Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 02	November 04 >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey–Vanuatu relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to relations besides assisting Vanuatu in disaster response: no embassies, agreements, state visits or ministers meeting, migration and trade is non existent. The Turkish Foreign Affairs website says very little [1]. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there’s nothing substantial enough to warrant a stand alone article. Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not see sufficient reliable, independent sources to establish that the topic of these countries' relationship is notable. Yilloslime (talk) 01:30, 11 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 23:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan–Turkey relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to these relations: no embassies, state visits, agreements. Trade is very low at USD1.6 million and a bit of aid money given by Turkey. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there’s nothing substantial enough to warrant a stand alone article. Mccapra (talk) 03:55, 10 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, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Kitts and Nevis–Turkey relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant third party coverage. Very limited relations: no embassies, agreements, trade is relatively low, only high level meeting is one between foreign ministers in 28 years of relations. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the relations are minor, the foreign minister meeting was with countries of the whole region, and in addition the article has been refbombed with lots of sources that don't pertain to relations with Turkey. Geschichte (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom--not a trace of coverage in reliable sources. Also note this article was created by since-banned sockpuppet.Yilloslime (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there’s nothing substantial enough to warrant a stand alone article. Mccapra (talk) 03:55, 10 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 23:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Tajdary[edit]

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

Subject fails

(1) WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion.

(2) WP:SINGER - had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

(3) WP:NACTOR where that significant roles in multiple notable films where by the subject is cover in lenght in dept by independent reliable sources about the the films he was featured in.

(4) WP:GNG for not having significant coverage by indepndent, reliable sources (IRS) where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept. and not merely passing mentioned. (note:interview /IT tune/marketing articles are considered on indepdent.

So far from the sources in the article there are either not do not meet GNG requirements stated above. Since the subject is from Iran and it is a little difficult for me to find sources or to check if there are IRS other editors could find, pls provide, but at this stage subject doesnt meet any notability requirements. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - creator is a sock and admitted to commit WP:Meatpuppetry - see here 1 and SPI report here. Cassiopeia talk 22:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 23:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Iranian references doesn't meet WP:NWSRC. In fact, resources are very weak. AriaTess (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not establish any of general notability, musical notability, or martial arts notability. This article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources. I have not reviewed the references and have no intention of reviewing all of the references. If the originator wants a review of the sources, they may list not fewer than three nor more than five key references. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: While I agree with you heartily (see my comment bellow), I think the more sources the better. However, as the case here, all of the sources besides source #9, are not reliable.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source #9 is the only one that bares some form of notability, but we can't base it on a single source.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'm tempted to A9 Start (studio album) when this is closed. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Giraffer: Me too.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepUser:Hosein kandovan

I'm really sorry for the people who applied for dismissal, because they applied for dismissal without the slightest search. They did not even pay attention to the acting profession of this person. Doesn't it matter if his film won an award in Russia? Isn't the person who won the Best Actor award at the Iranian Film Festival credible? Doesn't anyone who has a biography in a national newspaper matter? All sources are the most authoritative Iranian sources, and unfortunately the people who suggested here have no knowledge or information about Wikipedia and the validity of the links. links 1:manzoom.ir The first link is the database of Iranian artists.

2: shoroonline.ir The second link is the national and state newspaper of Iran.

3: sarshenasan.com the third link of the authoritative news platform is the work of well-known artists and has been used as a source in hundreds of Wikipedia articles.

4: sarshenasan.com the fourth link of the authoritative news platform is the work of well-known artists and has been used as a source in hundreds of Wikipedia articles.

5: rahetaraghi.ir The fifth link is a news site with twenty years of experience that publishes the most important political news, sports art

6: daramadnews.com The sixth link is the news agency and under the supervision of the Iranian government

7: ecoperaian.ir The seventh link of the Economic and Artistic News Agency is a subset of Hamshahri Iran newspaper

8: sarshenasan.com the eighth link is a newsletter for Iranian artists and celebrities, which also produces more than 100 Iranian films and has a print magazine.

9: mehrnews.com The ninth link of Mehr News Agency is one of the top five news agencies in Iran. This news agency is under the direct supervision of the government and has more than two hundred news sites under the agency.

10: shoroonewspaper It is the tenth link of the Iranian state newspaper

13: The 13th link of the Iranian News Agency is one of the top five Iranian news agencies

14, 15, 16, 17, 18 These four links are the largest and most reputable sites for distributing works of artists in Iran and the world

20, 21 these two links are one of the most reputable second-rate newspaper and magazine in the Iranian ministry of culture and guidance. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 these six links are also reputable iranian news agencies that have been used as a reference in thousands of wikipedia articles. with a short search in these news agencies, you can find out their credibility.

This article is too authoritative, but the people who commented here did not explicitly do the slightest research. A cursory Google search reveals the importance of this article. Are any of you Iranians? Are you aware of the validity of my links due to the deletion of the data? Do you expect a link from the New York Times to be sent to you? Do not forget that I wrote an article about an Iranian person and my links are the most reputable news agencies in Iran.

I ask the top and top managers of Wikipedia to judge this article according to the two professions (Ali Tajdary) acting and singing, which iranian artist has such links in the English Wikipedia, according to the rules of Wikipedia, if an actor it is valid to have an acting award, now how insignificant is the person who has won awards in two films and has acted in seven Iranian tv films and played a series that has twenty-five million tv viewers. Hoseinkandovan (talk) --Hoseinkandovan (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Hosein kandovan[reply]

Hoseinkandovan

It's really funny that some people here are not credible sources, it' s really funny that you do not consider a nationwide newspaper or five reputable news agencies, I'm sorry that people here have commented that they do not have the slightest information and still can not even Distinguish between valid and invalid, --Hoseinkandovan (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC) ←[reply]

Hoseinkandovan

In my opinion, this is a conspiracy to delete an article that does not even need to be defended, certainly the main editors of Wikipedia will make the right decision by paying more attention to all the points and links and the subject.--Hoseinkandovan (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. 121.185.35.240 (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above, fails several notability guidelines. this person has acted in seven main films number of films acted in does not matter, acting in multiple films does not make someone notable. the singer has two authentic music albums with wide publishers having albums released does not equal notability, lots of youtube musicians/singers I listen to have released albums, none of them are notable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lavalizard101 You are completely wrong because he was the first role in the humiliation of a valid film, he was the first role in a series that all Iranians have seen, I am an Iranian, I know better than you which Iranian film is valid and which is not valid, (Special Love Line Series), in which Tajdari has been the main actor, is one of the top five series in Iran that almost most Iranians have seen. The movie (fourth round) is one of the most prestigious movies in Iran and has won many awards. And Tajdari has been the actor of that prestigious film, he has also played the lead role in a film called (the butter fly) and he has won the acting award as the leading actor. You have to pay attention to the rules, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who won the award is valid, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who has played a significant role in several prestigious films is valid, you can not comment on the rules of Wikipedia.--Mehrab fatemi iran (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

[[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101] An actor can be famous even with an important film, your words are irrelevant and show that you do not have enough information, many actors in the world have become famous with only one film, in any case, the films in which (Ali Tajdari) has been an actor. It is a popular Iranian film. The Holy Defense Festival in Iran is one of the strictest film festivals and only one person can win it every year. Tajdari has won the Best Actor Award in that film.--Mehrab fatemi iran (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)(blocked sock)[reply]

You have to pay attention to the rules, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who won the award is valid, the rules of Wikipedia say that the actor who has played a significant role in several prestigious films is valid, you can not comment on the rules of Wikipedia I have been here for several years I know the rules, the above could like a personal attack, the article fails WP:GNG. You also keep using the word "valid" that means nothing to Wikipedia its notability that matters. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The article is important and valuable. WP:NACTOR The article is important. In terms of acting, he has played the lead role in eight films. He has two acting awards. The movies and series she has acted in are also important. In two films, he won the Best Actor Award. He has played a role in a series as the main character and singer of the title track. TV series are important. WP:SINGER The singer has concerts in Iranian cities. He has two authentic music albums and her music has been used as the title track of the series.

~~Searching Wikipedia has several names in movies, series and albums.~~

Links are valid. Links are not quotes from this singer and are written by a news reporter. So they are considered valid news. There are two national newspapers and a print magazine in the links. These links are valid from Wikipedia.

~~The article is valid and valuable in every way--A.T wikinevis (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)~~ [reply]

User:Hosein kandovan You wrote that there may have been a collusion to delete this article. Sometimes this happens on Wikipedia. But do not worry, the final review is done by senior Wikipedia administrators. They read the article more carefully. In my opinion, the removal of the proposals is a bit suspicious, but there is no need to worry. Leave the review to the managers and they will make the right decision--A.T wikinevis (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)(blocked sock)[reply]

Delete per nom (my original comment was removed by the page creator who is now blocked). ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of opening a sock investigation myself, as I see that the guy just floods Wikipedia with non-notable Iranian films and albums. I understand the urge, maybe it's ok to post such links in the Iranian Wikipedia but it's a no-no here.--Filmomusico (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First I want to say that User:Hosein kandovan messaged me to vote on this page, because of another vote I had done on a similar Persian page. However, I guarantee you that my vote is independent and this is how I personally feel. I had originally seen this discussion and was going to post KEEP, but decided to pass because there were already too many DELETE votes. However, seeing that there is at least one other person that thinks the page should be kept, I am placing my vote now. I agree that the subject of the article meets WP:ENT because of his acting career, winning an award and being in award winning movie. You have to also realize that a Persian actor is not going to have much coverage in reliable English publications. In addition, he is also a host to a TV series with worldwide coverage. NOTE TO ADMINS: I added the vote 'Keep' to User:Hosein kandovan's post. I don't think he is aware how to properly vote. If he has been caught for socking, I agree that all the votes from the sock accounts should be removed, but you should at min keep one vote from him and read his arguments. Chelokabob (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The votes from someone currently blocked for socking within this very AfD are likely to be discarded or weighted minimally. Also, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how would you have voted here independently if you were asked by Hoseinkandovan when you wouldn't have otherwise voted (considering you decided not to vote before)? Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I initially voted KEEP on the same guy's TV show page Uncensored_With_Ali_Tajdary. I was going to also vote KEEP here, but then I saw many Deletes and decided not to. But then the said user sent a message to my talk page, asking if I could also vote here. I told him it was pointless because there were many delete votes, but if he could find good in-depth articles to let me know or post about it. I then noticed that he posted here some good arguments, which I had not seen, including the fact that the subject has won awards and been in award winning movies, so I decided for sure the page deserves my vote now and maybe it is possible to convince admins to keep the page. Do you still want to keep your vote as Delete, after reading my reasoning? I feel the subject meets WP:ENT. Chelokabob (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one shoroonewspaper yielded nothing in the Google search engine. sarshenasan.com is an Iranian blog site as I see by the url itself, rahetaraghi.ir is rather reliable. This, along with mehrnews.com and shoroonline.ir makes the person to be semi-notable. The only question remains is whether rahetaraghi.ir and shoroonline.ir are daily newspapers or not, because if they are, it doesn't make him notable. Akharin News Agency and Daramad News Agency are a bit sketchy. They seem reliable but at the same time I fail to find the journalist himself. In fact, all Iranian news sites don't carry a single journalist, that is why the whole discussion was in limbo.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please realize that most Persian journalists and writers are afraid to use their names online, for fear of the Iranian Government arresting them for something that they may say that the government does not like. This would not mean that the publications are unreliable. Even, some of the publications that are operating outside the country hide their owner's identities, because the Iranian government has been known to even go after them outside the country. There is currently a journalist in hiding that the government tried to kidnap, but failed and more info. Chelokabob (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*~~Keep~~ Hi, the sources are valid. The newspaper is the beginning of a print newspaper. Go to the newspaper site. There are printed copies.There are at least ten official Iranian news outlets in the links. Mehr news agency. sarshenasan news agensy daramad news shoroonewspaper secret news agensy rahetaraghi news rokna news agensy barkhat news matlabak news ecopersian agensy These are the main Iranian news outlets. Please pay more attention. Each of us can make a suggestion to delete or keep this article,But according to all the points, one should comment so that the personal right is not lost.The article is entitled to be registered on the wiki due to the subject and links.

WP:SINGER
WP:NACTOR
WP:ENT  — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.T wikinevis (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC) (blocked sock)[reply]

A.T wikinevis : You cannot place 2 KEEP votes. But you can post it as COMMENT. Chelokabob (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Alireza Khabib (talk) 03:00, 9 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. I'm seeing legitimate greivances about move-warring and premature creation of articles about films that are announced but not really notable. Anyone move-warring may consider this a warning against doing so. But we cannot judge this specific case based on anything besides notability, and there's consensus here that the topic is now notable. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)[edit]

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

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (3d nomination)

This article is being move-warred into article space after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film) (2nd nomination). Admins User:Vanamonde93 and User:Liz have both moved it back to draft space and said not to move it back into article space until it is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't this be dealt through WP:RFPP? It sounds like the last WP:AFD from a month ago is nothing different here. – The Grid (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't understand why you want this article to be deleted for the third time. I understand why it was deleted the second time because there was not a lot of information about Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021), but since that deletion, there have been multiple reliable sources plus a trailer of the film. Besides, I don't remember Turning Red's article getting deleted because the movie hasn't come out yet. Also, more clips and other promotional material could surface before the film premiers on December 3, 2021. So, in conclusion, deleting Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)'s Wikipedia article would not really help. - ZX2006XZ (talk) 0:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you're not understanding the Wikipedia article guidelines through the WP:AfC process. The process has been to draftify (note: this is also my vote) the article until there are sufficient resources. A new trailer doesn't suffice this requirement - please read WP:NFILMS – The Grid (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - as per earlier discussions. Then prevent creation in mainspace unless approved by an admin. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has improved since its last deletion including some more references. SoyokoAnis - talk 15:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not really seeing any grounds for deletion outside of wikidrama, which should always be ignored. Artw (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until it is ready. There is so many films and series that futured. The worst I saw was late(ish) 2023. There needs to be conversation. All you hear is aw they did. so I'll do it argument. Its really getting out of hand. scope_creep^Talk 17:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has plenty of reliable sources, and with WP:NFF updated, I believe it meets the criteria required. Iamnoahflores (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's now enough coverage from independent, reliable sources that justify keeping the article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The movie is coming out next month and it's part of a major franchise. Why delete it? Voicebox64 (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film is less than a month away from release by a major company and has gotten coverage from multiple sources. It isn't WP:TOOSOON at this point. Feels like the nomination was just about the edit war which should be handled elsewhere. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't evaluate the current state of this article but it has been moved around so much, it makes me dizzy. I haven't seen this happen so much with an upcoming film before and I hope this doesn't become the new normal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm amazed of the many kept votes due to fear of deletion. The issue: is the article ready for mainspace? If not, it will go back to the draftspace. – The Grid (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Liz - Yes, I think that this is the new normal, although there is discussion at the film notability talk page about whether to revise the guidelines for upcoming films. In particular, this is the new normal for large-budget animated films. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:The Grid - Yes, but some editors think that move-warring is the way to get upcoming films in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just weird seeing the votes come in that don't address the issue of why it's at AfD. I want to assume good faith but looking at ZX2006XZ's talk page, they have been warned previously about moving articles from draft to main space. They actually have been warned about it on the admin noticeboard on September 23. Liz even warned the user when they moved the article back to mainspace on October 28. Competence is required here and this demonstrates the opposite. – The Grid (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film is set for release less than a month away now. Keeping it in article space is beneifical as it's easier for readers to find and thus more likely the article will be improved. NemesisAT (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As everyone else has stated, the film isn’t even that far away from being released, and like NemesisAT pointed out, we also might as keep it as it is so that way the page is easier to find for editors who are looking to get the page readily completed in preparation of when the film finally comes out. I don’t really see a good reason to draftify it as the page has received more reliable sources and obviously will meet the requirements of covering a notable topic. Bombastic Brody (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I personally don't see why this article should be deleted. The movie's coming out in a month anyway, and we'll probably get more information about it later this month. (shrug) Sameristic42 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC) — Sameristic42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Like I said, there have been multiple reliable sources, and more information in the form of marketing has yet to come. ZX2006XZ (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — There seems to be an abundance of reliable sources used in the article. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I think that article is ready to mainspace and the movie is going to release next month. Gellerman (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because I believe the article has been improved and it has also received coverage in multiple sources. As mentioned above as well, since it's going to be released next month so I think it's better to keep it in the main space because I'm sure a lot of people will be searching about the movie and editors can also improve it more if it's available in the main space. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) — IamJayYas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Bringing this to AfD again was a mistake, consensus was already established 3 months ago and all that was needed was a page rotection. Avilich (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. I did mention WP:RFPP with the first comment on here as it seems to be an issue with one editor with when articles should be moved to mainspace. – The Grid (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coming at this from a third party view (as I am not familiar with the wikidrama and move-warring associated with this article), to me it seems that this article is well-sourced and the film is definitely notable enough to have its own article due to its (again) well-sourced nature and popularity of the franchise. It could still use a bit of improving, but what article doesn't? ArojamDharkon (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Most Obvious Keep in Cheese Touch History.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:59, 11 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. Geschichte (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Insaniquarium characters[edit]

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

Pure game guide article that goes against policy of articles being guides, especially due to its listing of stats such as how much each fish costs and how to unlock them. It seems like a misguided good faith attempt, but is better off on FANDOM or GameFAQs. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, and fails WP:LISTN. -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. Out of curiosity, is there anything I can add so it does not read as a pure game guide? Can this be moved directly under the article (but shortened, perhaps)? I hoped to find more information about this in the article but didn't, so I thought I'd make a new page for it instead, especially since it's quite lengthy. Thank you for the feedback, however, I appreciate it; I'm not entirely against deletion, but if possible, I'd tried to make it work. (If it gets deleted, sorry for taking up your time.) KingisNitro (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a Fandom wiki? Maybe you should go there (or if it doesn’t exist make it yourself), this isn’t the sort of thing Wikipedia catalogs without a very good reason. Dronebogus (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, here it is: https://insaniquarium.fandom.com/wiki/Insaniquarium_Wiki Dronebogus (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously just pure game cruft. Dronebogus (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and WP:GAMEGUIDE. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. As other editors said, Fandom would be a good home for this type of content. Mann Mann (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok then please delete the page. :) No need to discuss further. Thank you for the feedback everyone! KingisNitro (talk) 10:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:43, 10 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 withdrawn. Nomination rationale no longer holds true. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trois-Pistoles (disambiguation)[edit]

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

At Talk:Trois-Pistoles (disambiguation) § Requested move 25 October 2021, 162 etc. and Ortizesp raised the point that one of the trois entries on this page, Three Pistols, is not an actual title match and should be removed, making this a WP:ONEOTHER situation that can be handled with a hatnote. I agree with their logic, and suggest deletion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added two entries, one of which I just created. Mind matrix 23:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Mindmatrix's additions. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With those additions I withdraw. @Ortizesp: Do you still think it should be deleted? If not, I can speedily close. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, it should now be kept. You can close.@Tamzin:--Ortizesp (talk) 04:45, 4 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) 03:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunniva Schultze-Florey[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable after some pre-discussion. They're is essentially no WP:SECONDARY context for this BLP. scope_creep^Talk 22:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far from meeting any guideline. There is a lack of independent sources. Being a candidate for the Feminist Initiative which got 0% in elections, spectacularly fails WP:NPOL. Geschichte (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a search for Norwegian-language sources does seem to turn some stuff up - Homoplan i Hordaland, Det er skumlere å la alle sparepengene stå i banken, Frykter dårlig miljø på store skoler, Feministisk Initiativ til valg i Bergen og Oslo, Husabø må trekke seg - and the Wikipdia.no article about her has a couple more archived sources. NHCLS (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Det er skumlere å la alle sparepengene stå i banken source is an advertisement, according to the Om DNB Nyheter (About DNB Nyheter) page (Google translation: "DNB Nyheter is not an ordinary online newspaper. We are not independent, we are not neutral journalists and we who write here are paid by the bank. Nevertheless, DNB Nyheter is not "just" advertising either.") Beccaynr (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two of the sources above are from Blikk NO, which appears to be an independent magazine, based on a Google translation of their about page; all of my analysis of non-English sources is based on Google Translate, but Homoplan i Hordaland (2007) appears to be a report with some commentary on some of her political positions for the Hordaland County Municipality, and Husabø må trekke seg (2007) appears to be a report on her advocacy for a member of the Bergen City Council to resign. Frykter dårlig miljø på store skoler (BT, 2003) appears to be a report on her position/advocacy as student council leader at Bergen Vocational School. Feministisk Initiativ til valg i Bergen og Oslo (Dagen, 2015) is a brief report with a focus on her that appears limited to describing her as a founder of the Norwegian Feminist Initiative and her statement on behalf of the party. All of these sources appear helpful for verifying facts about her career, but there appears to be insufficient WP:SECONDARY support for WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL notability. I also think a translation of the Wikipdia.no article about her helps show it is WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:34, 5 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William C. White[edit]

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

This biography appears to have an extremely sketchy basis for its notability, which appears to be primarily derived from the fact that the subject's mother is a notable entry as the founder of a church. Most of the sources attributed to this article merely affirm that the individual was indeed born, with little further information - certainly nothing justifying this rather expansive biographical entry. The sourcing, overall, seems extremely poor. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @78.26: Question is this person notable? Catfurball (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as I have, elsewhere, been accused of having a COI, I shall not !vote. However, as I have some expertise in the topic area and there's been minimal participation I should present some sources I know about, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Unfortunately I don't have access at the moment to newspapers.com, it has been renewed but it's a significant obstacle to research at the moment. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ellen G. White. I looked at the article, those five extra sources above, and had a look at newspapers.com. All of it only goes to confirm that any glory enjoyed by William C. White was reflected by his mother. Not independently notable. --Lockley (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is reliable sources books coverage as shown above including an academic paper solely about him as well as reliable books coverage, so passing WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Meets WP:GNG. It adds Infomation to the religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)~~ sock strike Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources produced by 78.26 demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. The book by Moon (1993) is particularly important: Was Ellen G. White manipulated by her son? An Adventist author explores the life of W.C. White to discover whether he dominated his mother's later years. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:58, 9 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. Geschichte (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rochas Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGO. Created by sock Ugbedeg. It is an WP:ADMASQ article. scope_creep^Talk 22:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatant spam with an unsavory history, rotten to the core. The related Rochas Okorocha page is a promotional hagiography (to borrow a term recently employed by Valjean on my talk page) and needs cleanup. – Athaenara ✉ 23:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC) 12:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — ADMASQ on a non notable NGO that fails to meet WP:NGO. Celestina007 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Athaenara --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can’t find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater ^(talk) 12:35, 10 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 Draftify. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG, film has not received significant coverage, all sources are nearly identical write-ups from a press release and do not constitute as WP:SIGCOV BOVINEBOY2008 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Move back to draft...definitely WP:TOOSOON DonaldD23 talk to me 22:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:NFF and WP:NYF. The Film Creator (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the movie is in production, notable actors are on board. -GorgonaJS (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- We can wait and see if someone adds more references. We can move it to draft if the article is not improved with significant coverage in a couple of weeks. I'm sure it can be improved because big actors are part of this movie so references can be find. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 05:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. What GorgonaJS points out is actually the only reason it's not a straight up delete. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:42, 10 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 Government of New York (state). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social Services District (New York)[edit]

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

All this says is that each county of NY is a "social services district", except NYC which is its own district, and each district has their own social services department. Most government entities in NY state are set up that way, so that's not notable on its own. Aside from that, this article says basically nothing. Apocheir (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Government of New York (state) since other NY agencies are listed here. It's possible the article can be expanded on its own but not at the current time. – The Grid (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any consensus on the proposed redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is fine for me. -Apocheir (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 10 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death NYC[edit]

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

No secondary sources at all for this very generically named artist. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Death NY might be difficult to search for (although I tried with a custome search that indexes hundreds of art-related sources and came up empty), but “Don’t Easily Abandon The Hope” is a rather easy-to-seach-for string that also yields very little. Note how [7] says: "Growing up in New York City, being expose to many different cultures and perspectives often causes her think and questions everything that she sees on the street." and [8] says: "She grew up in New York, she was exposed to a variety of cultures, which made her question the things she saw on the street." not cited, but [9] has "Growing up in New York, she was exposed to a wide variety of cultures, which led her to question the things she saw on the street very early." None of that is original reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 3 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Zerner[edit]

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

The sources at the base of the article are not suitable to be the basis of a biographical article. I have conducted a search that turned up all manner of self-published content by Zerner but no reliable coverage. At this point, she does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability, other than "Musician plays guitar and has been in bands". Jdcooper (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so much of this is unsourced it is presumably either an autobiography or the work of her publicist. None of the references are sufficient. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:53, 12 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) 03:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Mishra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC inclusion as a cricket player and as an administrator his mentions in sources are passing; more notable county administrators have been deleted. WP:GNG likely not met. StickyWicket (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Sourcing does exist on the subject, however I'm not sure there is enough for a GNG pass. It's close, but I'm just not sure there's enough there. Fails WP:NCRIC also and not seeing a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- It can be kept in main space if improved with more sources and references. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 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. I withdraw my nomination per the comments below. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 10:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Park (ship)[edit]

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

Related discussion. This seems to only have coverage in large indexes that could probably apply to thousands of ships. Qwerfjkl talk 20:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of convict ship voyages to Western Australia#Voyages transporting convicts to Western Australia. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - by a small view on parts of its history, it was a convict ship to Western Australia, and emigrant ship to South Australia, - such a dual use/function provides a good basis for expansion and keeping. JarrahTree 11:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article was created from "dead" WikiLink and initially only basic information and references were to hand. Existence of the article gives other editors opportunity to add information linked to other articles about convict transportation and emigration to Australia. Convicts continued to be referred to by the name of the ship that brought them to Australia for many years after their arrival, so there will be many official documents and personal memoirs that mention this vessel. Kahuzi (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources added for build and loss. Meets ships(notability) criteria as over 100 tons Lyndaship (talk) 08:30, 6 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 Gunning baronets. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone article; redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Sir Henry John Gunning, 4th Baronet[edit]

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree: no indication of notability. Athel cb (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see anything that would indicate notability in his own right and being a baronet is not enough for notability purposes. Possibly redirecting to Gunning baronets might be worthwhile. Dunarc (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to title. The article is principally genealogical. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 10 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 merge to List of The Chronicles of Amber characters. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dworkin Barimen[edit]

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

Minor fictional character. 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:10, 3 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} 19:10, 3 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} 19:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of The Chronicles of Amber characters where he is already mentioned. Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, what would you like to merge? Almost nothing is referenced. Don't tell me you want to preserve the trivia about some guy on the Internet using a Dworkin-inspired nickname or such... :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Chronicles of Amber characters. The character is mentioned in a number of scholarly secondary sources, but to my knowledge no discussed enough for a stand-alone article. (As usual, I will be happy to change my vote in case enough treatment in secondary sources is found.) The characterization in List of The Chronicles of Amber characters is somewhat lacking in explanation to be completely clear to someone who does not know the novels, and is unsourced. So more or less the small parts that are sourced here should be merged there to remedy that. Also, as far as I have seen, these sources contain bits of characterization not fully used yet, like "a rebel Lord of Chaos", "a mad but powerful wizard", "the existing Pattern is itself an extension of Dworkin's mind". Daranios (talk) 18:33, 6 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, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter N. Griffith[edit]

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

I can't find anything that would help with generating an actual bio, and I'm not seeing a real claim to one of the WP:SNGs like WP:ARTIST either. The listed info looks to just be an (outdated) IMDB mirror, and the page creator was blocked long ago for not being cognizant of notability guidelines (and later noted as a sock). 2pou (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 18:58, 3 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 deleted per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford College (Australia)[edit]

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

This page about non-profit a educational institution has never had sources other than links back to the school since page creation in 2006. Page was built entirely by NSW ip address(es) which even today still contribute and appear to have some COI association with the school, based on puffy language and "we" pronouns used. I've done a reasonable Gsearch and found nothing meeting RS. It's significant apparently no students of this institution have vandalized/contributed, which IMHO is unusual for such articles. It is entirely possible this business school doesn't meet standards for inclusion. In my Gsearch I did find one SEO consultant who includes their work for the subject in their brag page. I have no proof this is related, but I think it likely. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm aware this page was nominated for deletion earlier this year; the outcome was "Merge" but no sources could be found to verify the merge target. Leaving it unsourced is a bad idea. I know that "colleges" even private and religious ones are frequently "kept" in AFD but in this case, we have no sourcing anchors at all for an institution which claims to have been around for 70+ years. My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing. Happy to be shown I'm wrong. BusterD (talk) 18:55, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Stephen Academy (Sacramento, California)[edit]

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

A non-notable private school that only existed for two years. Cannot find any independent sources to establish notability. It appears that they existed only on the parish grounds (normally these high schools have much larger facilities separate from a parish church) and they had few students during their existence.

Please note: While I was not affiliated directly with the school, I do have a professional COI with this article. While I hate to see the article go, I think the topic simply does not meet notability guidelines. Pax Verbum 18:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Pax Verbum 18:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Pax Verbum 18:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, no independent sources to be found. The Banner talk 08:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything about it either. Not even the usual, trivial, name drops in school directories that a lot of these types of institutions have. Let alone in-depth coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:31, 9 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 10:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavanka, Kazakhstan[edit]

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

Despite my efforts, I was unable to find any reliable reference in English, Romanian or Russian to such a settlement on the territory of present Kazakhstan. The source is the article is a head of a cultural association with no clear expertise, and the settlement may be a result of a confusion. Note that the same source misspells the name of another settlement (Basarabka instead of Bessarabka) and is apparently unaware the name of that settlement changed in 1993. Anonimu (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bessarabka was renamed to Saryqobda in 1993. Maybe this AfD can be an opportunity to find the current name of Moldavanka or whether it still exists or not with the help of more users. Super Ψ Dro 15:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unfortunately, I can't find a single source to indicate that this settlement ever existed; I've tried to search for Moldovanka, Aktobe and Moldovanka, Kazakhstan in Russian with no use. If it was renamed, then it should have an official document indicating so, but I cannot find any evidence that it ever existed at all. Also, Moldovanka apparently just translates to Moldavian in Russian.Gorden 2211 (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gorden 2211 & the nom's searches; I also got no hits for such a place in Kazakhstan on GeoNames. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 11 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 11:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elva Trill[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Rejected at Afc and moved to mainspace. Bitpart actor, lots of single episodes. Nothing mainstream. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whoever proposed article for deletion didn't read the sources. All three initial sources are reliable. I added 3 more. I don't know what Evoke is, is it like the Irish version of People or Us Weekly magazines?--Filmomusico (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While the article likely shouldn't have been moved to mainspace over AfC, and the tone and sourcing more than a little off (first names, promotional and editorial flourishes, celeb magazine fluff about eating pasta, etc), there do appear to be a number of independent reliable sources which cover the subject in some depth and as a primary topic. Indicating that WP:GNG may be met. Guliolopez (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can go through the reference. The basic of this never turned up much at all. She was born in 1993 so is firmly in the modern era, and if there was deep, independent, secondary sources available, they would have been immediately visible, but they weren't. scope_creep^Talk 16:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, according to the first reference, she is 28 years old. It doesn't firmly say what year she was born in, let alone a month. As for visibility, what did you expect, The New York Times? She is an Irish actress, so The Irish Times and Entertainment.ie are as close as we can get here.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are enough references for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:03, 10 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 Fiona Fung. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Melody (album)[edit]

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

Came here from Talk:Sweet Melody (song)#Requested move 1 November 2021 and noticed back and forth blanking of this page. Hopefully, this AfD will generate consensus on if this album meets inclusion criteria. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the nominator is presumed to be in favour of deletion, but it's not so clear in this case - @Rotideypoc41352: could you clarify whether you have a position on this? Colin M (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking like WP:FORUMSHOPPING regardless if it's intentional or not. The de facto action would be to redirect to Fiona Fung as what shows in the page's history. – The Grid (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How is this forum shopping? The nominator wasn't even involved in any of the back-and-forth redirecting and unredirecting that's been happening in the history. I think they were right to bring it here for discussion. Colin M (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said intentional or not, I think the discussion could have been made on the talk page before reaching here. – The Grid (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fiona Fung. WP:SIGCOV only in two reviews already in the External links section. DuckDuckGo search yielded nothing else, so I don't think the album meets criteria for a standalone article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fiona Fung. Something odd is happening with the move discussion and redirect arguments, but I recommend a permanent redirect. The article says the album charted but I suspect that the charts are unreliable per WP:CHARTS. The article currently has links to two reviews; one is dead and the other may be viable but is quite brief. I can find nothing else reliable, and note that someone in the move discussion reached the same conclusion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fiona Fung#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond South China Morning Post. SBKSPP (talk) 01:19, 7 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. The previous AFD was for someone else. Geschichte (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Deasy[edit]

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

~~Previously-deleted page still~~ Municipal politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 16:50, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayor of a smallish city. Some typical coverage of the mayor in the local media. The only state-wide article that I found had one sentence quoting him about flooding after a heavy rain. MB 00:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While Flagstaff is more than a "smallish city" (county seat, important national rail stop, and home of Northern Arizona University), Deasy's contributions are not yet WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to justify a WP article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of missing persons in Ireland[edit]

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

List possibly meets WP:LISTCRUFT. It is dyamic and infinite list that is not up to date per [10]. I can't see the worth but could be notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Or, failing that, merge/redirect the list entries that meet the related inclusion criteria to List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Per nom, the inclusion criteria here is not defined at all. To the extent that I can't figure out what it is. (Is it a list of every person who ever went missing in Ireland? If so, how is that not WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Or is it a list of every person who went missing in Ireland between 1972 and today? If so, why or how have we determined that? Or is it a list of every missing person case meeting a specific notability/coverage threshold? If so, what is that notability/coverage criteria and why do we have some entries that aren't supported/supportable by any refs or evidence of coverage? Or is it just a republication of the list of missing persons on this Garda.ie webpage? If so, how does that align with WP:NOTMIRROR?) Beyond that, I'm not sure how WP:LISTN is met. (For example, when would Byrir Jange and Jean McConville ever have been discussed as part of the same group or set by any source? Certainly, the only place anywhere on the internet they are discussed together seems to be this Wikipedia list. Ditto Annie McCarrick and Patrick Cooney. And, per LISTN, that shouldn't really be the case. Anyway. Per nom, I think this list likely does read like WP:LISTCRUFT (in that it seems broad and likely indiscriminate, the list criteria is not defined, the membership unlimited and unmaintainable, and its membership dynamic to the extent that requires disproportionate effort to keep accurate. (I might be wrong, but I also don't see and precedents of convention for similar lists covering any other country or jurisdiction. So there doesn't seem to be consensus for these country/region specific variants of Lists of people who disappeared). Guliolopez (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Guliolopez. Both WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:23, 8 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nacsport[edit]

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

Sportsnac

Sports analysis company that does not satisfy corporate notability. Naïve Google search shows that it advertises using social media. That isn't secondary coverage.

A review of the sources shows that they are either press releases, or are about the video analysis of sport using their software.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	El Pais	Promotional interview with founder	No	Yes		No
2	La Provincia	Interview with founder	No			No
3	Marca.com	Article about the use of video analysis including by Nacsport	Yes	No, passing mention of Nacsport	Yes	No
4	Basketball.ca	404-compliant
5	RugbyLeague.com	Announcement that they are using Nacsport software	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
6	TelegraphandArgus.com	Story about using Nacsport software	Yes	No, passing mention of Nacsport	Yes	No
7	RFEH.es	Another story about video analysis of hockey	Yes	No, passing mention of Nacsport	Yes	No

The conclusion is that the software probably passes software notability, but this isn't written as an article about the software. This is written as an article about a non-notable company that has developed a product that may be notable.

This article was created in article space, and was moved to draft space by User:Celestina007. It was then moved back to article space by its originator within less than an hour, stating that the suggested edits were made (mostly removal of unverified material). The article is tagged as conflict of interest; the author has acknowledged a previous paid relationship, but denies being a paid editor at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGSIG. I rescued source 4, and while it mentions Nacsport as being a leader in sports video analysis, Canada Basketball declares it has a buyer-seller relationship with Nacsport and therefore the piece cannot be considered independent. Concur with nom's source review. Pilaz (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Robert McClenon's detailed analysis. Celestina007 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Not a close call per nom's analysis. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note from writer - Hi, I'm the writer of this article. Thanks to Robert McClenon for this. It is, without a doubt, the most helpful feedback I have received since I started the process of trying to get an article published on Wikipedia. I started this with the best of intentions and almost gave up. The process for publishing articles is extremely laborious and not one of the moderators who rejected my draft or moved it into the draftspace have given me good advice on why this is the case (save for a couple of emails offering to publish it for me for payment)!

From this feedback from Robert, I can now deduce that my error was writing about the company and not the software. Also, I think I more or less understand what has been said about the references. So, thank you again, Robert McClenon. Finally, I have a way forward. I think the software is definitely notable (although in a fairly small niche) as it is used by professional sports teams around the world and is one of the big three sports video analysis software on the market.

So, if someone one this chat could help me and answer a question, I would be eternally grateful. Is it better to have this page deleted and start completely afresh with the rewrite (focusing on the software), or should I simply edit the page that is currently published?DuncRitchie 15:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It appears the author has created a new page Nacsport Video Analysis Software and agreed that this one fails to meet the notability criteria for organisations. Vanteloop (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although this is a very interesting business, can’t find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater ^(talk) 17:30, 10 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florencio Rojas (tattoo artist)[edit]

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

This article on a tattoo artist is sourced mainly from interviews. Being primary sources, they don't help us establish his notability. I've conducted a search and found no secondary coverage of him that could be classed as reliable, significant, and independent. I believe he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the source are independent and reliable. Vexations (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a blog interview[11] that does not count toward notability. The interview in the magazine - can't assess it. His book is included in databases but I found no independent media reviews. So even if the second interview contains a lot of independent information (doubt it plus a niche source), Rojas would not pass the WP:GNG based on what I found. I'm open to new sources. gidonb (talk) 06:38, 9 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamuzu Kassa[edit]

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

Even though it's stated that the subject has won Addis Music Award Best Composer 2011 I couldn't find any in detail coverage about him. I've looked in English and Amharic and all I've got was couple of mentions. For me he fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. Less Unless (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2020-10 move to → Draft:Kamuzu Kassa

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 11 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 deleted as G7. Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Rute[edit]

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

An English sailor who was part of the conquest and settlement of the Plata region. All sources are either passing mentions or about his descendants, and virtually all are primary sources: fails WP:BASIC. We just know that he existed because he was part of a list from 1569 and one nobleman protested because foreigners like him were being granted benefits ([12]), and that's about it. Pilaz (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:06, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel MacGregor[edit]

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

The subject fails notability guidelines. Only 2 of the refs talk about him (very little), all the rest are about his startup. I couldn't find any source that would talk about him in detail. Less Unless (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Danstronger (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly promoting the person's company. Looks like the company just got significant funding this year. Otherwise if had really been around since 2015 and had been notable by independent sources, a case might be made for the company. Not yet. W Nowicki (talk) 18:39, 8 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 speedily deleted (log) under criterion G4. (non-admin closure) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right.. I am absolutely sick and tired of having to argue with people as to why there isn’t allowed to be a list of remaining actors or even a list of major initial actors from the classic period in Hollywood. These lists exist for the ‘New Hollywood’ period but why not for this? And apologies to you as I’m unsure of your name, but to whomever claimed that the list of major actors was too broad, if you knew anything about film or the study of film as I do, as it was my majors degree at university you would know and understand that those notes were the major figures throughout the period mentioned, adjusted to include those of an ethnic background whom at the time were held back from attaining the spotlight. Please actually have a think a think about what you are doing before you choose to delete it. The previous deleted page was up for deletion as it had an unclear date as for the “Golden age of Hollywood”, hence why that phrase has been kept out of this page and discussion completely.

I truly believe it is important for future generations to know the important figures from this period in film history, wether it be for personal knowledge or academic, and I challenge others that think different to explain otherwise.

Thank you and kind regards Bradonwiki :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradonwiki (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list has no inclusion criteria (past "major actors" and "other major figures"), and is unsourced. It says that it's a list of "major actors" and "other major people", but deciding whether someone is "major" is often going to be difficult. I think that this list is going to have problems, no matter how well put together it is — if it's small, then its inclusion criteria will be difficult and probably subjective, and if it's large, it gets closer to becoming an indiscriminate list. Right now, it's the former. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 14:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced and far too broad of a topic for it to ever actually be a manageable list. What's more, is that this list was unanimously decided on deletion less than two months ago before being recreated recently, and all of the arguments for deletion from that discussion still apply. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As recreation of recently deleted material with no addressing of the concerns, including my vote at the last AFD. Reywas92^Talk 19:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G4. Same issues as the version that was very recently deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has now been tagged as such. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually wary of stretching speedy deletion criteria, and so I try to err on the side of AfD/PROD. As G4 applies only when the recreation is "sufficiently identical", and I don't know how similar this is to the deleted article, I nominated it for AfD instead. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G4.Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:53, 3 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CameraLK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING and it failed to WP:COMPANY and WP:SIRS. The article is full of introduction and own history and it does not say about Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.. There are many shops like this in Sri Lanka and we are not going to create article for them. JusticeForce101 (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
what is the point Second nomination!!!! I don't know what is your point. You said they are promotional. But you should know there was a previous discussion went on about this article. And the ADMINS accepted that it is ok. How they did that? By looking at the sources. So, if you have any direct conflict and angry with me, tell me that straight. Because, this is not acceptable. OR you might have any conflict with those persons. I think you are a Sri Lankan. But, this is totally unacceptable to re-nominate the deletion tag again. It is not promotional: "Said by previous admins". That is why it is there in wiki main space.

Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The last AFD in June ended in no consensus. Geschichte (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's just a retailer like others many shops in Sri Lanka. What is the notability? --JusticeForce101 (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was discussed only a few months ago and kept and it hasn't changed significantly since then. I see no reason A) for it to be nominated again so soon and B) no reason for it to be nominated. This actually appears to be a bad faith nomination on behalf of the OP for a content dispute on another article. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a bad-faith nomination per Canterbury Tail.dudhhr_Contribs 14:26, 5 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C.[edit]

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

This article fails both WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG Rupert1904 (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of sources to substantiate the long-term notability of this match. Not only was it the biggest away win in the Premier League for 20 years, it was also the first time a substitute had scored four goals in a match, which is a record that still stands. Anyone claiming this doesn't satisfy GNG hasn't looked hard enough for sources. Furthermore, this nomination smacks of WP:POINT, since the nominator created Bremer SV 0–12 FC Bayern Munich which is now also at AfD. – PeeJay 13:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with PeeJay's response. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This match is not notable. There's already been a discussion on the talk page about this very point. It's no longer the biggest away win of all time so it's not a record. Should Norwich City's away win over Arsenal on the first day of the 1992–93 season have its own article since it was the biggest away win for a time? Additionally, a player (substitute or not) scoring four goals in a single match is not notable enough to warrant an article. There have been plenty of instances of players scoring 4 goals in the Premier League. Aguero scored five goals against Newcastle in 2015, I don't see an article about that match. Berbatov scored 5 against Blackburn in 2010 and no article on that match either. And I am fine with Bayern Munich article being deleted if that's the consensus. We should have a higher level of scrutiny for assessing articles. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - There was a discussion about it on the article talk page 12 years ago, which I participated in, and during the intervening years, my opinion has changed. The sources are clearly there, you're just being salty about an article you created apparently being a hair's breadth away from a WP:SNOW deletion. If you think other matches are notable, by all means test the water and create the articles for them, but don't go around nominating other articles for deletion just because an article you created might get rightfully deleted. – Pee Jay 14:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't care if that article is deleted if that's the consensus. It's good to create articles and learn what the notability is. This article too has zero notability. It's not the record away win in the league and a player scoring a hat-trick isn't notable either. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was of course the record away win in the league when the article was created. Is your argument that any article on a record-breaking achievement should be deleted when the record is surpassed? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Potentially. It should be discerned on a case by case basis though. This was a meaningless match that's been glorified as being noteworthy for having held a league record for a period of time. It doesn't hold the record anymore so why does it exist? There's nothing noteworthy left to this match. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that it broke a record at the time should be reason enough to keep it. The fact that it held the record for 20 years makes the case even stronger. But the records are incidental to the fact that the match itself does continue to get talked about more than 99 percent of all the other matches in Premier League history, as proven by the sources, hence notability is satisfied. – Pee Jay 16:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The match rarely gets brought up and to suggest it's in the top 1% of talked about matches in PL history is ludicrous and very biased towards United history. And your two sources from the article (that aren't from 1999) that suggests that the match gets talked about regularly are both dead links. But it looks like one was from the Mirror (in 2011 so very outdated now) and listed ten of the highest scoring games in Premier League history at the time (I would imagine most of those matches do not have their own article) and the other link was seemingly a blog post article about the 10th anniversary of the match. Since neither of those links work, those sources don't satisfy anything and so again this is match is not notable. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you serious? There are 380 matches every single season (more in the early years), and we're now in the Premier League's 30th season. To suggest this match isn't in the top 1% of most-talked-about matches is the more ludicrous statement. – Pee Jay 19:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not brought up regularly and the sources you used to lend credence to this claim are dead links. I just did a few google searches for best Premier League matches of all time, most memorable PL matches of all time, best PL matches of the 1990s, etc. and in all the articles, this match wasn't brought up once. So if simply an article listing matches is what you think makes a match notable, then again it doesn't meet the criteria. BBC, Bleacher Report, Four Four Two, 1Sports1, SportMob, Football Whispers, What Culture, The Football Faithful, Bleacher Report 2, etc. I could go on and provide more working links as examples of many mores matches that are talked about more regularly. It's a great win for United for sure and a memorable day for Ole when he looks back at his playing career but it's not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because this match isn't brought up as one of the best of all time doesn't mean it isn't notable. – Pee Jay 20:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:LASTING --17:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. Maybe Ole should have put himself on last Sunday? Anyway, to contradict the unsigned comment immediately above, this match does not meet WP:LASTING in any way. It was a routine league fixture between the best and worst teams in the PL at the time. Given the respective qualities of the two teams, this one is much less notable than Man U's 8–2 win over Arsenal which at least had the merit of matching two good teams, albeit one was not so good on the day. As a routine league fixture, the 1999 match wasn't a cup final or a title decider so it had no significant effect on football at the time and has no historical value. The score per se is WP:TRIVIA and the article fails NEVENT and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The score is not trivia. It's not just a case of one team scoring a kinda high number of goals, it was the record away win in the history of the Premier League at the time and held that record for 20 years. – Pee Jay 20:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::The score is statistical and if that is the only rationale for the article it breaches WP:NOSTATS. I do not oppose Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord because a world record score was achieved, but all other matches must have some importance beyond the routine. This match wasn't a cup final and, involving as it did the top and bottom teams in 1999, it was as far from being a title decider as it is possible to be. It fails NEVENT and GNG. The fact that nine goals were scored is WP:TRIVIA in terms of that season and football history. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this is a POINTy nomination, but that aside, there is not sufficient coverage demonstrated. Giant Snowman 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I agree with the proposed deletion of this article, I had not taken on board the circumstances around the Bayern match article and I now think that this nomination was raised to make a WP:POINT. On the basis of both procedure and principle, I am therefore withdrawing all comments I've made here. I think the nomination should be withdrawn. My apologies. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only was it the biggest away win for two decades, Solskjær's record still remains unbeaten. There was plenty of coverage so it passes GNG. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable because of the records it broke. Meets WP:LASTING to a degree. WP:GNG is passed. Solskjaer's feat is impressive. I see no reason to delete this article, it's well-written too. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it has received lasting coverage due to its records.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given how easy it is to find discussion of this match in the media in the last couple of weeks - 22 years later - then GNG is easily met. Here's a recent article. Nfitz (talk) 05:59, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CHNW-FM (British Columbia)[edit]

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

Article about a low-power emergency alert radio station, with no reliably sourced indication that it would pass WP:NMEDIA -- there's no discernible evidence that this has ever been a CRTC-licensed service. Although the article was initially created with a CRTC decision in the external links, that actually seems to have been a sloppy copy-paste error from another radio station -- the decision didn't actually pertain to this at all, but to a different radio station on a different frequency, in Metro Vancouver but not in New Westminster, and that's long since been removed from the article since it had nothing to do with this topic.
In actual fact, this is a CRTC-exempt service operated by an amateur radio society on behalf of the city under the Canadian equivalent to USian Part 15 rules, which NMEDIA explicitly deprecates as not a notable class of radio station -- and even the sourcing here just consists of glancing namechecks of the service's existence in obituaries of a broadcaster who briefly worked for this station long after retiring from the other jobs that actually made him famous enough to get obituaried, which means neither of them are about this station strongly enough to get it over WP:GNG in lieu of having to have a broadcasting license.
And even more importantly, CHNW-FM definitely isn't its call sign anymore (if it ever really was in the first place, which I also can't verify): the CHNW call sign was adopted by an unrelated station in Winnipeg a few weeks ago, whose article was just moved to the non-standard naming format CHNW (FM) earlier today and has to be moved again to supersede the low-power New Westminster emergency station at this title regardless of what we decide to do about the emergency station.
So the existence of a low-power emergency information service (with the call sign VE7NWR rather than CHNW) could be briefly mentioned in New Westminster's article and Media in Vancouver, but the station doesn't have a CRTC license for the purposes of qualifying for its own separate article as a standalone topic. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I just moved this page to CHNW-FM (British Columbia) and then the Winnipeg station to the undisambiguated title. The BC station page should be deleted per nom. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A paragraph of appropriate detail has been added to New Westminster#Media. There's no need for a Media in Vancouver mention. Nate • (chatter) 10:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately, that solution is being challenged by another editor as 'unsourced' and reverted once, cite-tagged twice (despite being based on this article), so the preservation in New Westminster may be a shaky option now, at best. Nate • (chatter) 08:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources cited pertain more to a public figure than the radio station. Not much indication of notability or that it meets criteria for its own entry in the articlespace. More sources need to be added. Multi7001 (talk) 03:56, 7 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. There is rough consensus that the available sources are insufficient. Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayşe Sibel Yanıkömeroğlu[edit]

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

Being a vice-president of a local party couldn't make her notable; unless she won a seat in the parliament or assumed a state/ national-level position, it's impossible to say she meets WP:NPOL. Htanaungg (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale by Htanaungg. Mccapra (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if someone who speaks Turkish does a Turkish-lanugauge source search, would there be enough to meet WP:GNG? NHCLS (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NHCLS The most detailed source I could find is this, however general consensus on trwiki is that the publishing website is most of the time not reliable nor independent. Apart from that there a few sources which repeat her announcements related to the plans of the party: [13], [14]. The remaining are on local newspapers about her visits. For example like when she visited Edirne, a local website publishes this. Same in Elazığ, in Kırşehir and in Düzce, again, part of the party programme. I don't think these count towards GNG. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment per wp:basic: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" we have multiple independent sources covering article subject. --Skwovet (talk) 19:46, 5 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 13:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Austin McConnell[edit]

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

All prior XfDs for this page: Articles for deletion/Austin McConnell

OK, let's look at the references given here:

Reference 1: https://www.youtube.com/user/austinmcconnell/about - his own YouTube channel, does not assist an independent assertion of notability
Reference 2: http://www.tilzy.tv/eqals-new-lonelygirl15-show-is-yours.htm - 404-s
Reference 3: https://www.youtube.com/user/austinmcconnell/about his own YouTube channel, does not assist an independent assertion of notability
Reference 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cstiCjIk14w - "Did I kill lonelygirl15? Give me around 17 minutes to revisit the alleged crime scene, and I'll let you decide" - his own YouTube channel, does not assist an independent assertion of notability
Reference 5: https://www.tubefilter.com/2009/01/05/is-crowdsourcing-a-bad-omen-for-lg15/ - no mention of McConnell in this Tubefilter reference
Reference 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivfspJOAtBI - his own YouTube channel, does not assist an independent assertion of notability
Reference 7: https://www.shlur.com/2014/10/nogloss-film-festival-2014-review/ - no mention of McConnell
Reference 8: http://www.moxiecinema.com/films/sprouting-orchids/ - "Moxie Cinema is Springfield's community-supported arthouse theater" - would appear to about a local cinema, no indication that the film had broader release than this one venue.
Reference 9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq-9BnHPjsY - a YouTube video with personal opinions about the Harry Potter franchise - does not assist an assertion of notability

I see no indication in further purported references that would overcome the deletion discussion outcome here.

Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run-of-the-mill filmmaker, does not satisfy general notability or creative notability. The sources are mostly unreliable. No indication of improvement since last AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there’s a single award win, but that’s not enough to pass WP:NCREATIVE. Mccapra (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of reliable sources to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 3 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. No opinion about renaming. Geschichte (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AEDM[edit]

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

Article had originally been nominated for PROD, due to WP:GNG concerns. Editor removed notice without addressing any of the concerns. Equine-man (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this was definitely created WP:TOOSOON, but the artist is well known in South Africa, has won major national awards, and his penultimate single was certified double platinum in the country. I'm reserving judgement for now to see if more sources appear after the album's release on Friday. Richard3120 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Agreed, only reason nominated is due to lack of sources. Will happily withdraw nomination if sourced correctly after release date. Equine-man (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sun-El Musician. Fails WP:FUTUREALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad this is given more time now that the album is already released. SBKSPP (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, given the argument for the potential to find more substantial coverage after the album’s release.-Xclusivzik (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the album now meets WP:NALBUM per sources provided by Superastig.-Xclusivzik (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft or Delete I am okay with moving to draft space, I probably would have also sent this to AfD. Not enough coverage towards basic GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also note that this album/EP goes by its full name of African Electronic Dance Music in almost all sources, reliable or otherwise... if kept or draftified, it probably needs renaming. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there's no strong consensus for Draftify, Delete, or Redirect. In addition, the album has been released since the article's nomination which grants the opportunity for more coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to African Electronic Dance Music: There seems to be some coverage upon its release. Sources 1 to 3 in the article are reliable. I also found some more reliable sources which talk about the album: [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented and mentioned by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article was indeed created too soon, but the album has now been released and has attracted notice as found by Astig above. Move to African Electronic Dance Music as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:21, 9 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Sirry[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article consists mainly of the artist's CV with a few weak references. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "Acquisitions" listed, if sourced, might satisfy notability ... but they aren't sourced. PamD 07:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under acquisitions, it lists the "Egyptian Museum of Modern Art", which may be the Gezira Center for Modern Art or perhaps the Museum of Modern Art in Egypt, also known as the "Al-Nasr Museum of Modern Art".[20] They don't seem to list their collections online. Vexations (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the sources don't really jump out at you, the collections cannot be sourced and the article itself is a big CV. There aren't that many good reasons to keep. --- Possibly ☎ 02:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 3 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn B. Pantig[edit]

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

A quick WP:BEFORE seems to indicate this is most likely an accurate article. Therefore, the subject is clearly not notable. ––FormalDude talk 06:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 06:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been updated since I created this AfD. To be clear, I have not been able to find any significant coverage in sources to indicate the subject is notable. As it stands, the article does not pass WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 09:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Also unable to find significant coverage from independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous version, was unfortunately, very poorly sourced. From the sparse info on her school's bio, I did a few search variations of "Evelyn Pantig + Arroyo", "Evelyn Pantig DOT", "Evelyn Pantig Aquino" and there were minor coverages that mention her role, although not so much about her life which I think is quite normal for such specific role at such an early period (from what I've gathered 90s-early 2000s) where she's promoting the tourism, culture and arts of her country, and not so much of herself. There was also an official note from former president mentioned in lede whom she worked who talked about her work, so whether those are enough to help establish BASIC notability would be the question. --WomenProj (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks @WomenProj for improving the article. The limited WP:SIGCOV in my opinion though still does not pass WP:BASIC (Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability). I still stand by nomination to delete. ––FormalDude talk 02:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. --WomenProj (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still fails notability guidelines. VladimirBoys (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC per WomenProj's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:29, 10 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pathan (film)[edit]

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

as per WP:NFILM, the film is not even announced, it's not notable. Coderzombie (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Coderzombie: WP:NFILM has no sentence which tells that if a film is not announced, it's not notable. It says that if the film's principal photography hasn't commenced yet or hasn't yet been released (unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines), is not notable. _regards,Orbit Wharf ^💬^|^📝 11:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Cambria Math. ✗plicit 11:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to imply was, that the production or principal photography can't be announced without announcing the project itself and no primary or reliable sources done that. Coderzombie (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and created by sock evading a block. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G5- created by sockpuppet. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might not qualify for G5 as the article received significant edits from other users — DaxServer (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - recent creation by recently blocked sock. No prejudice to recreation if there's anything salvageable. Nfitz (talk) 01:02, 10 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lockwood[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guideline for people. Most of the references are to Lockwood's own publications (his now-defunct local free newspaper The Press, or his self-published book). The few independent sources are passing mentions in coverage of his legal dispute with a government minister, a single event. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although of course I hope others will participate in this discussion, this article should be eligible for soft deletion. There was a {{BLPPROD}} in 2011 which initially made me think it wasn't PROD-able, but that's actually not the case. – Joe (talk) 12:21, 3 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. And salt, given the move warring and likely sockpuppetry evident in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Farooq[edit]

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

Notability, see article history, especially this edit by Robert McClenon. One of the "Bot" accounts have been blocked, other account tagged. Toastskat (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toastskat (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toastskat (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Toastskat (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was moved to draft before being moved by one of the "bot" accounts, moved back to draft by @Bearcat:, before the same "bot" accoutn moved it back to mainspace claiming it was approved when the page history makes it very clear it was not approved. Obvious Sockpuppetry going on, paid/coi etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Does not satisfy acting notability or general notability. Neither of the roles listed in the Filmography is significant. Moved to draft space twice and moved back to article space, which is indicative of gaming the system. So is the use of editors who are impersonating bots. Those are conduct issues, but the content issue is the lack of notability. There has been enough tendentious moving to article space for ECP protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt As per Robert McClenon. MrsSnoozyTurtle

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 redirect to Top Chef: Miami#Contestants. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Malarkey[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. At best, should revert to what it was - a redirect to Top Chef. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 11:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Top Chef: Miami#Contestants. Not convinced any coverage I could find is independent or significant enough to meet GNG, but the subject seems significant enough to be a searchable term. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:21, 3 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 is that the article has been improved enough to suggest deletion is not appropriate, per WP:HEY. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Island 886[edit]

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

Not notable, I could not find any references to support this locomotive's notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no evidence that this topic has received significant coverage from even a single reliable source. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sadly, I don't see much evidence of notability beyond being a preserved example of the Pacific- class locomotive. Could be merged into a sub-section as a surviving example of the class, or perhaps under the Rock Island article, preserved locomotives or something similar. It's well researched, would hate to lose the information. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Mr. Railroader (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG, especially with (Grant, 2020) just added to article. Would not object to a merge of an identified class type if it exists, but any suggestion of a merge to a wheel arrangement is undue: There are multiple distinct locomotive classes. In general any significantly large preserved locomotive or its class are almost inevitably notable. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tentative Keep: I found and added a 2009 news article that goes into some detail about the engine's history from the 1950s onwards. It would be nice to get some more detail on its service history, though. Ackatsis (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The good work expanding the article by Eastmain and Ackatsis shows that policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The only problem I can see is that we're missing a picture but that's not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unremarkable and has almost no coverage outside of niche non-reliable sources. Sounder Bruce 23:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of the added coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, improved significantly since the deletion nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it has been expanded with extra references. There are only four ex-Rock Island steam locomotives left, so 886 represents 25% of the survivors; the others are an 0-4-0ST and two more 4-6-2s. — Iain Bell (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 3 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. An event happening does not on its own make something notable. There needs to be verifiable information and enough information to support an independent article. There is a consensus of participating editors here that there is not sufficient information for a notable article and it may even fail to pass our expectations of verifiability. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rajasthan (738 CE)[edit]

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

I've checked and cleared many times about this battle, and there is not a single mention of this battle in contemporary sources, not even in primary. I written about this in article's talk page too around 17 days ago but got no response, if any Contributor can provide good source that will be good for the article otherwise administrators should look into it. Basedch (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator's PROD rationale a couple of weeks ago was the following: "I've checked and cleared many times about this battle, and there is not a single mention of this battle in contemporary sources, not even in primary. As I can see this page is about 2 months old, and no one adding source/citation to this page, this page is totally inactive, we should remove fake pages to improve Wikipedia, I can confirm that this battle is fake, admins should delete this page as soon as possible to ignore glorifying fake history.". Given a look at their talk page, in which they received multiple prior warnings for disruptively editing South Asian history articles, it is difficult to take them at their word. A deep analysis would need to be taken. Curbon7 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Following up Curbon7's comment above, Google Books shows various entries, such as the paragraph in this Indian Civil Service General Studies paper. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Following up AllyD's comment above, This book is a general studies paper and not a history book written by any historian, this is not a reliable source and can not be taken as a proof for this battle, this battle is about 738 CE and there is not a single mention of this battle by any famed/prominent historian, also there is no mention of this battle before 2005-2010. Basedch (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its not my area of expertise/interest, but there does seem to have been a run of pages about South Asian battles that no-one has ever heard of previously, being mentioned in questionably reliable sources from the last 5-10 years. I assume these reflect recent Indian politics. WP:BASIC applies, if there isn't significant coverage in multiple reliable sources its not notable and should be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got a update related to this battle page, creator of this article with his alt account contacted me on my talk. Any administrator can check and should do the needful. Basedch (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the battle being described here is the one referred to briefly at Umayyad_campaigns_in_India#Al-Hakam_and_Indian_resistance_(731–740): " A Jain prabandha mentions a king Nahada, who is said to have been the first ruler of his family at Jalore, near Bhinmal, and who came into conflict with a Muslim ruler whom he defeated.^[1] Nahada is identified with Nagabhata I (r. 730–760), the founder of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, which is believed to have started from the Jalore-Bhinmal area and spread to Avanti at Ujjain.^[2] The Gwalior inscription of the king Bhoja I, says that Nagabhata, the founder of the dynasty, defeated a powerful army of Valacha Mlecchas (foreigners called "Baluchs"^[3]) around 738 CE.^[4] Even though many historians believe that Nagabhata repulsed Arab forces at Ujjain." The references there may be of use. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sanjay Sharma 2006, p. 204.
^ Sanjay Sharma 2006, p. 187.
^ Bhandarkar 1929, p. 30.
^ Bhandarkar 1929, pp. 30–31; Rāya 1939, p. 125; Majumdar 1977, p. 267; Puri 1986, p. 46; Wink 2002, p. 208

Comment As I said before, mostly sources starts between 2005-2010, source of year 1929 didn't clearly say enough about this battle, we can't rely upon one source only that too with half information, If any prominent or famed historian had written about this battle then any contributor can share it here, It will be easy for us to believe on it and can end the discussion. Basedch (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC as identified by nom and apparently confirmed by page creator. Mztourist (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable source, supports Mztourist comment. Basedch (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nominator, you don't need to also add a delete opinion. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Umayyad_campaigns_in_India, just like Battle of Rajasthan was per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan (2nd nomination). Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would have supported a redirect to Umayyad_campaigns_in_India, as above, but the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rajasthan (2nd nomination) is that we already have a protected redirect to there from Battle of Rajasthan, which is presumably why this version was created under this variant name. I see no benefit of building up multiple redirects for name variants on the same topic. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose* : I read about this battle in some history books, on top of my head I remember Historian DC Shukla's work Early History of Rajasthan, I added the source with page numbers on the article. Forgive my mistakes as I am quite new to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arohi3695 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Following up Arohi3695's comment above, what is the authenticity of the source you provided? Basedch (talk) 02:14, 02 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hind the making of Indi Islamic world by Andre wink.. he talks about Nagabhat1 and his battle with Arabs 49.204.161.225 (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable source proving notability. The region was not called Rajasthan back then. So this seems like a made up article. Agree with AllyD. Venkat TL (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD. The topic has enough sources for a redirect, Battle of Rajasthan, but there is no reason any user would search for this particular title variation. If anyone develops enough sources for a standalone article in the future, they can ask for the redirect's protection to be changed. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it to Arab raids in Rajasthan or Arab invasion of Rajasthan with particular time period. And I do not agree with @Venkat TL that Rajasthan was not a region at that time hence it should be deleted. Name changes, India was not the name of the country centuries ago yet we use word India even for Earliest history of India. Anyway coming to the point, the Arab invasion of modern Rajasthan was some watershed event as this is mentioned by many historians. The invasion stopped by local dynasties changed further power dynamics in this part of India. But there is not any evidence that this was a single battle as per my knowledge nor if it was fought in a particular year. The event is mentioned by two celebrated and recognised historians of Early history of Rajasthan, Dr Dashratha Sharma and Dr Dinesh Chandra Shukla. Hence I propose to rename the page and if agreed I can edit the page accordingly to make it a war page instead of a battle. If some people agree I can edit it right away if it still doesn't look as per wiki standard, we can agree to get it re-directed or deleted, whichever way editors prefer.Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I'm not seeing coverage in reliable sources, and the title is not a reasonable search term. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 11 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 11:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wise Group[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG requirements Padavalam🌂 ► 10:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 10:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 10:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Padavalam🌂 ► 10:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced. Looks like a potential WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 14:20, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Onmyway22 talk 05:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Kinloch[edit]

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

A draft is already there Draft:Alice Kinloch. Also, the article is not meeting GNG. Onmyway22 talk 08:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onmyway22 talk 08:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Onmyway22 talk 08:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reliably cited as a co-founder of the Pan African Association and otherwise a significant figure of the Pan-African movement in the UK at the time. [21][22] Suggest withdrawal of the nomination. decltype (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: apart from being a co-founder of the Pan African Association, a high-quality research encyclopaedia by Oxford University press devotes a paragraph to her. Together with the sources in the article, I would think that this points to her meeting WP:GNG even if not all secondary sources on her are exhausted yet. I am not sure how the existence of a draft influences her notability. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as well as sources already in the article or mentioned here, I can also find this profile from the Constitution Hill, Johannesburg and Tracing the origins of South African constitutionalism - The land is ours : South Africa's first black lawyers and the birth of the constitution, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi NHCLS (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficiently sourced for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 4 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 deleted. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PaaSoo Technology[edit]

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

An advert of a company created by its employee and fails WP:GNG Onmyway22 talk 07:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Onmyway22 talk 07:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onmyway22 talk 07:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article must be speedy. No indication of notability, Advertisement, and un-referenced. DMySon (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Advertisement. Delete as per WP:G11 Wakowako (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:03, 4 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tahsin Pasha (bureaucrat)[edit]

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

Biography of an Ottoman official who was a high ranking civil servant but but a minister, member of parliament or holder of any post that would make him notable. There is a single mysterious offline source. I don’t think this subject is notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For reasons stated by the nominator. It seems this article was created as the subject was adapted on a TV show. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find a section in this book, a small mention here and here. Made sure that it was the Hasan Tahsin Paşa that we are discussing now. I assume BOA, the only source in the article, is the Ottoman Archives of the Ministry (Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi) and HH. SAİD (Hazine-i Hâssa Nezareti Sicil-i Ahval Defterleri, not going to bother translating :D) is a part of it. According to this pdf (technically page 254, but you have to type 296), HH. SAİD contains the "name of the personel, their fathers name, their birthdate/place and their job" from 1821 to 1925, so it's highly likely that he was in it. Not sure if this enough to establish notability, but it's a start I guess. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 11:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are not sources to validate all of this. Mtpos (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you said that it wasn't enough I would've said nothing, but no sources at all? Damn. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I initially created this article as a stub because he is an important figure in the Abdulhamid era of the Ottoman Empire. He was Abdulhamid's most trusted man, I think he is notable. The problem is finding sources about him, which is the tricky part. Abdulhamid era was not known for being a free environment. Sincerely, Adigabrek^Talk 15:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adigabrek. A close adviser to a ruler would seem to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Must have been important in the regime and, per Styyx above, it looks as if there are more sources out there. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks to Styx for finding these sources but the only ones I can see are passing mentions. The subject may have been presented in a tv series as “very important” and “Abdulhamid’s right hand man” but I’m not seeing any sources that support this. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-per as above. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I suspect the problem is that "bureaucrat" is too weak a descriptor, if what others have said is true. However we only have a very short article, so that the stub-tag should be reinstated. However, I am concerned about the number of times we get a Turkish bio that derives from a TV drama series, where it is not clear whether the subject was a real person, portrayed in a manner justified by history; and where conversely, the subject could be a person invented by the author for the purposes of historical fiction. Historical novels are a legitimate genre of literature, but those appearing in novels can be inventions of the author, who needs a character to carry his story forward. I make no suggestion in this case, trusting that the creator was acting in good faith. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s also my concern. I’ve no doubt the subject existed and had some state function, but what exactly he did isn’t clear to me. The fact that he featured in a tv drama doesn’t mean he was notable, and it might have suited the narrative to give an important role to a relatively minor individual. The Ottoman state was highly bureaucratic and kept excellent records; Istanbul was also full of foreign diplomats, advisers and others, so it really stretches credibility to say that there could have been a key figure in the regime about whom we hardly have any sources. Mccapra (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created this page by translating this. The person is real, he has a book where he wrote his memoirs. It's just that we don't have many sources on him. Adigabrek^Talk

17:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adigabrek: can you find a source that clearly states he was a trusted advisor of Abdul Hamid II? If so, he will meet WP:NPOLITICIAN due to holding a national office (advisor to the ruler of an empire certainly counts).VR _talk 23:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are questions raised by both the delete and keep position whether there are sufficient sources to show that the subject holds a position that would pass WP:NPOL or if there is sufficient sourcing to meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have improved this article using a handful of the available sources. It should be evident now that this article clears WP:GNG. In fact, I'm eyeing a DYK nomination once the AfD is over. --GGT (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:NPOL. Thanks GGT! Very nice work! Cheer. VocalIndia (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he was a close adviser to a major ruler.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:05, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Doyle (critic)[edit]

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

There are no signification third party sources supporting this person's notability. Secondary source for them did not bring up any since the page was originally labelled years ago. Also, several accounts with his name, likely sockpuppets, see the entry's talk page. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Has two books each with more than two reviews, which is borderline for WP:NAUTHOR. That plus coverage of questionable comments he has made pushes this over the top for me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several third-party sources here representing third-party analysis of his significance, such as independent critical reviews of his two books. I'll grant that the two citations to his own employer aren't ideal, and that the article could use some further improvement, but other coverage does exist to improve the article with and what's already here is already enough to cover off the basic issue of demonstrating that he would pass WP:CREATIVE as a writer. Possible COI editing by Doyle himself or members of his family is not in and of itself reason for deletion, if notability is otherwise already properly demonstrated. And yeah, there was that "Dan Levy is fey" thing, too. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not consider that someone could be notable purely for their insulting comments and impugning of the reputation of others. Kind seems like WP:COAT to me, but hey, get it - maybe a bit less of a hagiography then is in order. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are quite a bit of insightful sources that pertain to the subject. More sources would be better, as the subject barely meets criteria for notability, especially for WP:NAUTHOR. Multi7001 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources look good and extensive - and international. But really - he has been Canada's leading TV critic for decades. There seems to be a fail here of WP:COMMONSENSE. Nfitz (talk) 16:47, 8 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 11:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dirpy[edit]

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

This is one of the multiple services to offer an unofficial YouTube media downloader. Dirpy is not notable. Further, between the paid options and the "See also" link in the YouTube article, there is too much undue emphasis on Dirpy. LABcrabs (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly a promotional piece. The most reliable sources, Wired, Fast Company, and some published book mention it literally in a single sentence each. Other sources appear to be less reliable, at least on the first glance. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:28, 5 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 Hannah Montana (season 2). Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Achy Jakey Heart[edit]

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

I don't see a reason for this article to exist; no real notability here. wizzito | say hello! 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reaction links already in article. Editorially, it'd be fine to redirect to the show season, but there's no call for AfD to enforce this. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hannah Montana (season 2). Overly-detailed almost entirely in-universe descriptions are not needed and the "reaction" consists solely of some ratings numbers. No evidence of significant coverage by independent reliable sources in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sources lack in-depth coverage of this specific episode. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:25, 13 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 13:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chuan Sha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chua Sha

Articles for deletion/Chuan Sha

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

Fails bio AINH (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AINH (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By searching his Chinese name "川沙" on Google, only information about Chuansha New Town and Chuansha County was found. No indication of notability. Sun8908 _Talk 08:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 马竞松; 吴小燕, eds. (2017). 当代加拿大华裔作家作品赏析 [Appreciation of the Works by Contemporary Chinese Canadian Writers] (in Chinese). Lijiang Publishing. ISBN 9787540780685. Retrieved 2021-10-11.
  The book has a chapter about Chuan Sha. The book notes from Google Translate: "Chapter Three: Chuan Sha and the novel "Sunshine" 1. Introduction to the author Chuan Sha, whose real name is Yin Xiangze, was born in Chongqing, China in 1952, and his ancestral home is Shandong. After graduating from the Department of Physics of Sichuan University in 1980 with a laser major... Chuan Sha's works were published in the United States "Chinese and Foreign Forum", China's "Genesis" (Taiwan), "Poetry", "Flower City", "Appreciation of Masterpieces", "World Chinese Literature" And other newspapers and magazines."
2. Jack, ed. (2002-03-22). "简介川沙" [Profile of Chuan Sha]. 星星生活 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-31. Retrieved 2021-10-31.
  The magazine article notes from Google Translate: "Zhang Ling (Canadian female writer, vice president of Canadian Chinese PEN Association, author of novels "Looking at the Moon" and "The Staggered Other Shore"): 'Encountering the passion of poetry in an era lacking the atmosphere of poetry is an emotional dislocation. Chuan Sha's collection of poems "The Crowd Dragging the Shadow" brings us such an emotional dislocation. Emotional dislocation often leads to jumps in thinking. On the jumping and disjointed road of thinking, we are controlled by Chuan Sha, and we unknowingly step into a state of searching. In the end we discovered that what we found was a long-lost link in the chain of poetry.'" The article also includes biographical coverage about Chuan Sha: "Canadian Chinese writer and poet. Born in Chongqing, Sichuan, China, his ancestral home is Shandong. Graduated from Sichuan University and worked as a literary editor in a publishing house in China. He went to the UK in 1991 and immigrated to Canada in 1999. Currently the editor-in-chief of Canada Poseidon Publishing House."
3. Language for a New Century: Contemporary Poetry from the Middle East, Asia, and Beyond. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 2008. ISBN 978-0-393-33238-4. Retrieved 2021-10-11.
  The book has a chapter on page 304 titled "Chuan Sha: The Wolves Are Roaring". The book notes: "Chuan Sha is a Chinese-Canadian writer, poet, and critic, and his work includes novels, short stories, poems, plays, essays, and literary reviews. A graduate of Sichuan University, he has lived in Toronto since 1999. Chuan Sha is now editor-in-chief of Canada's Poseidon Publishing House, director of the Chinese Canadian Poets Association, and a member of the Chinese Canadian"
4. 一代飛鴻: 北美中國大陸新移民作家小說精選與點評 [A Generation of Feihong: Selections and Comments on Novels by New Immigrants from North America and Mainland China] (in Chinese). 舟出版社. 2005. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-9748303-8-4. Retrieved 2021-10-11.
  The book notes from Google Translate, "Comment from anger to humor: A brief discussion on Huang Junxiong Chuan Sha (Chinese Canadian writer, poet, playwright)."
5. "大型音乐舞蹈诗剧《合欢》在多伦多成功演出" [Large-scale music and dance poetry drama "Acacia" was successfully performed in Toronto]. 环球华报 (in Chinese). 2008-11-03. Archived from the original on 2013-10-03. Retrieved 2021-10-31.
  The article notes from Google Translate: ""Hehuan" is an original script written by a Chinese Canadian writer, poet and playwright Chuan Sha, screenwriter and lyrics. It is also his second screenplay officially performed in Canada. It is reported that Chuansha's script "Acacia" was originally in four acts and 19 scenes. The Chinese and English versions have been revised several times."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chuan Sha (Chinese: 川沙) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time in the hope of getting some thoughts on Cunard's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I am unable to access sources 3 and 5, the other three appear to be sufficient to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs to have the references listed above added, there are enough citations to prove notability. In particular, his poetry is reprinted in Language for a New Century: Contemporary Poetry from the Middle East, Asia, and Beyond, which is a major Norton anthology. That alone proves notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented by Cunard, which demonstrate significant coverage and scholarly interest in this author. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Cunard that passes WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 17:50, 8 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Norton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Previous nomination ended in keep essentially because multiple users said WP:ILIKEIT and assumed that Norton WP:INHERITS notability from the projects he has worked on. I was unable to find independent and reliable secondary sources. There does not appear to be a clear redirect target. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable media personality in the tech space. Sources do not indicate that he passes WP:GNG, and there do not appear to be any available other than social media profiles. KidAd • SPEAK 18:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as TV host with multiple past shows on major TV stations, he meets WP:ENT.Boredathome101 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Boredathome101: are you suggesting that he "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and that the television shows in question are The Screen Savers (previously nominated for deletion with no consensus), Systm (a redirect), HD Nation (another redirect), and Tekzilla (never undergone an AfD, but has had multiple instances of its notability questioned on its talk page and edit history)? TipsyElephant (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references for this person are weak. Catfurball (talk) 22:37, 11 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 13:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thurrott[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:BIO/WP:GNG. When searching for independent and reliable secondary sources I mostly found passing mentions of Thurrott. The only in depth source I could find is this WP:INTERVIEW from The Verge, which would be considered a primary source. I don't see any clear redirect targets. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 08:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:07, 7 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 13:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy (anonymous data store)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. Apparently, the most notable aspect of this software project is its shutdown notice. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed, the second ref is about the algorithm, not the implementation that appears the subject of the article. Seems a one-person project that did not last long enough to catch on. Special:Contributions/Synx13 was the single-purpose account that created this in 2004, and never made any more main-space edits. W Nowicki (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – The Grid (talk) 22:22, 5 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actifed (computer virus)[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable computer virus. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phalcon/Skism or delete. After looking into this a bit, I think that either Phalcon/Skism or their product the Phalcon-Skism Mass Produced Code Generator are notable. I tossed together a quick stub at Phalcon/Skism and will hopefully find time to do a bit more searching. I really couldn't find anything on Actifed, so either deletion or redirecting to the group that wrote the tool used to generate it (in the unlikely event anyone ever searches for it) seems appropriate. There's a Comparison_of_computer_viruses article that is also a popular redirect target for these kinds of articles, though we know so little about Actifed that I can't even fill out the table. So maybe best removed from that table as well... Ajpolino (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 3 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. Both "keep" and "delete" !votes are rather weak, except for the nom. However, even after 2 relistings no new sources that are substantial enough to tilt this over GNG have been found. As this is a BLP, I find the "delete" case stronger. Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sujeet Swami[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not a social activist in the traditional sense. Known for a single event, getting his 35 Rupees back. Coverage all stems from one event. scope_creep^Talk 20:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also fails to meet WP:BIO as pointed by scope_creep.Advait (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet of blocked user Vinodtiwari2608. ✗plicit 03:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for multiple events. Article having enough citations to justify the notability of the subject. Few references which are from reliable resources and independent of the subject like शिक्षकों के लिए तरस रहा सबसे बड़ा तकनीकी विश्वविद्यालय, 66% पद पड़े हैं खाली (Zee News), A year on, Kota engineer continues to battle IRCTC for Rs 35 refund (Hindustan Times), This Article is From Apr 28, 2018 For ₹ 35 Refund, This Engineer In Rajasthan Chased Railways For A Year, (NDTV), जिसने IIT मंडी में उठाई भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ आवाज, उसे ही प्रबंधन ने किया टर्मिनेट (News 18), High court notice to railway over ticket refund rules (Times of India), Indian Railways earned Rs 9000 Cr from ticket cancellation charges, non-cancellation of wait-listed tickets in three years (The Economic Times), Info officer can’t pass order on behalf of FAA, says CIC (Times of India), Replace private schools on IIT campuses with Kendriya Vidyal (The Times of India) and many others. DMySon (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its still all one-event stuff. If he hadn't lost his 35 Rupees and his temper, none of this would have happened. That is a true definition of being non-notable. He didn't create these events, under his own impetus, it was created for him. So its WP:BLP1E fodder. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does Not meet WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 06:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because coverage are all very similar. They are talking same thing but different words. Mtpos (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per DMyson. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC) strike sock vote Meters (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Advait (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC) strike sock vote Meters (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG.27.5.75.113 (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sujeet Swami is a notable personality for more than one event. And thus passes WP:GNG. 132.154.2.143 (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What else is he known for exactly? scope_creep^Talk 14:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for two different events 1. Replace private schools on IIT campuses with Kendriya Vidyal and 2. IRCTC Railway Refund. And many references available on reliable resources. Saahil Vats. Passes Wikipedia Guidelines WP:NBIO. (talk) 10:22, 14 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 Perfetti Van Melle. Sandstein 17:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Perfetti[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source in the article is a shared Forbes profile (not a particularly good source, more like a database entry). I can't find much else, beyond confusion with a similarly named footballer (for ex. this). This is also borderline A7, as being a "billionaire heir" is not a claim to significance, and notability is not inherited from the company they're supposedly a co-owner of. A potential outcome could be redirecting this to the company page.

As to the brother: same issues, and really the only other information is something run-of-the-mill: billionaires buying himself a yacht. Really, that is not the kind of stuff that goes in an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perfetti Van Melle - a sensible suggestion. Most of the "coverage" here is of Giorgio and its absolutely not "significant coverage". Despite being fairly private, he has confirmed he owns a rare car, another (same make and model) of which was the subject of a legal dispute. To indicate its rarity (and explain the dispute) he is regularly mentioned incidentally among a list of wealthy people who own said car. So at first glance there are dozens and dozens of articles that mention him, but passing mentions are all they are. I couldn't find anything of substance. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify, I mean redirect both; RandomCanadian has listed two articles here and I feel they should both the treated the same way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect-per Stalwart111. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebne Hasan Khan[edit]

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

Non notable producer. The person is a director of Impress Telefilm. It seems all of work produced by his company listed as his work in the article. I googled in Bangla and English but didn't find any significant coverage. There are some refs in the article but they all are just passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:17, 3 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 Daintree National Park. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noah, Queensland[edit]

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

Another Queensland locality with no population and no claim to notability. Fails both WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The locality has no population because much of it is in the Daintree National Park within the Wet Tropics of Queensland, a UNESCO world heritage site. I have added this info to the article. Please also see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagmar, Queensland. Kerry (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there's a strong case for WP:ATD as the page can easily be merged to Daintree National Park rather than deleted. I'm open to changing my !vote to keep if further sources are identified (which seems likely). Deus et lex (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-as per above. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Deus et lex. FOARP (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Daintree National Park. There is (potential) valuable referencable encyclopedic content available, but the locality is not notable in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(The locality's redirect needs to be maintained to maintain completeness of the geography of the shire it is in.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:35, 9 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. While some editors suggest that America's Most Wanted provides the main coverage of this topic and that alone is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, other editors have shown a variety of sources which can be used to demonstrated notability. And it is this later effort which has gained a consensus of participating editors here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McKinney homicide[edit]

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

Local crime with no lasting impact or coverage. Being featured on America's Most Wanted does not confer notability. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper or newswire service. KidAd • SPEAK 02:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that sources show significant coverage and the article passes WP:GNG. Just because it is local does not mean there was no lasting coverage, it appears to have made headlines for a while, including up to the sentencing. ––FormalDude talk 07:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS, especially since all coverage is strictly local. Mlb96 (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlb96: WP:LOCALCOVERAGE states that the coverage must be regional for notability, and that is clearly the case here, with multiple outlets in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metropolitan Area reporting on the crime. ––FormalDude talk 02:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨~~ 05:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Geschichte. ––FormalDude talk 08:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The producers of America's Most Wanted are not proper arbiters of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g., Dallas Morning News, NBC News, AP, and amazingly Taiwan News) continuing for more than a decade after the initial event makes this event a sure pass for WP:LASTING. This is particularly the case given that the death sentence was appealed to the US Supreme Court. WP:AUD is a requirement for articles about Corporations/Organisations so I honestly don't know why people are raising the idea that the coverage is purely "local" above. NBC and AP are national coverage anyway - there is no sign that this news was published only on local affiliate websites (though NBC's DFW affiliate gave coverage to this last year, and Dallas-Fortworth is arguably at least a "region" given it having a population of more than 6 million people) . The point about America's Most Wanted above is simply misguided - this is not the basis of notability of this article. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per FOARP, who makes a persuasive case and investigation for keeping the article. --Killuminator (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @FOARP: and @FormalDude: WP:GEOSCOPE is the relevant guideline here, since this is an event, and a single metro area is clearly an "immediate region." While FOARP did provide some national coverage, I'm still not entirely convinced that this meets either WP:EVENTCRIT or WP:NOTNEWS, so I'm leaving my !vote as is. Mlb96 (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mlb96 - thanks for responding. Obviously the guides can be read different ways, but I disagree. In my view, coverage in diverse sources over 10+ years easily makes this WP:LASTING and puts it outside of WP:NOTNEWS. This falls pretty squarely between EVENTCRIT #1 and #2 in my view. I strongly disagree that a metro area with a population and land-area roughly that of Belgium is the "immediate region" in this context: "immediate region" here would be McKinney city or at most Collin County, of which McKinney is the capital - how else are we to interpret "immediate" other than that area that most closely surrounds the location where it happen? Expanding "immediate region" beyond that to include country-sized regions would make events with effects lasting years and reported over a long period of time in many countries automatically fail the guide, which cannot have been the intent of the guide given its emphasis on national-scale coverage. FOARP (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per FOARP, who makes a good case. also per WP:GNG. Good sources.BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd also favour renaming this to McKinney quadruple murder or similar as the name "Quadruple murder" is clearly favoured by the reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 11:43, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG due to a lack of reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of this institution. (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

_____

I am not clear as to why this would be deleted. This is a seminary that employees people and has a fair number of students. It is located in the real community of Owensboro, KY. It is one of several seminaries using a new format that encourages and often requires their students, training to be pastors, to stay in their local church where they are mentored and trained by their pastors throughout seminary studies. As more resources are found discussing the history of this insitution the content that benefits the article is being added. This is what make me unclear about why the article would be deleted. Kyle.Mullaney (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle.Mullaney Hi, I suggest you read WP:NORG which explains the notability requirements for organizations. In a nutshell, to have a Wikipedia article, the seminary must have independent sources that cover it in depth. It isn't entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists. (t · c) buidhe 14:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to WP:NORG,
The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.

Under Schools,, the guideline specifies,

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.

—Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added content, newspaper sources, and evidence of the seminary's non-profit status. With significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, the subject meets WP:GNG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grand'mere Eugene and WP:HEY. St Anselm (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Theological seminaries are frequently quite small, as they are commonly teaching only one subject. Some churches will claim to have an academy, but this turns out to be a weekly Bible-class or such like. This one appears to be offering degree level training for students, so that (like a university) this is a tertiary college, though apparently in its early years. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved since nomination with the addition of multiple reliable sources references such as newspaper articles so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:49, 7 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 03:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahia Pacifica[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage. The fact that it's one of the tallest buildings in Panama City does not confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 3 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Awasthy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I was the closing admin for a very recently-closed AfD on Sanjay Awasthy. The consensus of that discussion was to delete the article. However, the previous AfD appears to have taken place in the midst of a political election in India, which Awasthy appears to have won shortly after the prior AfD closed. Therefore, while this is admittedly somewhat unusual, I've decided that the best course of action is to start another procedural AfD to discuss the fate of this article, in light of this new information. My hope is that AfD participants can discuss whether or not the results of this recent election provide sufficient notability for Awasthy to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't have any personal opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I assume that Scottywong is doing this out of an abundance of caution. Awasthy now passes WP:NPOL after winning the bye-election yesterday. He is now a member of a legislative body (Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly), in a country that has a federal system of government. He still doesn't pass WP:CRIN, but that doesn't matter. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's unusual for an AfD to have strong consensus to delete, and then the subject of that AfD suddenly becomes notable a day or two later, and the article is re-created. I think it's worthwhile to have a discussion to ensure that the new consensus is indeed that this article should be kept. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is unusual to nominate a long existing article after the subject becomes a candidate for state election. I question the wisdom of the admin in deleting the article on the day of election results, when the subject is in current news, despite multiple participants including me asking for relist (hold). And then starting an AfD when the subject has clearly passed Wikipedia notability criteria. These are what I call unusual. Venkat TL (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the need for a 2nd discussion, if only so that future editors aren't left scratching their heads about the oddity. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
I dont think anyone would nominate it after he became an MLA. --Venkat TL (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has won the state legislative assembly elections so now he passes WP:NPOL. Agree with MPGuy2824. Venkat TL (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Procedural nomination as the subject now passes WP:NPOL. It's humorous that he became notable only a few days after clear consensus for delete. Curbon7 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing funny. The first nomination was inappropriate, since it was not a recently created article. Venkat TL (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject was definitively non-notable, as proved by consensus, until a little bit ago. This is just procedural, it's an obvious keep now. Curbon7 (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  yes, you are right, it was non notable to begin with. But once the election was announced, the first nom and the subsequent deletion could have waited. All in all the wrongly timed AfD was a waste of everyone's time. Venkat TL (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per his political success now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shouldn't have been deleted first time around, but given his political success now, there is no questioning his notability. StickyWicket (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NPOL. No prejudices because it was deleted in past. Having pages of politicians who haven't won is unusual because most of their sources are marketing propagandas. If WP:NPOL won't be granting an automatic notability to elected politicians, many of those politicians might fail WP:GNG! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOW; or, to quote Blur: "there's no other way" Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:45, 4 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 ...Baby One More Time (album)#Release and promotion. This is an unusual situation where even people who are bolding a !vote as keep admit that it does not satisfy our policies or guidelines for notability. This suggests a consensus that this article does not meet our standard for an independent article. Given the late comment that there is existing material in an article that would be of interest to a reader looking for information about this tour, a redirect seems to be an appropriate reading of consensus. Editors could also choose to merge some more information from the article using its history if they wish per our normal editing processes. Note: I had originally relisted this but the last comment came in while I was relisting which provides enough of a consensus, I feel, to support a close rather than a relist because it was already a marginal relist for the reasons explained above. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L'Oreal Hair Zone Mall Tour[edit]

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

As per WP:NTOUR, "Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources." This article does not have any sources to show significant media coverage, and hence this concert tour is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Theknine2 (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not going to judge this on NTOUR because obviously it wouldn't meet it, but on the basis of an WP:IAR. We've got a great window on the start of Spears's career within this article; well-sourced as to the background and overall, even if many of those are sourced to books. It doesn't feel crufty, nor is there the usual overload of radio station publicity sources or 'teenagers at a mall screaming at a pop star, amirite?' local news aftermath stories these type of articles are usually polluted with. It's a fine article with good sources detailing a small tour that started her rise, and I don't see any reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 00:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to its association with one of the best-selling albums of all time and because it is sourced pretty well (for a somewhat obscure thing that happened in the 90s). Trillfendi (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Britney Spears or Delete. The reason why the portion dedicated to the article is so short, unlike the well-researched (if poorly referenced) preamble to it, is because it simply lacked significant coverage, unlike the following tour. The printed sources listed do not seem to contribute in any way to coverage of the tour, let alone significant coverage. Even those who have supported removal mention that it is obscure and have attempted to project notability from Spears to this tour, although typically notability is not inherited. At any rate, there is no dispute that it fails WP:NTOUR, and for that alone it should be merged into Spears' article or deleted. Pilaz (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ...Baby One More Time (album)#Release and promotion where the tour is already covered. Any content not found there could be merged if desired.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 3 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. There does not seem to be much hope that draftifying would be of any use. Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GIR (proxy voting)[edit]

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

Does not seem to have any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources Salimfadhley (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify- Wikipedia does not accept promotional content. An article has to be written in neutral point of view and has to meet the notability guidelines too. It has improvement opportunities. So, it can be draftified. Mommmyy (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Per User:Mommyy. SoyokoAnis - talk 03:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Merge to IA Financial Group, the parent corp.~~ There is no sign of significant coverage of the subsidiary as an independent entity in the article or in searches. Draftifying would only make sense if there was a strong likelihood that an independently-sourced article could be created in line with notability guidelines, which does not appear to be the case. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC) updated per reference below by AllyD Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although this company originated as a division of Demers Conseil, which has since become part of IA Financial Group, GIR appears to be privately owned [23], so the IA article wouldn't be a good merge target. AllyD (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from routine coverage of their SHARE merger in 2020, the references in the article are tending to be items about individual or links to Corporate Knights reports in whose creation they were involved, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Beyond that, searches are finding very little for GIR or SHARE. A company providing services, but fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:08, 12 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.

[FOOTNOTESanjay_Sharma2006204-1] Sanjay Sharma 2006, p. 204.

[FOOTNOTESanjay_Sharma2006187-2] Sanjay Sharma 2006, p. 187.

[FOOTNOTEBhandarkar192930-3] Bhandarkar 1929, p. 30.

[4] Bhandarkar 1929, pp. 30–31; Rāya 1939, p. 125; Majumdar 1977, p. 267; Puri 1986, p. 46; Wink 2002, p. 208

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]