Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 20	November 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archery at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional

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

I’m doubtful as to whether this record of an archery competition is notable, and it seems to fall foul of WP:NOSTATS. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indonesia has only won a bronze medal at the Olympic Games.That shows that Indonesia does not have a big focus on archery. Wp9097 (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided on notability until I do more research but I don't think Indonesia's medal status at the Olympics has anything to do with the notability of a completely unrelated event. I would oppose this argument, without expressing a view on deletion in general. Smartyllama (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete for being so narrow as to fail WP:NOTSTATS. There are several other sports pages from the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional there as well. Geschichte (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, quite simply. I actually found this nom after considering nominating all the articles in Category:2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional for deletion. JBchrch talk 15:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party

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

I cannot find a reason that this satisfies WP:NLIST; I can't find specific in-depth coverage of the group of Muslim leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party from multiple independent reliable sources. As a result, I'd propose that this list be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Fails WP:LISTCRIT and additionally goes against WP:BLPCAT (Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.) – in that the latter policy also applies to lists (see WP:LISTPEOPLE: Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation. For further information, see Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people, in particular the category/list policy for living persons). — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kashmiri, and additionally per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Pilaz (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also violates BLP. NavjotSR (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and "leader" is a wildly vague category. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A clear indiscriminate collection of trivia list, categorizing presidents of a political party by religion, violating WP:BLPCAT. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. Closure of this discussion early is simply because the article was eligible for speedy deletion under G5. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamibekami

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

Unfortunately, via socks, the speedy tag was removed. The prod tag was removed. So now we come here. Articles deleted numerous times, across multiple languages. Drafts declined numerous times. Lacks reliable sources. Lacks any sort of notability. Fewer than 300 subscribers on YouTube. I mean, there is nothing to suggest we need to host his information. Snackmurat (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination reasons. But I do have concern from reading a comment by @Snackmurat:, who said that JackJons7 was a sockpuppetry account. Looking at Snackmurat's contirbutions and JackJons7 non-existant talk page, there is 0 evidence (as of right now) to support that claim. If an admin sees this, they can check on the sock claim, but for now, as a non-admin, I would like to "warn" you about accusing other editors of violating Wikipedia rules without serious proof. And from what I can see, there is no existing proof of it. (You might be wise to remove that claim about the sock account until an admin can verify it.) Elijahandskip (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet. Meat puppet. Member of the same troll farm. Whatever the proper term may be, I stand by my claim. These accounts and IP addresses are working in concert. Snackmurat (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I dropped a template warning on your talk page for the personal attack. I would recommend you read over Wikipedia:No personal attacks before continuing in this Afd. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: Nonsense. There is ample evidence to support Snackmurat's claim. Drop it. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alivahedian.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah there it is. Well, I did not know about that sockpuppet investigation and was going off of the contributions from Snackmurat and JackJons7. I had seen 1 edit from JackJons7 and no investigation project page edits from Snackmurat, so I was assuming personal attacks. Please disregard those comments. (Also surprised from the "Drop it" comment...seems too strict don't you think?) Elijahandskip (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jabberd14

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

Non-notable software. No notability shown since its creation in 2005. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although I found some coverage in this book and a thesis, they're not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Other sources only make brief mentions, mostly in configuration files: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Page

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

Horribly promotional non notable individual. The only reliable source out of 47 was from 2012 so clearly not about this individual. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's assessment of sources is correct. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR without RS support. Of the 47 citations on the page, 31 are filmography listings, 11 are press releases promoting her appearances, 3 are interviews, one is IAFD, and the last one is not even about the subject. An independent search under all of her stage names comes up with nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person is not notable and there is no significant coverage. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 22:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Humans. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Witwicky

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

Non notable fictional character. Remember, this is Wikipedia, not the Transformer Wiki. Kaseng55 (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kaseng55 (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Humans, not a major character. ~~Waddles~~ Gobbles 🍂 🦃 00:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the article contains a large reception section, the nominator should provide an analysis. This is, I am sorry to say, a rather lazy nom. I am hardly an inclusionist editor these days, but just as I require that voters adhere to some standards with the level of their commentary, the same should be required of the nominator (WP:BEFORE, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The reception section seems limited to her appearance in one live action movie. But ping me if better sources are found for her cartoon or other media apperances. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Humans - The coverage of the fictional character is not sufficient to justify a separate article, but as it is a reasonable search term, and she is present on the main character list, a redirect would be preferable over deletion. The actual reception section is not worth preserving, as it is barely on the character - they are all either entirely on the actress that portrayed the character in Dark of the Moon, or reviews of that movie that happen to very briefly mention that actress. Most of them don't even mention the fictional character of "Carly" by name, making it useless as a source for the topic of that fictional character. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Humans The article is about the character for the TV show and so should be redirected to an article about the show, not the movie where the character later appeared. Rhino131 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree with redirect as all above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Humans,not a major character.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Rose (actress)

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

Sourcing inadequate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes the GNG with these feature coverage[5][6][7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 is broadly an interview, therefore not independent, 2 ditto and 3 is avn and not something that we will hang a blp on. Even wp:porn warns that avn has to be used with caution. In any event it has no byline and is mostly interview and reads like it is promotional. There isn’t the necessary multiple reliable sources here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should reread WP:Primary and WP:SECONDARY as writers and reporters are allowed to interview the subjects to develop secondary coverage (See WP:INTERVIEW). WP:PORN is not policy or authority to discount AVN. However, an RFC at RSN recently declared they were reliable,[8] but you already knew that. The byline was also lost when AVN redid their website and archives several times. You can see it here [9]Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not meet notability criteria. AVN and XBIZ can be used to source basic facts about porn topics, but they are not a measure of reliability. Zaathras (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted as G11, unambiguous promotion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helal Uddin Ahmmad

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

Appears to fail WP:NPOL and WP:NYOUTUBE. I can't find WP:BASIC-level coverage for this apparently living person. Therefore, I believe this article should be deleted as non-notable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Examination of the cited sources and searches for better sources confirm that the subject is not notable. For those unfamiliar with the jargon, an upazila is a third level administrative division (sub-sub-national). He says he's a party leader in a student wing at that level. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KaladKaren

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

BLP of a person who impersonates a tv presenter. Nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G5, Changingguardsatbuckinghampalace). MER-C 13:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vionic

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

This article was wholly written by someone flagged as a likely paid editor, the article does a poor job of establishing notability and conveys little encyclopaedic information. WyldEys (who has reviewed several unrelated articles tagged for UPE with the goal of making them neutral and asked me to opine on their suggestions) notes on the talk page that they think the notability of the topic is borderline, and I'm inclined to agree on a cursory look. Given all the issues, I am recommending application of WP:TNT here, if the organisation is notable then it will be better to start a new, neutral and encyclopaedic article free from any involvement by paid editors. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In case its helpful to anyone, I was looking for sources and only came up with these that I thought would be acceptable: Source: Healthline, Source: MSN, Source: NBC News. And 2 about the founder (sensitive story): The Guardian article, conviction WyldEys (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Krishna

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

Neither WP:DIRECTOR nor WP:JOURNALIST is met. A before search links me to user generated sources such as Linkedin. Celestina007 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't qualify WP:CREATIVE. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capital City Championship Combat

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

This professional wrestling promotion fails WP:CORPDEPTH and therefore also WP:PWPROM. The only sources which mentions subject in any detail are the results sources from Cagematch, which according to WP:PW/RS is only reliable for results and not for establishing notabilit HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article because several wrestler start wrestling there and C4 Wrestling Promotion is Notable Promotion and I don't create to many pages for that. So please keep the article this is my request

delete - not a notable company. Nothing shows this meets WP:GNG. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some notable wrestlers have apparently wrestled for them at some point but that's WP:NOTINHERITED. Really the only remote claim to notability I can see here.LM2000 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shailesh Singh

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

Possible COI article on a non notable police officer who a before search shows they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A bureaucrat who is not the chief of the organization he works in. Also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Venkat TL (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor M. Marroquín

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

Article has had two previous AFDs, in 2017 and 2020, both resulting in a clear deletion consensus. It is a ref-bombed promotional mess. Amusingly, his "most prominent" awards are vanity awards. This is another WP:GNG fail. If this fails its 3rd AfD, can we salt it please? Edwardx (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. No improvement over before. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. Mostly are self published sources, or an article by him as an Author. There is one interview here which as we know is not acceptable. Caphadouk (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melanija Mitrovic

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

BLP of a professor of mathematics. Her citations look low on Google scholar and I’m not seeing what she is notable for. Mccapra (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON at best for WP:NPROF C1, based on mid-to-low Google Scholar citations. No other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a low-citation field but still the citation record does not give us enough to go on for WP:PROF#C1 and I don't see what else to use instead. I tagged this for notability last August for the same reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost nothing citation-wise, and no details supporting meeting other NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to suggest that WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG or WP:NPROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The general view here – not a unanimous view, but nonetheless the view of a substantial majority – is that the available sourcing is sufficient to meet the GNG. Since that perspective is neither logically fallacious nor fundamentally at odds with policy, I have no reason to discount it. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctum Sanctorum

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Yes, there are a few short news pieces about the appearance of the building in the movie or rather, concept art: [10], [11], [12] and the Time Magazine even covered the trivia that it is listed on Google Maps: [13], but I don't see that any of these few news clickbait stories contains anything that goes beyond plot summary (pretty bare) or few fan-like comments that "it looks like it looked in comics" (or not). Could redirect (not sure if there is anything to merge) to Features of the Marvel Universe or Doctor Strange, perhaps. Anyway, given the few news sources, AfD seems better than PROD, so let's discuss. Maybe someone will find a better source, or maybe you will see something of worth in the sources I linked (but please, read them first, don't just assume that a name in the title equals WP:SIGCOV in the body...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I appreciate Piotrus' BEFORE efforts, I find them exactly the sort of content I would expect and find appropriate for inclusion for a notable fictional element. Merging it to Dr. Strange would be a reasonable alternative to deletion, but I don't think it's called for in this case. c.f. my work on Baxter Building. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments from Jclemens, and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD for the sources already present in the article, but failing that I agree a merge to Doctor Strange would be better than deletion. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is starting to feel more like a weird vendetta against any and all fiction articles rather than serious use of the deletion process, maybe you should consider giving it a rest for a while? Artw (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a vendetta against fiction articles seems a rather silly accusation to make against an editor who brought Dejarik to WP:Good article status and has nominated Sabacc for the same. Not to mention Earth in science fiction and Space travel in science fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Artw - Please mind WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIV. I believe you need to WP:REFACTOR your comment above - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's "assume good faith", not "not ignore the blindingly obvious. For restoring good faith I would suggest making less low quality AfDs and seeking less conflict with other users. Artw (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is more than sufficient, and the fact that there is no single good merge target (with Doctor Strange and Features of the Marvel Universe both being candidates for different reasons) favors a separate article. The building made a signficant appearance in Avengers: Endgame in a sequence where Doctor Strange, though discussed, was not present. Furthermore, it is well-publicized that this fictional location will appear prominently in yet another major film opening in a few weeks (it has already begun receiving coverage for this), which makes this request rather poorly timed. BD2412 T 08:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is not compliant with the guidelines of WP:NPLOT and MOS:POPCULT, and not one of the keeps above make any sound policy-based argument or directly address the issues outlined in the nomination. Avilich (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are reasons for deletion, though, and AFD is not cleanup. BOZ (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL-REASON 8, 13 and 14. Not to mention that the burden of demonstrating encyclopedic notability is yours. Avilich (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "The Sanctum Sanctorum has appeared in various media adaptations, including animated television series, video games, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe." is a plot detail of a fictional universe? Artw (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

try again, without cherrypicking -- external reception, influence, and third-party coverage are what confer notability, not listings of pop culture appearances. Avilich (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the goalpost moving as acknowledgement that WP:NPLOT is not a deletion worthy issue here. Artw (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is, and if you can't understand why in-universe information and trivial popcult listings don't make an encyclopedic article, we have a deeper problem at hand. Avilich (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Wikipedia's policies exclude a general-purpose reliable source from supporting notability on the grounds that a piece published by that source is a "trivial popcult listing". If the source is usable, then inclusion of information in a "listicle" or the like is irrelevant to our review. BD2412 T 19:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People keep saying this and it's just not true. PLOT issues can be solved by editing, and therefore are not reasons for deletion, full stop. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They can be solved by editing so long as significant third-party coverage can be found, which is not the case here. Otherwise you'll effectively blank the page. WP is not supposed to indiscriminately list every piece of in-universe cruft or popcult trivia. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have made several extreme misstatements of policy and if you carry out this blanking it will most likley be treated as vandalism. You and Piotr need to bacj down and stop this business. Artw (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who doesn't understand the meaning of "Wikipedia treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, treating ... reception, significance, and influence of works" ought to have his vote disregarded. This is in the policy I cited, and I've been consistent in applying this logic. You are incapable of even acknowledging it, and you don't seem to know what moving goalposts means either. Avilich (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your alleged policy argument is bunk, I noted it was bunk this time, I noted it was bunk this time, I will note it's bunk the next time, might as well stop doing it. Artw (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving my point, by all means keep doing saying helps you cope with the fact that you have no idea of what an encyclopedia is. Avilich (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, yes. Given that I see you as a person who repeatedly lies about policy in order to grief other users I'm not going to take any notes from you on what wikipedia should or shouldn't be, cheers. Artw (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And where did I lie, exactly? I quoted the relevant excerpt and you did just about everything except address it. Avilich (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you repeatedly invoke NPLOT on articles that are nit summary-only descriptions of works that's a lie. Artw (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article consisting solely of nit summary-only descriptions and popcult trivia listings is exactly what INDISCRIMINATE/NPLOT applies to. No evidence that I lied; this is just disingenuous. Avilich (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Other editors have demonstrated notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify Article is not compliant with WP's standards on fictional subjects. The amount of third-party, out-universe coverage, concerning reception, influence and acclaim (of which the article has none), is insufficient to meet GNG or to demonstrate the encyclopedic viability of the subject. Avilich (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good news, @Avilich:, I have found and added Tyler, Adrienne (April 18, 2020). "Doctor Strange's Sanctum Sanctorum ISN'T A Sherlock Holmes Reference". ScreenRant.. This is at least third-party, out-universe coverage, concerning reception, to the extent that it describes fans as having incorrectly thought that the house referenced 221B Baker Street, the fictional domicile of Sherlock Holmes. BD2412 T 01:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Romano, Nick (January 5, 2016). "Doctor Strange Movie Art Reveals the Sanctum Sanctorum". Collider. BD2412 T 02:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Screen Rant (reliable?) piece is cheap, fleeting trivia that fails GNG. It says that some fans made a mistake and then corrects them by providing the correct in-universe details. The Collider piece mentions the building three times: two are brief plot recaps to provide context, and the other is a passing mention concerning another character's appearance in it. They don't discuss the building in detail; there's nothing about its development; there's nothing demonstrating that fictional building had any significant real-world impact. You can't even build a stub with articles like those. Avilich (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSP, ScreenRant "is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics". This is obviously such a topic. Both articles literally are about the Sanctum Sanctorum in their titles. Of course, the Collider article focuses on pictures, which, as you know, are worth a thousand words. BD2412 T 03:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your choosing to ignore that your sources don't give any meaningful real-world commentary of the subject, and that it's cheap fancruft, doesn't make it any less true. This will be closed as keep of course, but this article will remain a plausible target for AfD in the future, since this whole discussion is vague and uninformative, and not one of the keep voters have shown that this topic meets GNG. Avilich (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will be closed as keep because it meets the GNG, because the Sanctum Sanctorum as a notable fictional location, no less so at this point than Wayne Manor or the Fortress of Solitude or 221B Baker Street. As noted, it is already set to be well-represented in a Spider-Man movie set to open in weeks, and in another Doctor Strange movie coming in the next six months. BD2412 T 04:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited, no sources that aren't bottom-quality, and so on. Avilich (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are permissible sources for the topic area, and there is clearly consensus in this discussion that they are of sufficient quality, which is the real bottom line. BD2412 T 05:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude there's now TWO lego sets of it. Give it up. Artw (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough here to pass the minimum standards of GNG, in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley's People (essay)

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

In the words of the person who wrote this essay, it is a "silly little opinion piece". Fails GNG - sources 1 and 4 are not independent, source 3 is a trivial mention, I cannot see the text of source 2. (Contested PROD in 2018.) Cerebellum (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely weasel words and not encylopaedic in nature. Reference 2 is simply index notes. It is a silly opinion piece and fails GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above opinion piece fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards immediate re-nomination if so desired. Daniel (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trauma and PTSD in Asian Americans

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

I'm a bit torn on this one. While this is pretty well-written, it's almost wholly an essay. Even if it weren't one, it's just such a specific topic that covers only a minority population in a single country. I could not find any similar articles on different races or other for other countries, so I don't think this is a noteworthy enough topic to justify an article. I'm not necessarily against a merge, however. It could be greatly condensed then merged into Health status of Asian Americans some way. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not only the way of writing, but also the article scope fails WP:NOTESSAY. Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: The issue of trauma and PTSD among Asian Americans is well documented in peer-reviewed journals, as well as the media. The only question is if it merits its own entry in the articlespace or a merge into a page belonging to a more broader but closely related topic. Multi7001 (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The risks section speaks about some issues particular to Asian Americans. The interventions section mentions some cultural factors that are particular to parts of Asian culture. It could be improved with a rewrite for tone, but there's no need to delete it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If "we have another example of this kind of article" isn't in itself grounds for keeping a poor-quality article, I don't think "we don't have an another example of this kind of article" is grounds per se for a delete. WP:NOTESSAY comes in much more urgently bad varieties than this. It has a decent set of references. I don't think merging is appropriate: the "mental health" subsection of Health status of Asian Americans is already pretty long, and PTSD is even longer; merging it will either ultimately cause it to disappear as it gets condensed into nearly nothing, or balloon out a section of an already-long page. What it needs is to be de-orphaned. -- asilvering (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the course this was written for is linked on the talk page, and that course produced several similarly specific articles about trauma in the USA. Whoever tries to de-orphan this article if it's kept could probably efficiently attend to the whole set. -- asilvering (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sometimes I'm so perplexed by an AFD nomination I wonder if I am completely missing the point. We have vast numbers of articles that describe a specific topic that covers only a minority population in a single country. For example, consider the articles in Category:Islamic terrorism in the United States, many of which are far more specific than this one. Indeed, the article being considered here seems to me rather broad in scope. It doesn't seem to be in any way contrary to WP:NOTESSAY which is asking for contents to be well referenced and not to include personal feelings or discussions. Apart from a very few sentences such as "Thus, CBT is appealing and serves as a popular choice for many patients with Asian American cultural backgrounds", this article does not. As for not being noteworthy enough topic to justify an article, if this is suggesting WP:GNG is failed, I quite simply think that is a seriously wrong assessment. Even if you discount the primary research papers you are still left with adequate suitable references. Thincat (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with all the "Keep" comments. Mathieu Vouillamoz (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Health status of Asian Americans.-KH-1 (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syllable Desktop

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

This was previously listed for deletion due to lack of general notability in December 2020, however this was closed due to lack of consensus and instead a banner put on the article asking for further sources to establish notability. However this has not happened, no further sources have been forthcoming (including those promised in the AfD debate) and now even this project's official website has shut down.

I would like to reiterate my original points from that AfD since no further sources have been forthcoming to contradict it - the subject is a long-defunct minor hobbyist OS of no particular import and with no particularly large user base, if it even has one or has ever had one. It is simply not notable in any clear way. Foonblace (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I listed and commented available sources in the last AfD (I may list them again, if there is a request to do so) and my stance is the very same as back then: Somewhat weak keep as there are some sources with broad enough coverage of the article subject but their reliability or independence may be questionable. Still enough - in my POV - sources to establish notability. Pavlor (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if there are sufficient sources available to evidence notability then these should be included in the article, but they have not been. Foonblace (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To comment above, the sources do not magically disappear if they haven't been added since the last AfD. I would imagine a WP:BEFORE includes reading any relevant discussions pertaining to the article including any previous AfD discussions. The onus is on the nominator as the material can still be used to improve the article. – The Grid (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added four sources I mentioned during the last AfD to the "Further reading" section of the article. First two (root.cz and pro-linux.de) are available online, so anyone can judge for themselves; the other two (Linux Format) are offline/behind paywall (note one of these is not entirely independent on the article subject). I will try to improve the article using these sources, but my computer time is too short these days. Pavlor (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:WHYN, the existence of reliable sources is enough; they do not have to be included on the actual page. This review and this article were noted in the previous AfD discussion and pass WP:SIGCOV with this and the other sources already referenced on the page. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Motorettes

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

No notable coverage, not even a biography page on allmusic. Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They're British, and AMG is less comprehensive for UK bands. They have existing coverage here (Drowned in Sound) and here; there may be additional coverage elsewhere. They charted on the UK Albums chart, which is an iron benchmark for clearing WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC per Chubbles. SL93 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chubbles. ~~Waddles~~ Gobbles 🍂 🦃 00:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Charting #83 for one single week is an extremely weak claim to meet WP:NBAND. However, there is some more general coverage, review of the first single, review of the second single, of the third single, and the band also released a split. So keep. Geschichte (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus appears to be that he meets WP:NPROF Category 6 (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 04:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debashis Chatterjee

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

Fails WP:NPROF. No relevant citations and h-index data found. In past, this entity's page has been deleted multiple times. Possible WP:COI at creators' end. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was accepted under Criteria 6 of WP:ACADEMIC that says The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode is a major academic institution and Director is the highest level administrative post. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nomadicghumakkad. He does fulfill criteria 6 of WP:NACADEMIC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pautalia

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

Poorly sourced Content Fork which is dealt with at the original redirect target Kyustendil and in History of Kyustendil. Restoration of the redirect as alternative to deletion is acceptable. Polyamorph (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- It is not necessarily appropriate to merge an ancient city with a modern one, when there is no obvious continuity (gap of 500 years in history) and a different name. I recall a case of Greek city in Asia Minor that some one wanted to merge with is modern Turkish near successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify: WP:GEOLAND is met per WP:NOTTEMP; the only thing is this article is very poorly written. Best case would be stubify and improve from there. Curbon7 (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep - I've listed below some literature studying aspects of Pautalia, such as its coins and urban development (both mentioned in the WP article). The article is poorly written in its current state, but it could stubified now and rewritten with proper sourcing, as Curbon7 said. Bridget (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found sources - Bridget (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English translations are taken from the original articles.

Slokoska, L. R. (1989). Pautalia I: The Topography, Urban Development and Fortifications. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
- Poulter, A. G. (1994). "Review". Britannia. 25: 343. doi:10.2307/527027.
"PAUTALIA (Kyustendil) W Bulgaria.". The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites.
Grozdanova, Lily (2016). Delev, Peter (ed.). "Градският пантеон на Пауталия в светлината на монетосеченето на полиса – някои основни наблюдения" [The city Pantheon of Pautalia in the light of the polis’ coinage – some basic observations]. ΣΥΜΠΟΣΙΟΝ (in Russian). Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press: 136–147. ISBN 978-954-07-4158-1. Topoi entry.
Sokolowski, Franciszek (1970). "Loi sacrée de Pautalia". Bulletin de correspondance hellénique (in French). 94 (1): 113–116. doi:10.3406/bch.1970.2170.
Filipova, S.S. (2018). "Монеты из раскопок античной Пауталии (современный Кюстендил)" [Coins from Archeological Researches of Ancient Pautalia (Today Kyustendil)]. Materials in Archaeology & History of Ancient & Medieval Crimea (in Russian) (10): 415–435. doi:10.24411/2219-8857-2018-00018.

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rockypoint, Wyoming

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

A hill, a farm, a church, and literally nothing else at the site. This article took less than two minutes to create by copying data from GNIS and is now going to take at least 10-20 times that in editor time to delete.

No evidence of legal recognition per WP:GEOLAND #1, no evidence of a WP:GNG pass. The only source cited in the article is GNIS but this is unreliable for whether a place was ever a populated community and is not evidence of legal recognition per the RSN discussion/WP:GNIS. Searching more broadly I see that maybe there was a mine there once, some guy called Mahoney claimed to find oil and coal there (i.e., Mahoney was the source of this information, and as such not reliable) and .... that's it. No instances of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It does not suddenly become something else when it covers populated places, especially not a gazetteer. For this reason we should not host what are essentially bare gazetteer listings. If it's a bare gazetteer listing, and the only source provided is GNIS, this by itself should be enough for the article to be deleted. We should not have to perform a kind of super-WP:BEFORE to confirm details of hundreds of articles that the original creator did not bother to do, because the simple fact is that the original creator did not even create an encyclopaedia article for us to do WP:BEFORE on. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GNIS only, no WP:SIGCOV or evidence of legal recognition. Regards, 185.233.193.8 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as GNIS spam. Avilich (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –dlthewave ☎ 05:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haskiri Velazquez

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Doesn't have multiple lead roles in a notable project. Behind the moors (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage and only one major role. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Malik

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable. No WP:RS Behind the moors (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not the same person as the first deletion discussion. Geschichte (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woefully undersourced, not enough to show that WP:NACTOR has been met. Ravensfire (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "It exists" is not a valid reason to keep an article. ✗plicit 11:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard the Lionheart: Rebellion

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR and WP:CREEP. I’m unable to see how the encyclopedia or reader experience is improved by following the destructive Afd and notability guidelines which indicate this and many other informative and factually accurate articles about topics with verifiable existence (you can Google watch it for yourself—as verifiable as it gets) need to be deleted. The guidelines need to be revamped per CREEP to remove their destructive effects, but in the meantime we must simply ignore them per IAR, a pillar policy. —В²C ☎ 16:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguing that the notability guidelines are destructive is at this point an ice cold take - if we didn't have some kind of guideline about what content to keep or retain, we would have zero quality control or ability to remove spam and cruft. A garden must be pruned lest it be overrun with weeds. Under the current guidelines, an absence of sources means we cannot retain this or any other article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Hunter's Farm

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

I really hope I can be proved wrong on this one, but I'm worried that this one isn't notable. After constructing User:Hog Farm/Trans-Mississippi, I stumbled upon this one looking for articles that could be easily improved, but I'm not sure that this one can.

Of the four sources cited in the article - 1 and 4 are rather brief official military reports on the action, 2 is a brief passing mention, and 3 is a 1908 source that devotes four sentences to it. Potential sources not cited in the article - Elmo Ingenthron's Borderland Rebellion has a passing mention in a timeline and a passing reference to a separate minor event at Hunter's Farm 3 days later. I perused the Internet Archive's copy of Hughes's Battle of Belmont and while it discusses events at Hunter's Farm, they seem to be routine troop movements and not this one. Bruce Nichols's series about guerrilla warfare in Missouri has its first volume begin with 1862, and it doesn't mention this 1861 action.

So really, all we have to work with are the original 1860s military reports (which I'm not convinced would be considered secondary for WP:GNG) and four sentences in a 1908 compendium of all actions in the war which paints this as a tiny action between two small forces. Unless we're willing to pass this through solely on the primary source reports, I don't think there's enough written about this action to support/warrant an article. Hog Farm _Talk 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, a minor action with minimal coverage, it doesn't warrant a stand-alone page. Is there anywhere it could be merged to? Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GBooks has several books with the event mentioned, most from US military sources. would seem to be enough to make it notable. GScholar has nothing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The fact that it is called a skirmish, not a battle implies that it was a NN engagement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grind (2009 film)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found during a WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Askari (film)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No contest A decent film but clearly not notable. Doug butler (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing worthwhile found during a WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nomination appears to be correct Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal and Newar Community

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

No sourcing, everything that could be in this article could be added to the main Newar article. Hasn't been edited in 5 years. C1MM (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fade258 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelmann clamp

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

Only source is the manufacturer's website. The other source is a dead link, looking at it on Internet Archive, it is a secondary source who's main source is also the manufacturer's websites. No other sources can be found online. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 05:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it looks like all other previous articles about circumcision surgical devices were merged into Circumcision surgical procedure, and I don't see how this one can be any more notable. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 02:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a Voice: A Benefit for Humans

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

No significant coverage and the advocacy group that the album raised funds for doesn't have an article. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the article's text also appears at this stream listing, and that is the only other place I found the commentary on how the album was disowned by both its producer and the charity group it supposedly benefited. Nobody in reliable media noticed. Otherwise the record sank without a trace and its existence can only be found dimly at a few directory sites like Discogs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fucking Buckaroos

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

Non-notable band. There are 26 sources in the article and none of them show notability. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.readjunk.com/reviews/albumreviews/fucking-buckaroos-when-cops-rode-bulls/		Not seeing a significant editorial process...	Just a small paragraph review of an album	✘ No
http://goldengatorrockers.blogspot.com//2008/05/fort-faxon-we-got-down-cops-sometimes.html/	? Inaccessible	Blogspot	? Inaccessible	✘ No
https://rick.wordpress.com/page/6/		wordpress	literally no mention??	✘ No
https://www.punkglobe.com/thefuckingbuckaroosreview0114.php		Just a website	~ eh	✘ No
https://www.dallasnews.com/things-to-do/32769/the-fucking-buckaroos-chief-death-rage-tatanka-iyotake-brick-fight-1919-hemphill-fort-worth/	? redirects to a non-existent dallas news article??	?	?	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20140304190511/https://razorcake.org/record-reviews/fucking-buckaroos-the-los-helldandys-split	looks like it derives from the band's website		not really	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110901072027/http://www.shitenonions.com/blog/?p=3063		just an internet blurb		✘ No
http://dmediamagazine.blogspot.com/2014/03/los-hell-dandys-presentan-mad-love-gun.html		it's on blogspot	~	✘ No
http://rockabillyrecords.de/vinyl/eps/fucking-buckaroos---helldandys---popular-romance.php	looks like it's parroting a primary source	just a blurb		✘ No
https://dostuffmedia.com/coming-soon?utm_source=hazdf&utm_content=hazdf.com/artists/los-helldandys	?	?	literally just links to a "coming soon" page	✘ No
https://redscare.storenvy.com/products/10402-v-a-untitled-21-a-juvenile-tribute-to-swingin-utters-cd	given that it makes no mention of the fucking buckaroos, it is technically independent	seems like a store		✘ No
http://hikeitlikeit.com/2012/fruitless-fortunes/				? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20140818111142/http://hikeitlikeit.com/2012/fruitless-fortunes/		user-generated content	just a passing mention	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20140305061942/http://thefuckingbuckaroos.com/news/leonardo-dicaprio-set-play-thom-upcoming-buckaroos-biopic-tfb-goes-mexico	primary source	primary source		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120325180615/http://thefuckingbuckaroos.com/shows-page	primary source		~ eh...	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080914161127/http://www.reclusorios.df.gob.mx:80/	? no idea what the hell this is	no	definitely not	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obdCS39YQDU	primary source		Well, I now know that I don't like seeing the fucking buckaroos shirtless, so that does seem like significant coverage yes	✘ No
https://sabinewirsching.com/2013/06/23/the-fucking-buckaroos-im-interview/	interview	interview	interview	✘ No
https://sabinewirsching.com/2013/08/02/on-the-road-mit-the-fucking-buckaroos/	interview	interview	interview	✘ No
Apparently I can't link to the source because it's blacklisted, so have this message instead	literally a former fundraising page—smooth way to raise money, i guess			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20161012041516/http://celticfolkpunk.blogspot.com//2012/02/free-download-fucking-buckaroos-ii-2012.html/	i mean, it looks like a piracy thing, so i guess so?			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20160610100503/http://collective-zine.co.uk/artists/?artist=4503/		doesn't seem reliable		✘ No
http://celticfolkpunk.blogspot.com/2012/02/free-download-fucking-buckaroos-ii-2012.html			same as source 21	✘ No
https://thebaybridged.com/2013/12/18/the-fucking-buckaroos-are-taking-a-fucking-break/			~	✘ No
https://thefuckingbuckaroos.bandcamp.com/album/los-pinches-vaqueroos-puro-pinchi-pari	primary			✘ No
http://celticfolkpunk.blogspot.com/2015/11/free-download-fucking-buckaroos-puro.html		no	same as source 23	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete: No sources count towards GNG here, and a WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no in-depth articles about them. Does not meet WP:BAND. Chelokabob (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior#Interstitial programming. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go, Baby!

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

As one of the editors of this page, I was trying to find sources for this series of 8 preschool shorts (right now there are only references to IMDb and first-party sources on the Disney website) but there don’t seem to be any reliable in-depth sources that would make it notable. Nominating since it fails WP:Notability rules. Squittens (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior#Interstitial programming per WP:CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 20:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior#Interstitial programming per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Adkins

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. He's only known for being the ex-husband of Laura Linney. The Film Creator (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete He did achieve some regional notice for Thoreau, but that's about it: certainly his TV and his one film role are small and didn't get much notice. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Questionable notability, and parts of the article are contradictory or possibly confused with a completely different person bearing the same name (who appears to be an ex-state politician from New Mexico?)Headphase (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daily High Club Ltd.

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

Company does not meet WP:NCORP- references are largely sponsored content or interviews. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any notable source for it. It doesn't meet the notability guideline. VincentGod11 (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made of Hate

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

No notable coverage, could only find a mention on Ultimate Guitar. Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They do have a short Allmusic bio ([14]) and a review there ([15]). I didn't find much else. --Michig (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band's articles in Polish and German indicate additional coverage, and AMG is international press. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broadside Electric

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable coverage, not even a biography page on allmusic. Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They don't seem very notable. If they go, all of their albums have to go as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All five of their album articles are unsourced, and a search reveals almost nothing for any of them. I found no reliable reviews at all; one of the albums got a blog review. I am going to redirect all the album articles to the band because they are ripe for that process anyway, and they won't be left behind if the band is deleted too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This band survived their first AfD back in 2008 when simply being mentioned in the media at all, however briefly, could be deemed sufficient. But the criteria at WP:NBAND have gotten tighter since then. In the 2008 AfD, voters contributed ten sources, eight of which are now dead. The other two were merely brief announcements of appearances as the opening act for someone else. I did a new search and only found one more minor announcement of the same: [16]. The band has been around for a long time, but brief snippets of local media notice over the years have added up to nothing of lasting quality. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What's the point of all these relistings? The nominator made a case for deletion, which I seconded with some more detail, and we have an additional comment about the band's non-notable albums. Other AfD's have been ruled "soft delete" with far less action than this one. Don't let this article fall through the cracks with a flimsy "no consensus" just because you're waiting for more votes to miraculously appear. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of the previous deletion discussions. Soft delete only applies when other deletion methods haven't been tried. Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I did not say that this one should be soft-deleted, though perhaps it looked that way. I meant that the consensus to delete in this AfD seems pretty solid, more so than in many other AfDs I've observed. If we're headed toward a flimsy "no consensus" for procedural reasons that would be unfortunate for the encyclopedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of book-based war films (wars before 1775)

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

These articles are a series of lists which were originally the work of one editor, who has been indefinitely blocked since 2012. Other editors have contributed, but they still bear the idiosyncracies of the original editor. Specifically, these are lists of films that are about wars, based on books (not necessarily books about those wars), organized by war and in some cases by subtopics within each war. If you are looking for films about a particular war, you will only find those films here if the film is deemed to have been based on a book (whether or not the film credits the book as a source). Some books which have allegedly been "frequently filmed" are broken out into their own subsections, although in some cases those books have only one film listed, or no films listed at all.

The lists have few references; most of the items in the References section are not citations, but honors received by a film or a book, such as "Inducted into the U.S. National Film Registry in 1997" or "Nominated for the Tony Award for Best Revival in 1985." The reference cited for Carnival in Flanders, a film about the Occupation of the Spanish Netherlands during the Eighty Years' War, provides the following source: "According to French Wikipédia, the film is discussed by Tuesday Weld and Steve McQueen in Le Kid de Cincinnati (The Cincinnati Kid)." If you understand how that is relevant, you have a better understanding of the article creator than I do, not to mention that Wikipedias are generally unreliable sources. The article creator did not shy away from editorial commentary; in reference to Francis the Talking Mule, the List of book-based war films (1927–1945 wars) says, "For another film about talking animals risking hoof and wing, see Valiant." The reference attached to this sentence says, "Valiant is a little intense for younger children." What does Valiant have to do with this article anyway, when it's not based on a book?

In short, I question whether these lists can ever be made into anything useful to Wikipedia readers and recommend deletion of all of them.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of a similar set:

--Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NLIST. There are two lists like this out there, one by Ranker and something called The Archive, but Ranker makes up lists of everything under the sun and I don't know how much weight The Archive should be given. Also, since when are plays and poems considered books? The Illiad? Which one, the 203 BC deluxe 500th anniversary scroll edition or the 178 BC paperback? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I erased most of the red links on the first one listed. If its valid for a category, then its valid for a list. The list shows far more information than a category, making it far more useful in this case. These are all valid navigational lists. Just eliminate any entries that don't link to their own Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 20:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By your rationale, Category:1950 births should have a corresponding list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "If its valid for a category, then its valid for a list." is categorically and laughably untrue. Moreover, I question whether we should have the category for this either! This is quite the unencyclopedic cross-categorization to be a movie – which is based off a book – which is about a war. It's fair that we have Spanish–American_War#In_film_and_television, Irish_War_of_Independence#Cultural_depictions, and List of World War I films, for example, but I don't see the notability of listing those films that use a book (non-fiction or novel, short story or memoir) as intermediate source material. Reywas92^Talk 03:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the list of lists for these pages:

--Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NLIST, ridiculous cross-categorization. Mztourist (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as noncompliant with NLIST and NOTDIR. Avilich (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Avilich and others.Intothat darkness 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snow Patrol discography#Extended plays. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (Snow Patrol EP)

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

Not a notable musical release. References appear to be about the concert series where this was performed, not the recording. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Makes me wonder if these should be included for most likely the same reasons:

ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (Franz Ferdinand EP)

ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (General Fiasco EP)

ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (Kasabian EP)

– The Grid (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might want to look into all the iTunes Live: London Festival '08 and iTunes Live: London Festival '09 articles, as well as iTunes Live: London Festival '07. ~~Waddles~~ Gobbles 🍂 🦃 01:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of these "iTunes Sessions/Recordings" don't meet our notability standards. Many could probably be WP:BOLDly WP:REDIRECTed because they're quickly forgotten about too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Snow Patrol#Extended plays. I agree with Sergecross73, most of these articles about iTunes EPs are ten a penny and not notable and can be redirected. Regarding this particular one, all the sources talk about the festival and what happened at the performance, not about the subsequent album, so it fails WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Snow Patrol discography#Extended plays. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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