur761 (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the citations currently in the article are to a non-notable tabloidy website which has no author byline on its articles, and are therefore almost certainly not reliable, and a search found nothing better. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:43, 1 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 00:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lene Bausager[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 13:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2021-06 ✍️ create, 2015-06 ✗ A7, 2008-11 ✗ A7, 2008-03 ✗ A7
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_June_27&oldid=1032831410"