Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 30	October 02 >

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. SpinningSpark 19:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Bir Uttam Lt. Anwar Girls School & College[edit]

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

Non-notable school. No WP:SIGCOV or anything in article to claim it's notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali name, failed to identify significant coverage in independent sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a global view, this discussion may be affected by an English language bias. Perhaps the broader reliable sources are in Bangladeshi. A bilingual editor should be consulted before this article is deleted.--Eastview2018 (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's reasonable to wonder if there is significant coverage in non-English sources. The language spoken there is Bengali (also known locally as Bangla). This discussion has been advertised for two weeks to WikiProject Bangladesh, where most participants, including myself, have some knowledge of the language. As I said in my !vote, I searched for independent significant coverage in Bengali and didn't find any. Even a non-speaker such as yourself can search for "শহীদ বীর-উত্তম লে. আনোয়ার গার্লস কলেজ" and evaluate the results using translation tools. The article needn't be kept to do that. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. There are only passing mentions of the school in local news articles from The Daily Star, Dhaka Tribune and bdnews24.com. A Google search for the Bangla name শহীদ বীর উত্তম লেঃ আনোয়ার গার্লস কলেজ populated three news results that I was unable to translate. A Google Scholar search shows that the school has been a research participant, but I could not find coverage beyond acknowledgement of its participation. If anyone can prove WP:SIGCOV, I will happily change my vote. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonio Sanjairag[edit]

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

Deleted at AfD just three months ago. Created by a different user so probably not a G4 candidate. Paul_012 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm listing this as three months seems unlikely for consensus to have changed; consider my position neutral. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below. Giant Snowman 09:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to here [1], he has already played 2 games at Thai League 1 level (top league) against League 1 opponents for total of 31 minutes. So already meets NFOOTBALL. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY subject is 19 years old and has a ongoing career and has last played on 1st October 2021 in Thai League 1 a WP:FPL as per this had confused this player with another one and with sources like this in the Thai Language Thai Rath,Goal.com this this this may scrape through WP:GNG as well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, perhaps draftify. He does pass NFOOTY after all as the Thai League 1 is in WP:FPL but he still has a long way to meet GNG. Given his age, I'm reluctant to suggest deletion. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFootball with recent couple of FPL starts. Some basic media coverage such as this and this. I don't see any difference between this and when an article is normally created for a young player who makes a FPL. Can User:GiantSnowman review their "fails NFOOTBALL" comment? Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Belkhayat[edit]

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

This was originally deleted under WP:G11, which was appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September 18. The result of that appeal was to bring it to AfD. My role here is strictly administrative; I offer no opinion on a desired outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete After all dust has settled, the most notable thing is being the brother of former minister in Morocco. He chose the right brother, but that does not make a notable encyclopedic item. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've honestly not been sure how seriously to take the article, I even wondered if someone had given it to the subject as a birthday present! No doubt those closest to him and those who use his payment apps consider him important but that's not the same as Wikipedia:Notability (people). – Athaenara ✉ 04:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are a couple of quality indepth independent sources among all of the WP:REFBOMBING. However, most of the coverage is either trivial passing mentions, or about his company but not him, or lacks independence. Ultimately, there isn't enough to pass GNG; but it's not too far off.4meter4 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Ventriloquism Day[edit]

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

I searched but was unable to find any WP:RS about this day. Not only struggling on WP:GNG but also a WP:V concern. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One reference (sort of), and virtually nothing else. As a side note, I'm concerned that the image is a copyright violation. PBWilliams (talk · contribs) moved the image to Commons, saying it was their own work. However, in this article they created, PBWilliams says that "The logo was designed by graphic artist John Garvin." Unless PBWilliams is a pseudonym, that's a copyright violation. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one reference was written by the person who created the day; making it not independent. No coverage in independent sources. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The most I could find was about the international convention. There is no coverage of an international day. Fails WP:SIGCOV with no reliable sources. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kjeld Gogosha-Clark[edit]

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

I'm tempted to speedy this as a blatant hoax—I find it vanishingly unlikely that even the most obscure "filmmaker, actor and writer" would have no Google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors—but given that the page is 15 years old, there's a conceivable chance that this person is both genuine and notable. Needless to say, it only has one incoming link other than a dab page; that page (Gaylord Dingler) was created at the same time as this one and to me looks equally questionable, but LA comedy isn't something on which I'm qualified to comment. Needless to say, the sole "reference" is a dead link (as are the four alleged references on Gaylord Dingler, come to that). ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is a hoax (although I certainly understand how you came to that conclusion): the Shakespeare performances, optical boutique, and cycling-related coffee shop all seem to check out, remarkably enough. This is of little moment, however, since he falls far short of notability: without some sort of significant coverage, I'm left to assume that he's simply a wannabe trying to make a name for himself in Hollywood. In other words, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by self-promotion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant promotion. What isn't obviously promotional in this may or may not be fiction. Even if all of the not-obviously-promotional were all verifiable, this would amount to no notability and the article viewed as a whole would be promotional. Yes, for all I know it may be a fictional parody of a promotion -- but really, life's too short to waste it on determining exactly which factors have been combined to create junk such as this. (And ditto for "Gaylord Dingler".) -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a hoax and it's debatable whether it fails WP:PROMO, but I am not really finding any evidence of WP:SIGCOV and no indication of WP:BIO being met. All coverage is from vanilla websites that show no indication of meeting WP:RS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual. -KH-1 (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NACTOR and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bed & Breakfast (2010 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO. Has one review (now a dead link) on Rotten Tomatoes. Needs two or more reviews in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found a review at CineMagazine [2], not enough on its own...but a start in case someone else finds another one. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rotten Tomatoes review is archived at [3] DonaldD23 talk to me 23:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDb lists 5 reviews ([4][5][6][7][8]), of which enough count towards establishing notability to meet our requirements. TompaDompa (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tompa and per this: This time, the TV Guide review is not very significant, but I noticed the various mentions of a Dutch review, and here are two more (not very long). This is also half-decent, at least they are decent when added up. Geschichte (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With multiple independent critical reviews in multiple languages the film pass NFO and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article has been extensively edited during the AFD and after the relisting the current versionthere is a clear majority who feel that the current sourcing is of sufficient quality. Not everyone is convinced, but it is clear that there is no consensus for deletion exists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willie H. Fuller[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio). First 2 sources are CAF Rise Above, a user contributed site so not RS. 3) is just a passing mention in a photo caption. 4) Aviation Online magazine is of questionable reliability and doesn't seem to have been updated since 2017. 5) Troup County sounds reliable but no link or title was given and I can't find anything on searching the site. 6) Getty Images is just a photo. Finally Christian Science Monitor is RS but this is not substantial coverage and just based on an interview with the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members. A Google search shows his name in a few Tuskegee Airmen books but these are just photo captions or lists with no in depth detail Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable airman, fails GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another notable Tuskegee airman for whom we have plenty of biographical details and sources so that they easily pass WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the sources are not RS. Doesn't meet GNG. Intothat darkness 22:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as uncontroversial housekeeping. The sources are not reliable (CAF Rise Above) or in-depth, and the coverage is just WP:ROUTINE career progress. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is unreliable and even then it really just establishes that the subject was an ordinary member of a well known military unit. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable Tuskegee airman and was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal 2007. Notable airman based on wartime contribution and their historic integration of the U.S. Army Air Corp. Lightburst (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Gold Medals awarded to groups do not confer notability for individuals. By that logic each of the 200,000 WWII era members of the Civil Air Patrol would merit an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a member of the Tuskegee Airmen is laudable and honorable, but not notable. Currently, none of the keep arguments are actually based on policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My position is based upon numerous policies including WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE – three separate policies. It's the deletion side of the argument which is not based on policy, being based mostly on WP:N, which is not a policy, with a big dash of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your position should be based on a review of the sources which you notably haven't done. As you know WP:N is a guideline, do you really think it shouldn't be followed? There is no IDONTLIKEIT in my nomination or any of the other deletion arguments. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion rationale fails to outline a policy reason for deletion: WP:NOTINHERITED is not based on policy - it is an essay. Policies include: WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Additionally the fact that the author was "indeffed for copyvio" has nothing to do with the notability of this subject. The information is only provided in the rationale to Poison the well. For my own keep rationale: I refer to the notability guideline WP:ANYBIO and I see that the subject passes 1 and 2 easily. 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor ✅, or has been nominated for such an award several times; 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field ✅ Lightburst (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A unit award does not satisfy #1 of ANYBIO which is for individual awards. He was one of a group that made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, so #2 of ANYBIO isn't satisfied either. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming that WP:NOTINHERITED should be ignored, and that notability can be inherited?

NOTINHERITED is a long-respected summary of policies that have a long-standing consensus. If your position depends on ignoring it, that's not a strong position. ApLundell (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ApLundell Read the five pillars WP:5Ps - not one single mention of essays. And then look at WP:N which is the guideline we apply. Here is what our project says about WP:ESSAYS: Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. Regarding established consensus see WP:CCC (also a policy) - consensus can change. I am following the guidelines regarding this subject, please have another look at the article - I did work on it. Lightburst (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable Tuskegee airman. Irrelevant whataboutism and Ad hominem arguments. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you know notability is determined by sourcing which this page lacks. Explain your whataboutism and Ad hominem comments. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, notability is not determined by the sourcing on the page. here. And this is not the article it was when proposed for deletion, either.

First black flight instructor at Tuskegee Airmen.7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not regard the references that you have added as substantial, generally they are passing mentions at most 1-2 sentences. You haven't explained your whataboutism and Ad hominem comments. Mztourist (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)\[reply]

"Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio)" If you can't figure it out, explaining it further won't work either. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So just a distraction to avoid addressing the lack of sourcing then, got it. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who interjected fallacious irrelevancies (in your lead), just to confuse the real issues. 7&6=thirteen (☎)16:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep because notable" is not much of an argument either. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, we have been through an infinite number of soldiers who were the namesake of destroyers. And the argument is that there accomplishments mattered naught. Meets WP:GNG. That is a WP:Notability argument. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All those soldiers were deleted because they failed BASIC and having a minor ship named for you in WWII isn't a basis for notability. The same applies here, this Tuskegee Airman fails BASIV and is not individually notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge into Tuskegee Airmen. The nominator's analysis of the sources is correct, of course, and shows that the subject isn't covered in depth in reliable secondary sources. I think the one sentence about Fuller facing racism from a bigoted hotel manager is a good example that could be incorporated into the Tuskegee Airmen section about racism. But there's nothing else keepable in any form. Reyk _YO! 19:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to get enough coverage in independent reliable sources. The CAF is by its own description "a 501 (c) 3 Texas non-profit organization dedicated to flying and restoring World War II aircraft," and while well-intentioned seems rather dubious for historical information - it's declared specialty is basically acting as a hobbyists club. Some of the websites ain't worth much (Aviation Online looks rather amateurish, and WW2 multimedia datatbase looks like a passion project of a guy who has befriended some history professors but hasn't actually gotten them to write for him), and the sporadic single mentions in things like the CS Monitor or the inclusion of his name in a caption in the Getty Images database hardly count for anything. The book on LaGrange actually has a fair blurb on him, but the Legendary Locals of Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina book (also Arcadia Publishing) basically says the same about him but less. I think for the purposes of notability we can only count Arcadia books as one source of notability in instances where they are repeating their own info; I have a lot of experience with this series (own some, they like to do historical series on various localities in the US) and they do have a tendency to mirror information when there is crossover in the subject matter of each book (such as when they do one book on a county and another on a major town within that county). -Indy beetle (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://avstop.com/history/tuskegeeairmen/part5.htm Willie H. Fuller was one of the original members of the 99th Pursuit Squadron He was a pilot instructor at the Tuskegee Air Base that helped mold the pilots known as the Tuskegee Airmen into a fighting unit which performed admirably in the European theatre of World War II. Dream Focus 20:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed that reference in my nom: "Aviation Online magazine is of questionable reliability and doesn't seem to have been updated since 2017". Mztourist (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Willie died in 1995, I cannot imagine why this would be relevant to a magazine article about things that happened in the 1940s. Moreover, I am not aware of any guidelines saying that sources must be updated on a yearly basis in order to be reliable; this seems like a non sequitur at best. jp×g 00:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge/Redirect into Tuskegee Airmen.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, keep. I think ANYBIO can potentially apply here due to recent improvements and his enduring contribution to the Tuskegee Airmen.Yabunirami (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the pure votes and other similar arguments; the keep arguments are not convincing (since many commentators note that notability is not inherited), or fail to recognise that even if it applies (there is controversy over whether a group award counts for this purpose), ANYBIO is not an absolute. The arguments for deletion or merging are more convincing, but there is no consensus (yet) as to whether deletion or merging should be preferred, so I cannot impose one option above the other. Relisting in the hope of a positive outcome (especially given the "merge" option was proposed only by some of the alter comments and does not seem to have been fully discussed).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why is a non-admin (RandomCanadian) pontificating and relisting a contested/no consensus AfD? The article has evolved and information about this Airman's role was updated. However, a non-administrator making an administrative decision like this is controversial and therefore not-allowed on the project. Lightburst (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, if your only complaint is that I'm not an admin; then that is irrelevant, since admins do not have any special status as far as closing or relisting discussion goes. See "Closures (or relistings) will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review: 2. if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin.". This warrants a relist; since there is no clear consensus and not all options have been fully explored. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule is if it is controversial - leave it to an admin. You are an editor and you are not elected to preside over any contested decisions - especially when you extended your comments acting as if you are Solomon. You are not are even allowed to close a contested AfD discussion - yet you say... I cannot impose one option above the other. You will need to either have the community elect you as an admin, or stick to WP:SNOW keeps and deletes. This was a controversial relist - but it may not have been without your extended comments and pontification. I will be done commenting on this AfD now. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, your interpretation of that is fundamentally at odds with WP:NOBIGDEAL (the mere fact of "being an admin" does not grant anyone additional prestige or authority in matters which do not require admin tools, such as relisting or closing an AfD when the result is not "delete") and usual practice (i.e. not being an admin does not restrict anybody to SNOW closes - there are plenty of examples in AfD logs of discussions which are controversial to some extant closed by non-admins; and here I didn't even close it, I just relisted, since this was a few days already beyond the point which it should have been relisted or closed, nobody had bothered to do it, and there was no clear outcome). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACPIT point 4 suggests non-admins are not barred from relisting discussions. Reyk _YO! 10:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those interested in the ultimate result of the above side-discussion can look at Special:Permalink/1047863194#RandomCanadian_administrative_actions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those interested can also look here at your overturned BADNAC. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: Whether or not RC made a somewhat-silly NAC on an unrelated AfD doesn't seem particularly germane, and this whole line of inquiry seems a little nasty. Can't we just discuss the article about Willie H. Fuller? jp×g 22:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having read over some of the discussion listed at list of Military-related deletion discussions the author appears to be very focused on deleting articles about Tuskegee Airmen. The format seems to be: Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen followed by any type of issue that could lead the article being deleted. With so many articles needing attention, the active drive to only focus on deleting articles is concerning. Adam MLIS (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating an article for deletion because it has an "issue that could lead to the article being deleted" seems fairly regular operating procedure. If the article can be improved; by addressing the nominator's concerns; that would be a very strong argument for keeping, and will probably lead to the next person who wants to close this discussion in a week's time having a far easier job than me. Merely being concerned that there is a "drive to only focus on deleting articles" is not a particularly good reason, nor does it address the concerns about the suitability of this article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adam MLIS by "author appears to be very focused on deleting articles about Tuskegee Airmen" I assume that you are referring to me. I am very focussed on deleting pages where the subject fails BASIC. If you look at all the pages created by the User:Bluecountrymutt, you will see that I have gone through all of them, cleaned up and improved many of them and identified those that I believe fail BASIC and then PRODed and/or AFDed those. Mztourist (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Adam MLIS, a very gentle reminder to WP:AGF. The nominator has contributed substantively to the Tuskegee Airmen page and to pages on individual airmen; let's keep the discussion focused on whether the article subject has received WP:SIGCOV, a topic on which reasonable people working in good faith can disagree. Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles came from a CCI investigation, which I've linked to before in the hopes of generating some cleanup interest: Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Bluecountrymutt. Oddly, slugging it out at AfD seems to be much more interesting for many. These articles often share common issues: copyright violations, reliance on a handful of poor (and often non-RS) sources (CAF and related sites being the most common), and inherited notability (the person is assumed to be notable because they belonged to a notable unit). The question of reliance on non-RS sources is often dodged. Some of these individuals are notable, and their articles have been kept. Others are not once you get past the unit affiliation issue. Intothat darkness 00:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

darkness Read it again please. It is not the article it was when nominated. I hope you take another look - I and others have spent much time updating the article with RS. The person has significance. However, I have really said enough in this AfD - and rather than do a drive-by or slug it out at AfD I have been working on the article daily. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article...not less than an hour ago in fact. I don't agree that it's improved significantly, but that's not due to a lack of work and effort on your part (and others). It's because there simply isn't much to work with. If there was, we wouldn't need to rely on CAF at all...yet it still lingers in the article. And I still think it's better to get to these articles before they reach AfD...which is why I keep posting the CCI list link and have worked some of those articles myself. Intothat darkness 01:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I just corrected misattributed information in the article lede...which was part of the original article as created by the banned CCI individual. THIS is why it's better to hit these articles as part of the CCI cleanup as opposed to now. You have to check pretty much every existing source in addition to adding new ones (if they exist). Intothat darkness 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Finally having time to look at this article, I believe the subject meets WP:GNG, with sigcov in the Cooper book and the Christian Science Monitor article (both cited), in addition to other scattered mentions. Contrary to the nom, the CSM article looks like significant coverage to me, and it appears that editorial oversight and selective quoting were applied (i.e. it's not "just an interview" and should be treated as a secondary source). Suriname0 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content from CSM and Boy's Life is almost identical. Fuller's coverage in CSM amounts to three brief paragraphs including a single generic post-war anecdote, none of which in my view establish him as being notable beyond being a Tuskegee Airman. His individual military notability still appears to be based solely on Tuskegee. Intothat darkness 22:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For any discussion readers, I want to explicitly affirm that I still find the sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. A source with "three brief paragraphs" devoted to the subject is actually pretty good! (The essay at WP:NERROR suggests "two or more paragraphs of text focused on the topic at issue" as a rule of thumb, which is about where we are with this source.) In fact, relative to other sources used to establish used to establish notability in the AfD WP:BIO-related Keeps I've been involved in, I think the CSM article is well above the line as far as WP:SIGCOV goes. (I've complained before that WP:SIGCOV is the most ambiguous policy on Wikipedia, and absent firmer policy guidance we're forced to interpret by our own standards, which is why I lean on AfD precedent. If the precedent for sourcing standards are higher for soldiers specifically than for other article subjects, as is true for e.g. corporations, I would hope to see that reflected in a notability guideline somewhere, but I'd be happy to be informed by someone more familiar with soldier-related articles. It's an open secret that vastly different standards apply to articles depending on topic area, so to some degree I do want to defer to soldier-specific norms if they exist. My point is that if this were a bio of a living person, the existing sourcing would generally be sufficient to keep the article.) Regarding content overlap, I think it's generally a good thing when we see similar content appear in multiple reliable sources; I don't see any indication that one sources draws exclusively from the other, so I conclude the sources are independent of each other. Suriname0 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSM isn't SIGCOV by any standard, be it for corporations or soldiers. And Sigcov by itself isn't sufficient, you have to demonstrate that the content belongs to an encyclopedia (WP:NOTEVERYTHING, an actual policy as opposed to sigcov, a guideline). Significant coverage alone doesn't establish notability, especially if it's all run-of-the-mill content like Cooper 1996 (it just describes his career, but does not indicate why his career makes him notable in a way that others are not). And that's the best source that has been found so far. Avilich (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich, I'm a little confused by your comment. What about the article violates the WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy in your opinion? Suriname0 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, this is sufficient sourcing to pass WP:N. The keep voters are providing a more convincing argument. For many years, he was the only black flight instructor in his field, and he was recognized for his services both contemporaneously and in recent decades. Patiodweller (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sources presented so far are particularly impressive. The ubiquitous CAF with its user-submitted content continues to feature here, as do image galleries like Getty and that WW2 database (there's also a Youtube video). Several sources can be readily dismissed for providing only the briefest and most trivial coverage, such as Fleming 2013 (only says he served on 76 missions, without any commentary), Boys' Life 1994 (one single quotation, not independent), Jet 1993 (his name among several others in a minor honoring ceremony), and CSM (a single post-war anecdote, as Intothatdarkness explained above, and not strictly independent since it has direct quotes with no substantial commentary). The websites AviationOnline and LogicalThinker are probably unreliable, as is certainly Find A Grave. Cooper 1996, the only source to possess anything substantial, fails WP:ROUTINE. The entire article in its current form also fails ROUTINE. So, based on the current state of the sourcing, there's little to indicate that stands out particularly notably from the rest of the Airmen. Avilich (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is indeed consensus that Find-a-Grave is unreliable and its listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, so I've removed it and added a cite needed tag. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: deleting things to favor your desire for deletion is poor form. I see you also deleted a photo of Willie Fuller with Lena Horne. The photo is referenced and I have reinstated it in the article. Regarding FAGrave, There is literally a photo of the subject's grave marker on the link. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/182577495/willie-howell-fuller Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was legitimately deleted because its copyright status is unclear. Indy beetle deleted it, you reinstated it, I deleted it, you reinstated it, that's edit-warring. There is clear consensus that it should not be there until its copyright status is resolved. I have now nominated it for deletion. Find a Grave is not a Reliable Source. Adding photos of unclear copyright status is the poor form here. Mztourist (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I have asked you allow others to participate here without refuting every keep argument. Deleting a reference which includes a photo of the actual grave marker of fuller seems exteme, but ok - the information can be verified elsewhere. Deleting a public domain publicity photo also seems extreme. My offer on your talk page stands. This is a consensus based encyclopedia and all depends on who shows up. My fear is that they will be hesitant to participate in what has become a tendentious debate - each keep ivote has a refutation - it is a bit much. I acknowledge my over-participation as well. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, you are lying about the the copyright status of a photo, that's the height of intellectual dishonesty here and could expose us to copyright vio claims. Neither the LaGrange book nor the HuffPost article identify it as a US Gov photo, and yet you repeatedly claim it is. It may very well be, but that is not certain. It was also incredibly misleading of you to originally label that photo with the note "There is not commercial interest in this photo" when it was published in a book by a publishing company (Arcadia) that basically makes all of its money on books of photo collections and when it was the centrepiece of a HuffPost article. If you find a reliable source which indicates its origins as PD then I will happily drop my efforts here. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Lightburst you are asserting without any evidence that the photo is in the public domain. Its clear that you uploaded it and are trying to keep it in order to inflate this poorly referenced page and claim that just because he appeared in a photo with someone famous he's notable. If you want the photo to stay then it is your responsibility to prove that it is in the public domain. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain- do a reverse google search. Why do you suppose the military took photos of stars with military? To sell them? There are three of you and your desire to erase this article is about the most incredible tendentious behavior I have seen on the project, since the Bachelor Lake AfD. I improved the article, and then moved on, but you three are gardening this deletion. Meanwhile I am editing the Harold Brown (Tuskegee Airman) article. I am not even following this food fight anymore. I only noticed because indy erased the photo again. Take this concern to WP:FFD. Or diminish the article to favor deletion. I am not going to edit war, or continue this tit for tat. Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what does your "reverse google search" show? It shows that the photo appears on various websites, but it does not in any way confirm that it is in the public domain. You keep stating without any evidence that the military took it, well PROVEIT, because unless you can show it was taken by the US Government or has otherwise been released from copyright it is not public domain. Delighted that you're improving other notable Tuskegee Airmen pages that are infected with the creator's copyright abuse, but you should not be creating more CCIs by adding photos such as this. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A photo being reproduced a lot on the internet in no way indicates it’s in the public domain. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The status of the picture has YTBD.

And yet ~~Major~~ Captain Fuller is surely buried in that cemetery. Your repeated insistence on 'policy' that Find a grave is "not a reliable source" may be true, but it really doesn't negate the underlying fact.

To be sure, the national VA burial lookup doesn't include him. We have verified his service, of course. And I have been unable to find any other source on line.

However, gutting the article's contents while an extended and contentious WP:AFD is pending looks like deck stacking. But you know that already. YMMV. But I'll WP:AGF and move along. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller left the service as a Captain, not a Major. Intothat darkness 23:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, if you want to challenge the standing consensus of 6 discussions regarding the reliability of Find A Grave (the last of which was conducted earlier this year), go right ahead. Also, in regards to but it really doesn't negate the underlying fact, we rest on the policy of WP:VERIFY, not truth. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about his rank. I confabulate him with another. But he is buried where he is buried. Find a grave is right. Unless you have imagined a contrary source and result, that is. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're implying I'm imagining sources, I'd suggest you take a step back. I've already had to correct at least three instances of imagination in this article (all related to inaccurate use of sources). And let's ask the difficult question: would Fuller be getting an article if he wasn't inheriting notability from his unit? Without that cache, would the sources be considered reliable and sufficient? I tend to think he wouldn't based on source evaluation. Can anyone demonstrate that the former Confederate Air Force site is reliable? I've found too many errors in their articles to believe they are. What RS there is all stems from his unit affiliation. Maybe someone could find something in his career with the Boy Scouts to bolster his notability (I did a quick search and didn't find anything, but it could be out there). But if the only claim to notability rests with his military career...it just isn't there once you take the unit away. Intothat darkness 02:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Okay, well, forget about all those sources for a minute: I have found some new good ones. As with the other Tuskegee AfD, a very half-assed newspaper search brought me no less than eight usable references, which on their own seem to support nearly all of the article's content. I've added them, incorporated information into the article, and copyedited it some as well. I think that this renders irrelevant most of the previous kerfluffu over CAF Rise Above (CRA) and Find-A-Grave (which I will not abbreviate). I do not understand how arguments over the merits of sourcing can rage for weeks without anyone having done this. I'll ping previous participants who expressed concerns about sourcing quality to have another look: @Mztourist:, @Peacemaker67:, @Intothatdarkness:, @Avilich:, @GPL93:, @Onel5969:, @Reyk:, @Indy beetle:, @4meter4:, @RandomCanadian: jp×g 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources in question are these: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] jp×g 22:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Exhibit Honors 'Lonely Eagles'". The Times Recorder. Zanesville, Ohio. 1985-01-06. p. 19.
^ "Cadet Officers Receive Awards". The Montgomery Advertiser. Montgomery, Alabama. 1940-05-21. p. 10.
^ "Willie Howell Fuller". The Miami Herald. Miami, Florida. 1995-01-04. p. 22.
^ "What Negroes Are Doing". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-08-16. p. 11.
^ "More Tuskegee Men Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 5.
^ "'Lonely Eagles' flew to fight color barrier". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa, Florida. 1984-12-25. p. 38.
^ "Untitled Clipping". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-06-19. p. 4.
^ "'Capt. Roberts First Negro Squad Commander'——Rouzeau". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-10-09. p. 13.

Comment - Since I sometimes find it confusing when presented with a list of refs of mixed relevance, I'll save the trouble for other discussion readers: [1] and [6] are the same syndicated news story, [3] is a bylined obit. The rest are passing mentions. Certainly the obit constitutes WP:SIGCOV and is appreciated for further meeting WP:GNG. (Of course, the other sources may be useful for replacing lower-quality sources in the article as well, but not for establishing notability.) Suriname0 (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great work jp. I feel silly now that I did not access my newspaper account until today. I only did it to search the 1945 photo of Fuller and Horne. But more exists as the editor above has noted.

1985 Florida

1943 Mississippi

When he got his wings

etc.

And so on. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a photo caption with zero coverage, and last one doesn't even mention the subject apparently...? Do you have a minimum of diligence while doing your research, or do you just WP:NOTEBOMB in the hope that someone (FeydHuxtable below) will be swayed by quantity rather than quality of the sources? All of yours and jpg's sources miserably fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE ("Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article"). Finding a picture, his name in a graduation or casualty roster, or a brief quote in an interview does not prove he was anything out of the ordinary. Avilich (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more WP:REFBOMBING. 1 and 6 are the same AP story with just a quote by him. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are namechecks only. The only story of any substance is 3, a short obituary that just confirms the existing page content. While we now have ref overkill of various mundane details, we still do not have a reliable source that he was a flight instructor which several Users above argue is a claim to his notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the suggestion that an article citing sources for its claims is "ref overkill", as this seems to conflict directly with WP:V. The statements made by an article should be supported by references -- there is really no two ways about it. His status as a flight instructor is mentioned in the third reference here (I don't have access to the print sources that were used to write the article before I edited it, so I can't cite them about whether he did so while in the military). jp×g 08:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref overkill means that multiple refs are given to support the same claim eg. 2nd para of lede with 6 refs, 2nd para of body with 5 refs, 1st sentence of 3rd para of body with 4 refs. The Miami Herald obit says that he was a flying instructor after the war, but the lede states that "He was the only black flight instructor until December 1944" with the unreliable CAF as the only reference for this. Mztourist (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what ref overkill means. jp×g 22:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then you explain it. You're avoiding addressing that there is no RS that "He was the only black flight instructor until December 1944" Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an explanation for content that other people put in the article prior to my edits, as I do not own the page. If you have concerns about the way the article's written, the talk page would be a great place to bring them up. jp×g 11:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteable airman & trailblazer. Unconvinced by the delete analyses of the WP:RS. Improvements by Lightburst & JPxG are impressive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moderately/somewhat notable member of very notable group. Yeah, it's not great, and the sourcing is not great, but I don't care: the sourcing indicates well enough that this man did things that would have been all over the press if the press at the time had cared a bit more. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Not great" sourcing would seem to indicate a lack of individual notability. Once again, if you take away unit membership you have a rather average pilot with a rather average and short career. I've also seen no evidence of notability from his time with with Boy Scouts. If there was, that might raise him above the bar in my view. But even the laudatory obits don't say much about it. Intothat darkness 17:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You admit that the sourcing is nothing out of the ordinary, but you 'don't care' and base your keep on a speculation that this might not have been the case in some unimaginable alternate scenario. This is of course no argument for keeping, but it's the most honest one yet, since it's the only one to grapple with the arguments brought against the current referencing, instead of ignoring/dismissing them altogether. Avilich (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment its hilarious that all the !Keep voters still haven't noticed the error on this page. Mztourist (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarity is fly specking as an argument. Stop picking flyshit out of pepper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing you made this edit: [9], really adds to your argument. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mztourist Such animosity. One would think you would correct the error in the article before you dissect the edits of an editor on an AfD - After all we are building an encyclopedia. I just checked back to see if the tone here changed. Nope. Lightburst (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rich coming from you User:Lightburst. I note you have no problem with User:7&6=thirteen's comments, telling. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as with the other Tuskegee Airmen I am happy to keep these as separate articles as I feel the sourcing is adequate, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. Besides, the article has been significantly improved since nomination for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know that I'd call this significantly improved. Reshuffled, perhaps, but not a significant addition of notable content about the individual. Intothat darkness 15:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm right on the fence regarding this, I'm not sure. It's probably better to keep than delete in such cases. But as maybe a compromise: (if) deleted, could some of the content be merged into List of Tuskegee Airmen or List of Tuskegee Airmen Cadet Pilot Graduation Classes? Dege31 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to a list merge for most of these individuals. It at least acknowledges that in most cases any notability comes from unit affiliation. I remain unconvinced most of these people would even HAVE articles if they hadn't been at Tuskegee. Intothat darkness 15:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, it is not up to you. Incessant repetition only exposes the weakness of your position. I WP:AGF, but enough already. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what repetition? Dege31 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dege31 I was not referring to you. It's like being in a hall of mirrors. It does not add to anyone's understanding, and is unconvincing by virtue of the repetition repetition repetition ... ad nauseum. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny considering your 'keep' rationale that doesn't address sourcing issues or notability in any way at all. I was agreeing with Dege31's idea about merging content into a list. And you don't have the authority to tell anyone 'enough already.' Intothat darkness 20:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Res ipsa loquitur 7&6=thirteen (☎) 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was made twenty-eight days ago, so I think any potential humor has long since been drained from the subject; is there really nothing better for us to do than camp out here and argue? jp×g 04:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please close this discussion? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and Avilich have both requested a close, so hopefully it happens soon. Personally, I have said everything I think needs to be said (if it convinces people, I'll be glad, and if it doesn't convince people, I'll still be glad we could talk about it). jp×g 12:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Not notable and no real sigcov. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Advait (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I find the list of newspaper sources unconvincing since the coverage in each is trivial (like a caption identifying Lawson in a group photo) and the sum of several zeros is still zero. However, there is more merit in the paragraph from the Charles Francis book. It is debatable how much weight this should be given, but the majority of the participants here have considered it sufficient to be a basis for non-trivial coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter I. Lawson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio) and dePRODed. Sources 1 and 2 are from CAF a User contribution site so not RS. 3) his mother's obit isn't linked so have no idea what it says. 4) is a very brief mention in a local paper. 5) is RS but is a mere listing. 6) is about the crash in which he died. 7) and 8) are an author's blog with just a passing mentions of him. The sources accordingly do not meet WP:GNG as they don't amount to significant coverage as they don't address the topic directly and in detail WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members. A Google search reveals nothing of note. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - In addition to the sources above, I identified a 1-paragraph bio in this book^[1] and a smattering of other mentions in academic sources about e.g. leading particular missions. Taken together, I would characterize the coverage as "non-trivial, but passing and not in-depth". Following WP:BASIC, ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.") I think they just clear the bar. Suriname0 (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable airman, fails GNG. I have read Suriname0's argument above, but fall on the other side of the question of notability. There is not enough in the reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC as explained well by Suriname0. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Peacemaker67 and nom. Like Peacemaker, I don't feel this clears the bar. Intothat darkness 22:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking in RS and SIGCOV even considering the paragraph in the book reference. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Francis, Charles E. (1997). The Tuskegee airmen: the men who changed a nation (4th, rev., up-dated, and enl ed.). Boston: Branden Pub. p. 278. ISBN 9780828320290. CPT Lawson was another pioneer of the 99th, who received very little credit for the part he played in carrying the battle to the enemy. .... Lawson was sent overseas with the first group of pilots of the 99th. In combat he distinguished himself as one of the most aggressive and daring pilots.

Keep per WP:NEXIST - we do not determine that an article should be deleted based on what is in the article:instead we do a WP:BEFORE. Subject meets WP:ANYBIO Tuskegee Airmen were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 2007. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Congressional Gold Medal only confers notability if only awarded directly to an individual and does not do so for groups. For WWII service alone, Congress has awarded Gold Medals to Chinese-American servicemen (up to 20,000 members), members of the Civil Air Patrol (200,000 members) and the Montford Point Marines (20,000+), among others. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom are the highest civilian awards in the United States but we also have a N pass per WP:NEXIST and for this Airmen's historic contribution to the integration of the US Army Air Force. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED applies, belonging to a notable organization does not confer notability on individual members. A unit award of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen does not satisfy #1 of WP:ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay not a policy. WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE are actual policies we can apply here. Lightburst (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED is a WP:COMMONSENSE essay developed from numerous deletion discussions. You have already stated elsewhere that "One day I hope we can create an article for every last one of these heroes." so your !vote is not based on policy but WP:ILIKEIT. Mztourist (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More essays and more WP:ADHOM ? Lets let some other editors have a say. Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to let other Users have a say, but cannot accept you repeatedly misrepresenting the Congressional Gold Medal as satisfying #1 of ANYBIO or just being a member of the Tuskegee Airmen as satisfying #2 of ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You poisoned the well with the first sentence of your rationale. See I too can repeat myself over and over. It seems you cannot resist attacking a rationale that differs from your own interpretation. Be confident in your prods and AfDs. It is likely that a few more editors will be along soon. This back and forth is useless and mind numbing. Lightburst (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No wells poisoned by a completely factual statement. I am perfectly confident in my PRODs and AFDs. Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Throwing around Nexist, Atd, Preserve, and Anybio without demonstrating their applicability is no substitute to providing reliable sources and significant coverage. With regards to Anybio, there are no RSs showing that an award granted after the subject's death and not to him specifically (he is not mentioned by name on the award) makes him notable. As for the rest, the few RSs available seem to contain only a handful of sentences outlining WP:ROUTINE job and career developments. The rest are just image galleries or unreliable sources like CAF. Avilich (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per Suriname0 Keep. Fulfils WP:BASIC. That source does say that he "distinguished himself as one of the most aggressive and daring pilots". In combination with the other references and the Congressional Gold Medal, I see no good reason to delete this. Behindthekeys (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Francis is such a great source, why hasn't it been added to the article? The main sources used are still non-RS (CAF being the primary offender), and many of the links to the American Air Museum in Britain aren't supported by the site itself. The squadron information hosted by that site is also a direct port from Wikipedia, and content also appears to be user-submitted as well. Intothat darkness 18:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Suriname0. Passes WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Suriname0. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per explanation of Suriname0, this passes WP:BASIC. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the purpose behind BASIC is "can we write a factual, neutrally-written article that contains enough encyclopedic information to inform a reader about the topic?" Upon reading the article and reviewing the citations, the answer is "yes." I agree that being part of a large group of medal recipeints does not necessarily meet ANYBIO absent other indications of notability, but this honor, combined with BASIC, indicates that Wikipedia is improved by the inclusion of this article, and would be lessened by its absence. If the information contained in this article were controversial and unsourced by reasonable standards, then I would feel differently, but this has not been demonstrated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." if you actually look at the sources it is clear that those requirements are not met. Mztourist (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frankly, WP:MILL or WP:ROUTINE are often invoked in contexts where they make little sense. It could be said, for example, that sources pertaining to Franklin Pierce are simple routine run-of-the-mill coverage from newspapers and books that report on every President of the United States. It might be true, even -- but it would be irrelevant to notability. Like the concurrent nomination of Willie H. Fuller, there isn't a really cogent argument against the best sources presented (i.e. the ones given earlier in this discussion). Surely, some of the sources are not so good, and surely the article can be rewritten to avoid them. I am not seeing a real issue with that. jp×g 00:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The cogent argument is BASIC which requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." requirements that are not met for Lawson or Fuller. Mztourist (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep selectively quoting BASIC. It's fine you don't believe the first bullet point is applicable in this case, but some of the rest of us believe that it applies. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more (or less, for that matter) true. See WP:BLUDGEON. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be reasonable dispute whether the provided sources are sufficient to meet GNG. Given the discussion on this aspect is essentially assertions to two contrary positions (and since discussions are not votes, so comments asserting "per X" when X's arguments are not convincing or have been disputed are not considered), and there is no analysis of each individual source (see Template:source assess); it seems most prudent to relist, because, to me, the discussion "seems to be lacking (convincing) arguments based on policy".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regards to Suriname's source, which seems to be the sole reason everyone is voting keep, this is the extent of the coverage it offers about the subject's career as an Airman: Lawson was sent overseas with the first group of pilots of the 99th. In combat he distinguished himself as one of the most aggressive and daring pilots. That's it: his unit number and some rhetorical flair. The other sources that have been made available to the moment are as follows.

CAF, website with user-submitted content, unreliable
A tiny newspaper entry with a passing mention of his name among others, reporting their enrollment as trainees: trivial coverage
A museum database, with only a portrait, dates of birth and death, and unit number: trivial coverage
Congress resolution awarding medal to the airmen: primary source, no actual coverage, fails 'not inherited'
Aviation Safety Network database entry of the airplane in which Lawson died: no coverage at all
Aircraft-themed website, used only for that digression on footnote A and does not mention the subject at all
'Liberty Lady Book' website: coverage amounts to the same as Suriname's source, adding that he died in an air crash
Dryden 2005 ref, apparently a first-hand account of a colleague of his: most of the subject's mentions are passing, usually just outlining his presence in some random event or recollection – run-of-the-mill and superficial coverage

It's not too inaccurate to say that the coverage so far is quite unsatisfactory. The length of the 'Military career' section is kind of a dead giveaway already. Avilich (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree with the thrust of this comment. I haven't been following this discussion closely, but I voted "Weak" Keep based on a simple source I found in a few minutes of searching. Other Keep voters would be well-served to identify additional WP:SIGCOV in the many book sources that may discuss Lawson, or to bring the academic mentions of Lawson's actions during the war into this discussion so that those can be discussed substantively. (To be clear, I DO think the two-sentence "rhetorical" flair constitutes significant coverage, but it's certainly not enough to write an article around; we need the rest of the passing mentions in other sources for that. All the unit affiliation and congressional medal stuff is a red herring imo, and doesn't really influence my consideration of whether Lawson meets WP:GNG, which I think they [just barely] do.) Suriname0 (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess to not even slightly understand what "rhetorical flair" is supposed to mean here. There was information about the man, specific to him, but it doesn't count as information because it had rhetorical flair? jp×g 00:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur with Avilich. Like many of these articles there is an over-reliance on non-RS sources (CAF being one), inherited notability based on unit affiliation, and what often amount to namechecks with some rhetoric thrown in (the Francis source, which hasn't even been added to the article as of the time of this post). The American Air Museum source sounds impressive until (as I pointed out before) you dig into it and discover it's based on user-submitted content (including elements ported directly from Wikipedia). This is a problem with many of these articles, not just this one. Strident defenses and poorly-chosen comparisons (found in another AfD for Tuskegee Airmen) don't change the fact that the sourcing for these articles is incredibly weak in many cases and often circular. Intothat darkness 00:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, Avilich's analysis is on the money, most of the info about this guy is sourced to websites of dubious reliability, with wikifunctions or otherwise relying on usersubmitted content. I have no idea what the "Lillian Lawson Obituary" actually refers to, since there is no provided weblink or even a name and date of a newspaper edition in which it might have been published. The substance of the Francis book mention is that "Lawson was sent overseas with the first group of pilots of the 99th". The bulk of the sources (and arguments for keep) here seem to lay on the fact that he belonged to a group of 922 people and that the group was important. The Lady Liberty Book and site are WP:SELFPUBLISHed (therefore not reliable): The author's Linked-in page says that Beaver's Spur Publishing is "A single member Limited Liability Company formed by author Pat DiGeorge to publish her book LIBERTY LADY: A True Story of Love and Espionage in WWII Sweden." -Indy beetle (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I figured that, after this many bytes of verbal combat, someone surely would have bothered to do a newspapers search. Apparently this was not the case; I am currently going through about fifty results for Lawson and incorporating relevant ones as references to the article. jp×g 21:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to come up with a couple newspaper references about Lawson. They include significant coverage of him, his career, his family, and the events described in the article. Oh, did I say "a couple"? I meant "twenty-three". It's baffling that this AfD could plod on for sixteen days, with nobody on either side doing basic literature search. Pinging previous participants who expressed concerns about quality of sourcing (@Peacemaker67:, @Intothatdarkness:, @GPL93:, @Avilich:, @Indy beetle:, @Mztourist:): here's what you were looking for.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23] jp×g 21:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the provision of the newspaper sources. These are mostly sporadic mentions or simply "here is a photo of some Tuskegee Airmen, Lawson is one of them". -Indy beetle (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Cleo Lawson, 76, Widow of Tuskegee Airman". Newsday. Suffolk Edition (Melville, New York. 1994-02-22. p. 81.
^ "More Tuskegee Men Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 5.
^ "8 Cadets Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 1.
^ "What Negroes Are Doing". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-08-16. p. 11.
^ "Fourth Class Starts Tuskegee Air Course". The Selma Times-Journal. Selma, Alabama. 1941-12-12. p. 2.
^ "2 Area Airmen Among 12 Hurt in B-50 Crash". Sioux City Journal. Sioux City, Iowa. 1952-02-28. p. 8.
^ "Release Names In Omaha Crash". The Beatrice Times. Beatrice, Nebraska. 1952-02-28. p. 10.
^ "Dead In Crash Of B50 Bomber Are Identified". The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, California. 1952-02-27. p. 27.
^ "Airmen killed in crash are named". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Fort Worth, Texas. 1952-02-27. p. 4.
^ "Wrecked B-50 Ramey Plane". Tucson Daily Citizen. Tucson, Arizona. 1952-02-27. p. 13.
^ "Victims Identified In Crash Of B-50". Alabama Journal. Montgomery, Alabama. 1952-02-27. p. 2.
^ "Air Force Shift Now Under Way; 66 Moved". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1949-06-18. p. 4.
^ "Five Pilots of the History-Making 99th Return to the United States". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-11-06. p. 5.
^ "Nose Dive Of Plane Into River Ends Graduation Hopes Of Youthful Cadet". The Detroit Tribune. Detroit, Michigan. 1942-06-13. p. 1.
^ "Cadet Killed In Army Plane Crash". The Tuskegee News. Tuskegee, Alabama. 1942-06-11. p. 1.
^ "Two Plane Accidents Kill Three White, One Negro Army Aviators". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-06-09. p. 12.
^ "Negro Flier Killed As Plane Falls in River". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa, Florida. 1942-06-09. p. 5.
^ "Negro Flying Cadet Killed". The Decatur Daily. Decatur, Alabama. 1942-06-09. p. 2.
^ "Power Line Cut By Plane Crash". Alabama Journal. Montgomery, Alabama. 1942-06-08. p. 1.
^ "Five Hampton Students Named Air Corps Cadets". Hartford Courant. Hartford, Connecticut. 1941-01-29. p. 12.
^ "Select Five For Training". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. 1941-01-29. p. 9.
^ "McLurkin-Lawson". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1967-03-26. p. 76.
^ "Join 99th Air Squad". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-01-24. p. 13.

Comment none of this is in-depth or particularly significant coverage. The vast majority simply name the subject amongst people who joined the AAF/graduated flight school or those who were involved in plane crashes. I mean, sources 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 are literally the exact same AP report listing Lawson among the victims of the 1952 crash with no additional personal information included. One is his wife's obit and another is a paid-for engagement announcement. @JPxG: which of these actually go into depth? Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are all plane crash reports, obituaries of relatives, graduation lists, or plain photo captions. Of course plane crashes are interesting events in their immediate aftermath, whence the media coverage; should the other victims ("Two Plane Accidents Kill Three White, One Negro Army Aviators") have wikipedia articles as well? Lawson is gets no more coverage in any of these sources than in those already provided. Instead of WP:REFBOMBING, can you give WP:THREE sources definitely showing that he stands out enough among his colleagues that he in particular deserves an encyclopedia entry? Dying in a plane crash, having relatives who died, graduating and serving in a notable unit are not evidence for that. Avilich (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: I'll write this as a response to @GPL93: as well. Essentially, what I have is what I've given you here, which is indeed as you describe it. If you don't think the addition of these references warrants changing your opinion, I respect that, and I won't press the issue; I appreciate you having taken the time to read through them, at any rate. jp×g 11:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the WP:BASIC argument put forward by 78.26. Enough sources have been added or mentioned in this discussion to show that Walter I. Lawson is notable and does deserve to have a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none of the newspaper mentions bring this up to satisfy BASIC, I agree that this is just REFBOMBING. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm afraid that it gets pretty close to passing notability, but not quite enough. However, maybe some of the content could be merged into List of Tuskegee Airmen or List of Tuskegee Airmen Cadet Pilot Graduation Classes? Dege31 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - withdrawn by nominator. Michig (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker (1990 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search. No reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reviews at Variety [10] and TV Guide [11] DonaldD23 talk to me 22:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDb lists 15 reviews ([12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]), of which enough count towards establishing notability to meet our requirements. TompaDompa (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there are reviews from TV Guide and Variety. I don’t know why I was unable to find those reviews on my BEFORE search. Nevertheless, I withdraw this nomination since the reviews exist. The Film Creator (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Fighters[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES. No reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found a link from Entertainment Weekly but nothing else. Needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this looks like a reasonable review, and I'm seeing V met by sites like TVGuide, Amazon Prime, etc. It's clearly real, and apparently awful. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- More name drops in an obituary of Piper, and an an article that seems like a perfect place for it to be covered... But name drops are all what I am seeing. It's apparently not so bad that it's fun to make fun of like Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Surf Nazis Must Die. What I'm seeing pretty much validates the before. I'd Merge it into Piper's article where it's already mentioned and linked, although that might end up looking more like a redirect because this appears to be one of Piper's many forgettable films. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roddy Piper: Not enough coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article. ––FormalDude talk 06:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMDb lists 9 reviews ([27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]), though they seem to mostly be blogs. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. EW is okay, IGN is reliable, and this is significant. Staying in Europe we have one not-so-long-and-significant German one, one not-so-long-and-significant Dutch one, the short TV Guide, but then again longer reviews from websites I'm not familiar with: this and this. A passing mention in a book. Geschichte (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm agree with Geschichte.Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per WP:NEXIST since the film is mentioned in existing reliable sources such as Entertainment Weekly and IGN. The Film Creator (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last Hour[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and there are no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMDb lists 6 reviews ([36][37][38][39][40][41]), of which enough count towards establishing notability to meet our requirements. TompaDompa (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least per the German reviews cited above, in conjunction with another German review here and this. This time around, TV guide is short and the Dutch is not much to go by. Geschichte (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Explorers[edit]

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

I tried to rescue this by looking for sources to estabilish notability, but I am finding next to nothing, some websites of dubious reliability (fansites, etc.) plus some discussion of this in a book by one of the creators (so not really an independent source). It reads like something that should be cult and notable (American Space Era animated flick using Soviet footage...), but sadly I failed in proving this is the case. Time for trial by fire, and I really would like to be proven wrong here, with this rescued. But if we cannot do this, this may need to go (perhaps some ATD in a form of redirect could work, but redirect where?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 24 September 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} 09:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fred Ladd. I can't really see where this is discussed outside of Ladd. It's discussed in his article and we could maybe merge some light info there, but other than that there's not enough to show independent notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Did you see this? Looks like it might have been something important, but I can't tell where it may have been published, nor whether it talks about this topic in detail. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens The link points to an expire cloud storage file? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see a PDF entitled "An absolutely fascinating period piece ...": WELTRAUMSCHIFF I STARTET by Joerg Hartmann, which is substantially in German but appears to at least mention this... I think. Not saying it's great, notice the lack of bolded !vote, but it's the best a few minutes of looking could find. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping User:Daranios, whose German should be much better than mine :> _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus and Jclemens: Oh yes, that is indeed a promising source, and I'd definitely count it as significant treatment. If you want to judge the volume for yourself, the section "9. Die späte Rezeption: THE SPACE EXPLORERS im US-TV", page 22 + 23 top is almost wholly about The Space Explorers. It contains information about production history and motivation, a short plot summary, praises the special effects and comments on the popularity of the series and its impact by inspiring engineers and pilots to get involved in space flight. Hope that helps. Daranios (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are secondary sources after all: In addition to ""An absolutely fascinating period piece …": WELTRAUMSCHIFF I STARTET" discussed above, and the short/very short treatment in the two sources already in the article, I've come upon an article directly about the series by the Encyclopedia Astronautica, which seems a legitimate source as far as I can tell. So together these should nicely fulfill WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I am afraid EA is a one-person fansite ("It is maintained by space enthusiast and author Mark Wade.") and I doubt it is notable (I will be likely AfDing Encyclopedia Astronautica). Remember, folks, not everything that calls itself "an encyclopedia" is reliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but the American Astronautical Society gave that site an award which "recognizes exceptional, sustained efforts to inform and educate on spaceflight and its history through one or more media". That should go a long way towards establishing reliability in that field. When doing a WP:BEFORE search for the Encyclopedia Astronautica you might want to consider that site and the other secondary source used in the German version of that article, and perhaps ping me if you are so kind. But that's another discussion. The Space Explorers also appear in another book, Fantastisches in dunklen Sälen. I can only see a preview though, which consists of two sentences that confirm the history and support by the space race climate. Maybe more, maybe not. Daranios (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Encyclopedia Astronautica is also worth checking out. Seems people who know something about it say it's reliable while those who don't get stuck on the self-published. I think a couple more sources along with evidence it has been cited in reliable sources (eg. academic papers) would go a long way. FWIW the article dates to March 2002 it is ancient nearing the Big Bang. -- GreenC 15:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the reception section, also using another secondary source, an article from the Telepolis online magazine, which has about a paragraph on The Space Explorers. So I think what is now already in the article shows that secondary sources beat WP:WHYN, without even using all of them, or using them fully. Daranios (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough evidence to suggest this is worth keeping and enough reliable independent sources to pass GNG. The website http://www.thespaceexplorers.com/ contains a ton of fascinating information provided to the website by the makers of the film ie. reliable information as primary, but not inherently notable due to being self-published. -- GreenC 17:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Daranios. SpinningSpark 00:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't see a consensus to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield University Orienteering Club[edit]

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

I am unable to find independent notability of this orienteering club, although some alum are notable. There's no indication they're notable because of their particiaption here. ATD considered include merges to: Sheffield University (no, open also to Sheffield Hallam students) and British Orienteering Federation (not mentioned, nor are the others do DUE a factor). Star Mississippi 18:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to: Sheffield University. It is a club of that university. The fact that it is open to students of another university in Sheffield is not relevant. --Bduke (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student clubs are almost invariably non-notable - most colleges and universities have a wide range of clubs, and these generally provide outlets for student interests, but make no impact on broader society or on particular fields of human endeavour. For this club to be notable, we would need to see proof that it has something special - a consistent over-representation in UK teams over many years, or consistent innovation in approaches to orienteering, or something - anything - that would make it stand out. The references do not provide evidence of such notability. There is little here that can reasonably be merged into Sheffield University. RomanSpa (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose merge per RomanSpa.4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and oppose merge.Janero (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC) As the original author of this page my automatic reaction is oppose deletion. In the UK there are only two really strong university orienteering clubs - Sheffield and Edinburgh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_University_Orienteering_Club They are almost always in the top two for UK University championships and strongly complete at a national level. Both pages have similar formats and are probably the only reference for some of the history of the clubs - current students don't really like documenting history. It makes the citability of the page hard, and my recollection is that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the a source itself but has become it perhaps. It does appear however that few of the UK orienteering clubs are represented here (only 5 of the 100+ UK clubs are listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Orienteering_clubs_in_the_United_Kingdom) and if ShUOC isn't notable then none of them will be. I would oppose merge as little value in merging in with the main university page as it would not be of interest of visitors of that page.[reply]
Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL club, lacks in-depth coverage in independent WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete. While the club isn't run of the mill, per Janero, I'm afraid that the page is original research almost entirely. I understand that it's a concern that it may perhaps be valuable, but in that case, I advise you to copy the information elsewhere. As it stands, there simply isn't any coverage in reliable sources on it. Dege31 (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- However, I think just all associated sources should be added and then we see where we stand. Dege31 (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, agree the information may be valuable but does not meet standards for notability. Vanteloop (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am Buidheann Dubh[edit]

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

Completely non-notable advocacy group. Has been tagged as not notable since 2012. Cannot find any reliable third party coverage of this group other than the very occasional mention that just indicates they exist. No real third party coverage. Not sure what more to say, but they completely fail notability guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The group's twitter account is still active, and I added some references. I think the media coverage is enough to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with proposer. Clear non notability and despite efforts at new references by Eastmain, notability is still not established. Strong argument for it also being self-promotion/publicity. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable. The reliability and quality of the sources is questionable, pressreader.com is a copy of an article from the Scottish Daily Mail, and the wiki article on The Digger notes this to be a local publication. EdwardUK (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the comments above that the group does not appear to have the notability or level of coverage that would be expected for it to have its own article on Wikipedia. Dunarc (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airlangga Residences[edit]

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

The article describes a twin skyscraper project. The taller tower is a vision, and was never completed, and the shorter tower is completed as shown in the article Ritz-Carlton Jakarta. The visioned tall skyscraper is not really notable enough to have its own article. A mention of it in the proper article could be a good option. There is a page at the skyscrapercenter.com site dedicated to the supertall tower, but it has very minimal info. Galebazz (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Galebazz (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanh Hoa Airport[edit]

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

This article, previously named New Thanh Hoa Airport, was tagged for deletion as a blatant hoax. The only source for the airport no longer existed. It wasn't clear to me that it was a hoax, but it also wasn't clear to me that it exists or, even if it does, whether it meets WP:GNG. The sources I found for its existence were all travel websites, which I chose not to use to support its existence because even they were confusing. If I understand properly, big if, there is a military airport called Tho Xuan Airport, and Thanh Hoa Airport was at one time planned to be a civilian addition serving just Vietnam. The issue is whether it was ever built. Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IFFHS Top 200 European clubs of the 20th century[edit]

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

The general article about this was deleted in 2013: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century. This is just a subset of that article for European countries, so should be deleted too, as it's even less notable, and definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no purpose, it's just a mirror of the IFFHS info. Last AFD applies. Giant Snowman 16:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of the standalone notability of this list, and there's no context here either. No point in Wikipedia serving as a simple mirror of the IFFHS website. – Pee Jay 16:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needless stats and pov, already justifiable for delete based on previous AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per NOM, per previous AfD. Paul W (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Pointless. Nothing else to add. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG and WP:NOTMIRROR also potentially applies Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are not met properly. A lot is missing on the notability window. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bigg Boss (Hindi season 15)[edit]

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

This has been hijacked from a redirect multiple times. I'm not sure if this is "notable" at the moment. Inviting comments from other editors. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Show has articles for the consecutive season and the show seems to be in prominence so no reason to delete. Jibran1998 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Show has started to broadcast. Sourcing is (as usual) rather poor but should improve. There's some likely sock activity on the article (mostly KaranSharma0445) but enough good editors are there. Ravensfire (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The show has started airing, and there is coverage to meet WP:TVSHOW now. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable TV show and passes WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notableJackattack1597 (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draftspace: Draft:Bayonet Records. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonet Records[edit]

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

No indication of notability, only independent source in the article is a blog post. A search for sources doesn't show any coverage of this company, merely mentions albums being released by this label. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This label has an interesting slate of artists, some of whom are notable, though the label itself doesn't appear to meet WP:ORGCRIT at this time. KidAd • SPEAK 18:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify given the potential of significant improvement. --Yoonadue (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per KidAd.4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As per KidAd. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HSBC Bank Middle East. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulfattah Sharaf[edit]

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

regionalCEO of an international bank. The references are just routine noticesof appointments, notsubstantialcoverage. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I, quite literally, do not even remember creating this page, or why I did. Do as you see fit. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Though I would note that notability is meant to be determined by a determination of the material that IS available, not just what is sourced in the article - try a news search: you'll find plenty of current updates, recent interviews, public profiles etc. for the man. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The present sources are clearly crap, but the guy looks to be fairly prominent in the UAE banking industry beyond his role at HSBC. Better sources could clearly be found. I've added the needing update, cleanup and BLP citations tags regardless. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HSBC Bank Middle East per WP:ATD-R. The CEO (even a regional one) of the largest bank in the middle east is a probable search term.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HSBC Bank Middle East per above. Not independently notable, but HSBC Bank Middle East certainly is a notable company so the CEO of that company is a related topic with possible searches. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reliable, independent sources have been found, demonstrating GNG is met. However, it appears that many unreliable sources are in the article, and should be removed (as should any information relying soly on these unreliable sources). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Le Ceneri Di Heliodoro[edit]

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

No notability. Source doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:NM#Albums. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 12:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 12:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 12:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article's creator removed the AfD notice; it has been restored. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rome (band). This act seems to get inconsistent media notice. Some of its more recent albums got some reviews in genre publications, but for this album I can find nothing but this fairly softball interview: [42]. Not enough for a standalone article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article have 3 references --- Slagmannen924 16:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Found two more interviews about the album, one in German[43] and one in English[44]. --- Slagmannen924 16:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think Bardo Methodology will be acceptable – it looks like one man's private website. Metal.info is better, but it's a an interview with the artist talking about his own record, so it's not an independent and unbiased opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article have now 6 references --- Slagmannen924 17:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The number of references is irrelevant, it's whether any of those references are from reliable independent sources, and at the moment, I'm not convinced that any of them are. Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2 to 5 are reliable. YouTube and Discogs are considered primary sources. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] and [50]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG per Astig; although I will note that terrarelicta.com, albumoftheyear.org, and auralaggravation.com are all unreliable sources as some are self published blogs and others are on websites where anyone can post a review and are therefore potentially not independent/reliable. However, the reviews in scenepointblank.com, laut.de, and theaquarian.com provided by Astig are all respectable sources with editorial oversight and those are independent reviews of quality. I agree that refs 2 and 5 in the article are also reliable RS.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shinkan Co. Ltd.[edit]

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

Non notable company fails WP:NCORP also undeclared paid editing, sock puppetry and advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete refs are either not in depth, or not independent, or 404. Searches on google in English and Japanese did not turn up anything of note (more confident of searching in English than Japanese though). previously went through draftification but the author yanked it back to mainspace. – robertsky (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like a promotional blurb.TH1980 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of villages in Akwa Ibom State. The !votes were three saying keep, three saying redirect, and one that seems to prefer keep but accepts a redirect. However, nobody arguing in favor of keep presented a rebuttal to the fact that notability in GEOLAND is only presumed and not inherited for simply any populated/official locality. Editors arguing in favor of delete provided clear evidence that the topic is not notable enough for a standalone article, primarily because of its sourcing, and the discussion resulted in a consensus to redirect. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 03:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikot Okokon[edit]

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

De-prodded by Clarityfiend with the reasoning "more than enough official government sources for WP:GEOLAND". However, all the sources are simply database entries that do not even list the place's population. While there is a general presumption of notability in GEOLAND - that presumption can be rebutted. This village and others like it is not notable - we don't have population statistics or any information about the village other than the local government area it is located in (also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itak Ekim, a previous AfD I filed for a similar village, leading to its deletion, as these are not notable places). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is officially recognized, so WP:GEOLAND is satisfied. From the comments for the Afd for Itak Ekim, I suspect the sources there were of the same quality as what I originally found in Ikot Okokon's article. I replaced two out of those three with much more reliable ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that GEOLAND is satisfied. Per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features): This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to List of villages in Akwa Ibom State. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How many of the others from this batch of PRODs were contested? Curbon7 (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curbon7: last I checked, none. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Clarityfiend.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss if there are sources besides maps and tables to meet WP:GEOLAND or to establish consensus for an appropriate redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GEOLAND as a legally recognized place. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to List of villages in Akwa Ibom State), as while the standard for meeting GEOLAND is rightly very low, the data here is just tables/maps, proving no more than existence. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is a populated placeJackattack1597 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Jackattack1597 and Editorofthewiki: - could you guys clarify how you think the "discount maps/tables" aspect is met? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nosebagbear (to List of villages in Akwa Ibom State), unless we can discover anyone who actually lives there. Nwhyte (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of villages in Akwa Ibom State. GEOLAND is just a presumption of notability. For a page like this that meets the bare minimum, the best option, IMO, is to redirect until and unless more content can be developed.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: do not relist - just an FYI to any closer that we will hopefully get that this AfD should not be relisted, as we are now entering our fifth week Nosebagbear (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't see a consensus to draftify rather than delete, but am not opposed to restoring to draft if a good-faith user wants to work on it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebstar[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I disagree with the nomination for deletion of the Ebstar page. According to the wikipedia notability criteria, this page qualifies as notable because Ebstar has one charted song, I have a crush on you in five local music radio 'top 100' charts, including ZiFM, SkyzMetro, PowerFM, Radio Zimbabwe and Khulumani FM. These radio charts are announced weekly. There is however no media coverage ie. official chart placements like the Billboard. Ebstar is also placed 311th on the Skiomusic international community charts^[1] ^[2]. Skiomusic is an independent music producers platform with over half a million users. Among all, the artist has a significant amount of streams. all these are good counts of notability.

i however understand that there might be not much media coverage with some i'm not familiar of. I hope this article can be saved and someone add more info too. But thats how it is in Zimbabwe. Take a look at our popular artists, Soul Jah love's wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Jah_Love ... they don't have much coverage like USA artists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EMT2001 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Skiomusic. Skiomusic https://skiomusic.com/charts. Retrieved 28 September 2021. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Ebstar storms into Skiomusic TOP 400". Wang Ai. 1 October 2021. Retrieved 1 October 2021.

The five local radio station charts is not verifiable, but even if it were verifies this is not a national music chart. WP:SIGCOV is lacking here.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in Zimbabwe, radio charts are the only national charts currently available. Music awards like the Star FM awards are based on cumulative radio charts and tv airplay.

Secondly SKIO Music's charts are international with 35 000+ songs and producers. or are at least national (based in Canada) Ebstar is one of the charting artists there. EMT2001 (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't claim notability. There are no reliable sources about the subject, fails WP:GNG. -Xclusivzik (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Ebstar may meet Wikipedia requirements - but proof is required. Of the references listed, most are music/video streaming services. The Wang Ai Newspapers article refers to his new release I Have a Crush on You; perhaps that will generate more publicity, but hasn't succeeded yet.

Searching on "Ebstar" gave tons of false matches, but nothing useful. Searching on "Ebstar Simz" yielded nothing useful (just streaming services, YouTube-like services, and marketing firm Skiomusic.
As to WP:MUSIC, if Ebstar has indeed been on a national music chart, we need proof of its eligibility. Unfortunately, WP:CHARTS doesn't list any such charts for Zimbabwe. The charts listed by @EMT2001 are, as they stated, local music radio charts. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Xclusivzik. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Well, I think the subject is pretty close to notability and it's reasonable to assume that they might certainly be within notability guidelines in 6 months, when we can check again. However, I also have another reason for this: apparently, there is no national chart for music ranking in Zimbabwe. So what should be done is to see which charts in Zimbabwe are the closest to being the, or are, the most prominent, and judge based on that. Dege31 (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 over notability, notwithstanding that it was nominated by a sock with no delete !votes Nosebagbear (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Nevin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and sources discuss about his company instead of her. Portuportu2 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Portuportu2 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of the five sources, three include her name in the titles. Are you sure they don't discuss her? pburka (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is only the second time I have participated in conversation about deletion, so I hope I have this right. I did not create this page, but I have expanded the article to include more coverage about her and to provide details about her background. Nevin has received wide coverage in her role as CEO of the ChristianaCare. I think the WP:THREE are (1) the 2014 Jen Rini The News Journal article, (2) "In The C-Suite: ChristianaCare CEO Dr. Janice Nevin". Delaware Business Times, and (3) the National Academy of Medicine article. While she is one of several interviewed during #3, the National Academy of Medicine is national coverage by a well-respected organization. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. She is just as notable as many admins in Category:American hospital administrators. The sources, even before the expansion by DaffodilOcean, support this. Who is this 'him' mentioned in the nomination?--Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced, meets GNG. Gamaliel (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is heavily a discussion as to whether it's a valid split/fork, with principal arguments focusing on aspects such as the degree of duplication, uniqueness (such as chronological order), detail and so on.

In any case, there was a strong consensus for retention.

As numerous individuals had their Keep grounds either wanting, or necessitating, a rename over the current redirect "History of the 20th century", I'll re-name to that. However, it wasn't unanimous, and so if anyone wants to start an actual discussion at Talk:History of the 20th century then that will of course be perfectly valid.

In line with this, please don't re-name a live AfD and especially when the majority of editors before have specified a different preferred name. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20th-century events[edit]

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

Redundant to Timeline of the 20th century. Interstellarity (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also redundant to 20th century. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covers the history, whereas 20th century does not (and is not chronological). Timeline of the 20th century is just a timeline. Already contains good content that would not otherwise have a home. Some overlap is ok; there seems to be a reasonable delineation already. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 03:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly broad. Packing every significant event of an entire century into one article is a silly proposition. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It only seems to cover politics and war so far, and it's still vastly inadequate. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as History of the 20th century. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Biased by the fact that I contributed to the article back in the day, but I don't really see how this is redundant. The "timeline" article is just a list of dates and short sentences that offer no context. This article is far from being perfect, but a more narrative article detailing the history of the 20th century is needed. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be interested to know why this particular century has its own page compared to 21st-century events, 19th-century events, and 18th-century events. Interstellarity (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We could always restructure the 20th century article so that it includes events. Interstellarity (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though a better title is needed – perhaps History of the 20th century which is currently a redirect. The article has enormous potential and the encyclopaedia should have histories by century (and, yes, there should be histories of earlier centuries too). If the article should become too large, it can be split. If anything is to be deleted, it should be Timeline of the 20th century which is hopelessly inadequate. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to History of the 20th century. There's plenty of precedent that a "History," "Timeline," and main article can exist for the same subject, for example, Philippines, History of the Philippines, and Timeline of Philippine history. This is a classic case of WP:SPINOFF where the main article (20th century) acts as a "summary style" meta article that has several sub articles that go into greater detail. All these articles serve different functions in the project and so should be kept, although I do support a rename to keep it consistent with the naming convention of similar articles. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Qwaiiplayer. It's very important article. -GorgonaJS (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep renamed to History of the 20th century. This is far from an ideal article, but it provides coverage of the main international events of the period. It is not a timeline, which would normally be a list article. 20th century is a broader article with a focus on other matters than the main political events. This is not a mere POV fork. It probably deserves to be designated as a "main" article for the other two. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwaiiplayer, Peterkingiron, and No Great Shaker: I am fine with a rename since the current title is far from ideal. I would like to know your thoughts on doing a similar article for every century. Example: History of the 18th century, History of the 19th century, and History of the 21st century. I want to know what you guys think since this seems to be the only century with this type of article. Interstellarity (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: I think the creation of those articles would be a positive addition to the encyclopedia. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Key events of 20th century. Along with "Timeline", this page could be a useful supplement to page History of the 20th century. No renaming to "History of the 20th century" please. Of course these two pages might be merged, but I think keeping them separately would better serve the purpose. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Coolperson177 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav Das (Bengali famous actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG lacks reliable news coverage. Portuportu2 (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Portuportu2 (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is currently supported by reliable sources from The Telegraph (India), Anandabazar Patrika, Ei Samay and others. There are a lot available that can be added but the weak and un-reliable ones should be dropped. The actor has performed in a large number of Bengali movies and web series and is well known among Bengali speaking viewers of India viz. West Bengal, Tripura and in Bangladesh. I will add some refs if I find. 2402:3A80:1C42:6087:51D8:882F:815F:4A79 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have improved the article and now it passes easily WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG 2402:3A80:1C42:6087:51D8:882F:815F:4A79 (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doest not Meet WP:NPOL. Best Regards. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} — Preceding undated comment added 12:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Lazy Maniik: you got it totally wrong. The person is an actor not a politician. WP:NPOL does not apply. Also, the title has been corrected by User:QuiteUnusual by moving it from Sourav Das (Bengali famous actor) → Sourav Das (actor). 2402:3A80:6C5:AC0D:CDC3:CF89:B6E7:8C65 (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acting career seems notable enough. A disam page, plus linking from the articles on his films, is needed. Most of these use the other spelling in fact. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, The actor passes WP:NACTOR. Seddiq Sabri 21:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are multiple reliable sourcesJackattack1597 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Saville[edit]

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

Coverage is about his books, not him directly. cagliost (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What a dumb ass nomination. Because writers are supposed to be famous independently of their books. For what? Wrecking their cars? The only people who are famous apart from their day jobs are Lindsay Lohan.--Literaturegirl (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE search brings up several author interviews. His books have attracted attention from the Jewish community. A number of Jewish reviews found. Satisfies WP:AUTHOR. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cagliost, would you please restore the earlier version of the article so that people evaluating it can read ALL the information in that version. I believe you have deleted a paragraph that might argue for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.37.0 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, known enough to have a double-page article in another country (Norway), which I added. Geschichte (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Rosa (footballer)[edit]

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

Has never played in a league listed at WP:FPL so does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Sources cited do not demonstrate WP:GNG as they are either stats pages, his club's own website or social media pages. The best source that I can find in searches is Bola VIP (not sure if this is WP:RS) which still contains very little actual information about Rosa. Simply just states that he scored a goal in the UEFA Europa Conference League and was the first player for a Gibraltarian club to do so.

If being the first player for a Gibraltarian club to do x thing is enough for an article then I'm happy to stand down but I've always been under the impression that GNG or an SNG would still need to be met in this sort of case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Inclined to agree with nom that this should be deleted but I have some reservations. Would have been okay if he had played for Betis' first team but, as it is, notability is questionable. Not sure. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll be honest I was always of the impression that scoring in a top tier UEFA competition was a qualifying factor, with the Group Stage of the Conference League counting as that. I've seen players from Irish clubs who have not turned pro get pages after scoring in the Europa League group stages, for example. But if that's not the case then fair enough. VampireKilla (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was the project guideline WP:FOOTYN which has now been superseded by WP:NFOOTBALL which is, in a lot of cases, superseded itself by WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by proposer. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Eastern Illinois Panthers football team[edit]

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

This does not appear to pass WP:NSEASONS, which requires multiple independent reliable sources to provide significant coverage to the team for it to be notable. Per that guideline, [i]t is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. In this case, there is essentially no sourced prose, and a search of Google (and Google News) does not indicate to me that there is significant coverage of this topic.

Therefore, I propose that we REDIRECT this page to Eastern Illinois Panthers football. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to newspapers.com, but apparently there's coverage there based off of information being added to the article. Withdrawing as such. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetically Intuitive English[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The PCWorld reference doesn't demonstrate notability to me and I don't see anything else substantial. Chrome Web Store suggests this has ~1000 users and was last updated in 2015 so I wouldn't expect to find coverage. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Of the three citations:

The PCWorld article is the only thing that even comes close to significant coverage. It's more of a brief news/mini-review article than anything else, but if there were a couple of other sources, I could accept it.
PIE's own website; no use.
As a parody science site, Speculative Grammarian doesn't qualify as a reliable source.

I found nothing else promising. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At one point, there was reference to an IDG article. I think it's still at https://web.archive.org/web/20160301000000*/http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=A9FBA1EB-91AC-E9B1-00C32AF8D1DA1CED - but it appears to be just a copy of the PCWorld article. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verity Systems[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Sources are routine business announcements, no WP:SIGCOV found. Article reads like an advertisement. Kleuske (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1. Sources such as the referenced NATO website, NSA publications and Books are not business announcements.

2. What part sounds like an advertisement? Despite this Verity Systems company having many products, only two products that have been referenced very directly and clearly are mentioned. How about you remove the bit which you feel sounds like an advertisement, or point it out for removal?

3. Businesses that operate in the security sector are not usually seeking too much public attention. Finding information about such companies is difficult; they do not appear in newspapers, television, radio, or other publicity avenues as much as you would like. There is no contention about the notability of Verity Systems; given its size, popularity of products, and the agencies using its products. I, therefore, feel that the best course of action is that we make this page about the company better by improving it and its referencing, and that Wikipedia does not delete the page LtRisen (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "referenced nato website (here) is a product blurb. No more, no less. It does not show notability.
All of it.
If they do not seek attention (that is, there are few to no sources), they fail WP:NORG. Wikipedia demands sources for a company to demonstrate notability. Kleuske (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about the NSA publication and books? Are they blurbs too? Notability is not only determined by popularity. LtRisen (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are significant coverage or demonstrate the notability of Verity Systems. cagliost (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Verity Systems logo.png should be deleted too. It has been uploaded supposedly under a Creative Commons licence, but I see no evidence it has actually been licenced by Verity Systems under such a licence. cagliost (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cagliost: It is PD-textlogo, and I have relicensed it as such. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Detailed criteria for a promotional tone can vary, but here is my guideline. Each paragraph that mentions something is "global", "around the world", "worldwide", "innovation", or "solutions" should be removed. Those terms provide no information about the subject, only serve to promote it. Then there is not much left. So even if the case might be made that the company is notable, this article is clearly not it. At best, keep onw or two of the most reliable sources and redo all the text. Also find it odd to say "Pacerville USA" since it is such a small town in the hills. At least Placerville, California would give context. W Nowicki (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify (if notable). I'm not convinced as to its notability; there's some coverage but I'm not sure that it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. On top of that, the article certainly fails WP:PROMO. Taken together, these would make my primary preference to be deletion. However, in the case that there becomes a rough consensus that the topic is notable, I really don't think the article is ready for the mainspace, owing to strong promotional tone concerns. In that case, we should allow time and space for the draft's improvement until its tone is ready for mainspace through draftification; I believe that this article should not remain in the mainspace as-is. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep It~~ Coverage is proven and successive editors have cleaned up areas of contention in the page content. LtRisen (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck - please only offer one keep/delete opinion in an AfD discussion. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted - Noted, with thanks. LtRisen (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - undisclosed paid for spam, bad faith article. Cites black hat SEO spam sources. Creator blocked. MER-C 13:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @MER-C:For posterity sake, what are some of these black hat SEO spam sources? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check each of the references in turn, hover over the links, then go to the home page on each website. It should be obvious by just how many gratuitous spam articles there are. MER-C 07:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete vanity spam sourced to blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against restoration to draft should additional sources be found supporting notability. BD2412 T 03:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Stem Cell Science and Regenerative Medicine[edit]

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

No sources are used within the article to verify the existence of the Institute for Stem Cell Science and Regenerative Medicine. Two of the references cited are from the Institute's own website, thus the lack of independent sources makes this a non-notable article. And from my research I have not been able to find any sources that can verify the existence of such an organization outside of the Institute's own website. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lacks WP:SIGCOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to fail WP:NCORP with respect to WP:CORPDEPTH, and I don't see WP:SIGCOV based off of my searching. Since this is in Bangalore, it is possible that such material exists in another language that I can't read or write in, but I favor deletion based upon what evidence I can gather. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quick search on google shows that this institute plays important role in dealing with COVID in the region. -GorgonaJS (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And unless you can, from this "quick search on google", show sources which indicate that this meets WP:GNG; then you have simply presented an assertion without evidence, and the article should still be deleted despite the muddying of waters created by your comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks WP:SIGCOV DEFCON5 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There does appear to be some coverage in google books; particularly in relation to the Bangalore Life Science Cluster (BLSC) of which the Institute for Stem Cell Science and Regenerative Medicine (ISCSRM) is one of five member organizations. I think the BLSC does have enough coverage to pass GNG. If an editor is wanting to take on that project, I would suggest draftifying this article with the intent of developing an article on the BLSC. Otherwise, the only option is to delete as I didn't find enought coverage on ISCSRM to pass SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion had a fairly wide ranging discussion in the latter half, but in terms of policy-backed reasons (which, to note, the sole Keep !vote did have, as well as the other aspects mentioned) it was primarily on OR and ill-formed criteria bases. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin and Hispanic Primetime Emmy Award winners and nominees[edit]

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

Arbitrary original research— there’s no precise formal definition of “Hispanic/Latin” and no evidence this is a broadly notable cross-categorization. Dronebogus (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that there's no unambiguous definition of "Hispanic/Latin", so we'd either have to ask every candidate for this list what their ethnic self-designation is, or we'd be into the realm of opinion. RomanSpa (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the other users, and I'm not exactly sure why we'd need to single out nominees of a particular race, there doesn't seem to be any relevance to the rest of the article in that respect. Lists would be better divided by the award categories, not race. Much more useful. GrendelNightmares (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. The list is WP:OR, and a WP:BLP nightmare there is no way for editors to verify or rectify. Lists by award category would be far more useful and are actully cited in reliable sources, not an unreliably defined editor-imposed racial/ethnic designation based article. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable cross-categorization. Spudlace (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary, illogical and unworkable cross-categorisation. See here for deletion precedent and my arguments against this list in that discussion. I don't say this lightly but this is one of the only WP pages that I actually think verges on racist by the placement of national flags against people's names based on their ethnicity (not citizenship/residency). One example: Edward James Olmos is an American (I don't believe he holds any other citizenship), was born in America, has lived in America his whole life and had parents who were residents and/or citizens of America with Mexican heritage. Yet this page puts a Mexican flag next to Olmos' name! Can you imagine something similar being done in a list for an American of European decent? Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Dronebogus can we add List of Hispanic Academy Award winners and nominees to this nomination as it is very similar and probably worse. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well sure but I don’t really know the procedure for that. Dronebogus (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There’s a whole bunch of Academy awards by x ethnicity (including apparently two for people of Asian ancestry) so they should probably be bundle-nominated. I really do not enjoy manual deletion work so if someone could do that for me I’d be extremely appreciative. Dronebogus (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This book provides a list of Latin Emmy winners and gives statistics [51]. There has been much public discussion and media attention over systemic racial bias of acting awards. As such, this is a notable cross-categorization which is born out by media articles like these [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. I disagree that the content couldn't be sourced, and I further contend that deleting this would contribute to systemic racial bias within wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point. As a white person myself, I don't think it would be my place to try to delete an article like this. Bkatcher (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There’s a difference between an article about systemic racial bias in awards as an overall topic and a list that just arbitrarily labels people “latin/hispanic” and expects readers to extract something meaningful from it. Let’s focus on creating better content about this topic rather than clinging to haphazard nonsense like this list.

The problem with using lists to cover systemic bias in awards is that they can’t “see the forest for the trees”— it’s not about individual names or some concrete number or quota, but rather the overall ratio of white nominees/winners/reviewers/etc. to nonwhite ones in awards vs. all artists. Dronebogus (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the issue is that list is quite racist and reduces living people to their ethnic background based on the whims of editors. See my above comment about Edward James Olmos. It includes Penelope Cruz and Antonio Banderas for some reason too who, as far as I am aware, are European. I agree that there has been much written about racial bias at the Oscars but why not write about it. A list does not help cover this issue. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s ridiculous logic. The media specifically pays attention to Latinx nominations at the Emmys because of racial bias. Tracking Latinx winners and nominees happens in media and publications on entertainment; often by Latinx journalists. Deleting such lists is a form of erasure. There’s lots of sources on this topic and clearly either a competent WP:BEFORE wasn’t done or people are allowing their own prejudice to inform their vote.4meter4 (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters of the list are just too random and are ripe for WP:V issues. In what sense is Edward James Olmos Mexican? In what sense is Penelope Cruz Latinx? What are the limits of Latin American heritage? Should Anthony Bourdain be included as he had a great great etc grandfather who lived in Paraguay? Basically editors are just deciding who is latinx enough to be included. If this was a list of Latin Americans it would be different as this easier to verify. Also this is not erasure as there people should still be listed on the universal nominees/winners page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Erasure is a term used in psychology, sociology, and interdisciplinary academic fields like African American studies, womens studies, ethnography, queer studies, gender studies, etc. where race or gender or sexuality is removed from the discussion on purpose which prevents the impact of race or gender or sexuality from being examined. This is viewed as a form of white or male or heteronormative dominance (depending on whether its gender or race or sexuality being removed) which is exerted over minorities by removing them from view or preventing their experience and stories from being told from their point of view or by preventing analysis of how race/gender/sexuality can impact institutions and events. The argument you made above is a textbook example of an erasure argument where discussing race and making it a focus is deemed racist. Such views are termed erasure because essentially it shuts down any conversation, discussion, analysis, viewpoints, etc. of how race impacts the lives of people of that race and the way race can impact institutions and societal relationships. In short its viewed as ethically wrong in current academia to put forward that sort of argument. Lastly, the solution to your problem is to simply limit the list to subjects who have self identified as Latinx or Hispanic and have won or been nominated for an Emmy. If we don't have RS saying they are Latinx or Hispanic then we don't include them. Entries without refs proving that can simply be removed. 4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - That’s all well and good but surely there’s a better way to discuss the intersection of Latinx issues, racism, and the Emmys than a big list that just says “such-and-such won award so-and-so whenever and also he was of Cuban ancestry”. And I respect detailed, intelligent reasoning but try to keep your comments relatively short and to-the-point. Dronebogus (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to late "keep" !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to inappropriate use of flags to specify ethnic ancestry (and not identified with country names in violation of MOS:FLAG). If the flags are deleted, the closing admin should feel free to ignore this recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to removing the flags. That's not really a valid reason for deletion but an editorial decision that is easily remedied. WP:AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. If someone actually does remove all the flags, then this article will be facing one fewer "delete" recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template language isn't my strong suit, but I support the removal. If you are good with modifying templates, go ahead and do it yourself per WP:BOLD.4meter4 (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, you don't have to modify any templates, just a table. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tables aren't my specialty either (obviously ;-) ).4meter4 (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSkills[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Links do not work. Promotional tone. Imcdc (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galago (software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Project hasn't been updated since 2008. Imcdc (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not because the project went moribund, but because it never was notable enough to merit its own article. Maybe worth a sentence in presence information for historical purposes but not sure where it would go. A search of course turns out lots of cuddly animal pictures, and one software article about "Galago-a graph algorithm development tool" which is something different. DOI: 10.1109/ICCSSE.1989.72718 W Nowicki (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jones (writer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srce TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VCR (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage by Allmusic (Bio, Review 1, Review 2), Pitchfork Media ([58]), Chicago Reader ([59]), Style Weekly ([60]), others. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as per above. SL93 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles, but also incorporate it into the article. Geschichte (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Butler (voice actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, Imdb is not considered a reliable source Dexxtrall (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus amongst policy backed reasons that NORG is not met Nosebagbear (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong and Far East Masonic Benevolence Fund[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't provide a claim to notability, nor are there adequate sources cited to support notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Since this was created by legislation, it's certainly possible that there was WP:SIGCOV associated with the passing of the law, but I can't actually find any news articles that would suggest that this were true. Based upon the evidence I can find, I favor deletion, though I'd be willing to reconsider if someone can find contemporary coverage of this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A statutory organisation. 1.64.48.231 (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment statutory organisation is not a valid reason . Please read WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Matthew hk (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any third party sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Enemy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mosley (trader)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references. Imcdc (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, there is no way to differentiate this from a real article or hoax. The subject could have historical notability, but the article has been around for years and should be sourced by now. If an enthusiastic editor wants to take over and source it, I'd probably change my position. I'd be okay with draft or userfy if someone wants to work on it for later.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Was a real person. Alternatively named Edward H. Mosley. Not too many sources from newspapers.com, but the creating editor had to have gotten this information from somewhere, implying additional sources may exist. Curbon7 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Perhaps he was indeed a real person, but he sounds like a shopkeeper. Is such a person notable? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, despite being years old, and fails WP:V. Possible hoax, I agree. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaordic organization[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. References seems to mostly come back to the book written by Dee Hock. Seems promotional. Imcdc (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. I would suggest redirecting to Dee Hock but I can't imagine anyone searching for this. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find much external coverage. Reference are internal and the PDF one doesn't work. Imcdc (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found some regular PR coverage but nothing that would count towards WP:GNG/WP:COMPANY. The coverage provided in the article also falls short (two non-independent sources and a PDF which I could not open either). Modussiccandi (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This one was a close call between "draftify" and "delete"; several redirect options were also presented, but none of them gained consensus. A few delete voters argued along the lines of WP:TOOSOON or proposed draftifying as another option, so I hope this is an acceptable compromise. If continued coverage doesn't happen the draft can be deleted. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid 1–2 FC Sheriff Tiraspol[edit]

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

This is an example of WP:RECENTISM. Although this result is impressive, it's just a group stage match in the UEFA Champions League with no greater significance than that. If this article stays, then countless of other "incredible" upsets could also have articles on Wikipedia, and we don't want to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Never mind the fact that this article should be a stub, is not written very well, and has some sourcing issues. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Clog Wolf _Howl 01:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Please. This match has gone MAINSTREAM and it has an ENORMOUS significance for me & everyone because I'm from Moldova and I support Real Madrid. Everyone talked about this match, everyone posted about this. This is HISTORY. Do you really think that if this match took place in the group stage it should be automatically ignored? Wow. This match actually is one of the craziest things I've experienced in MY life. It matters so much for Moldovan people. It should NOT be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remis.simon (talk • contribs) 08:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Remis.simon... I would just like to tell you that WP:ILIKEIT is not a strong argument in deletion discussions. Thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this match has an article, every match should. Normal group stage match without any significance. Clog Wolf _Howl 01:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete bro how can you say that lmao, “ Normal group stage match without any significance” tf are you taking about mate -Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that your argument addresses any notability criteria. Do you have an affirmative rationale for why this is a notable sports event? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ajax.amsterdam.fan: Please read WP:AGF, WP:EG, and WP:PPOV. Thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete This is far from a match without significance. A debutant crashing the home of the record winners. And I'm saying this as a Real Madrid fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.233.230 (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You argument does not address what the deletion proposal is saying, and stating that you are a Real Madrid supporter has no value in this discussion. Please read WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete This article needs to be better written, along with a bit more background information on Sheriff's position compared to Madrid and its run throughout the Champions League qualifiers, but I believe calling this result 'impressive' is an understatement and it deserves a decently written Wikipedia page on it. There are plenty of other upsets in football and in other sports which don't have a Wikipedia page but there are not many to this degree. I appreciate the knowledge that these regular Wikipedia users have on the guides and policies of Wikipedia, but calling this match a 'normal group stage match without any significance' perhaps shows that the football knowledge of these users may be lacking. The fact that this match even occurred in the first place is highly significant alone, forget about the result. WorldatmyFeet (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WorldatmyFeet: Hello. Please remember that this a Wikipedia deletion discussion and that articles are nominated for deletion for other reasons than because users "lack" football knowledge. Also, I would appreciate more concrete arguments, although I do appreciate that you were actually following the etiquette unlike some other editors/IPs above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was a big shock yes. But we don't do articles for every single shock, I think this is a little too RECENT for now but I am open to recreation if lasting notability comes out later. Though I do have concerns too there may be a little POV creeping in too by the line of: "heavily noted in media coverage of the match was the origin of FC Sheriff, the first team to qualify to the Champions League from Moldova, and the unrecognized state of Transnistria within Moldova at that." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to clearly fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. The relevant criteria states that notable games should be widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game. The article fails that. From an ordinary WP:EVENTCRIT perspective, this does not appear to have enduring historical significance, nor a significant lasting WP:EFFECT. This article may have been made WP:TOOSOON. It's quite possible for coverage to continue for a good period of time, for this to be re-analyzed after the fact, and for it to then gain notability through lasting coverage. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; if the article subject is not currently notable, then it should be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wide news coverage: BBC, Guardian, CNN, ESPN, Sky Sports, Al Jazeera, NY Times, Evening Standard, Irish Times, RFERL and WP:LASTING: ~~Thanks to that victory Sheriff did advance to the knockout stage of the Champions League per 2021–22_UEFA_Champions_League_group_stage#Group_D.~~ Brandmeister^talk 07:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they can still be knocked out at this stage. Six points after two matches is not enough to go through. Number 5 7 08:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Brandmeister: - they have only played two out of six games in the group stage, it is literally impossible for them to have already clinched a place in the knockout phase after just two games -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then perhaps "Advance to round of 16" in 2021–22_UEFA_Champions_League_group_stage#Group_D needs correction. Anyway, draftifying looks like a good alternative per below. Brandmeister^talk 08:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Brandmeister: - that indicates that the teams that finish in the top two places will advance. It doesn't mean the current top two teams (after only two games) have already advanced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it's a cup shock, but it really isn't article-worthy. Number 5 7 08:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace it's 2.5 days after the match, way too soon to know if there is significant, prolonged coverage of this event. I think there may well be in future, but nobody knows for sure. I would move to draftspace, and re-evaluate in six months. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Joseph - sounds like a good shout -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I suggested deletion at the WT:FOOTY discussion because of WP:RECENTISM but I'm inclined to agree with Joseph that deletion might be too hasty. The match could potentially become "legendary", as media pundits might say, and be a subject of football coverage and discussion for years to come. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as Stevie fae Scotland pointed out at WT:FOOTY, the title of the article should be Real Madrid CF 1–2 FC Sheriff Tiraspol. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/rename/redirect to new article at FC Sheriff Tiraspol in European football - that is an established article type and probably the best place for this match to be mentioned, rather than a standalone article. I share concerns about RECENTism and we won't know long-lasting notability for a while. Giant Snowman 09:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace - Agree with concerns re- WP:RECENTISM and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Deletion would be valid but I think it would make more sense to put the article on hold to see if significant, prolonged coverage does result from the match. Although, I agree with GS as well, moving to a new article covering Sheriff's history in European football would also be an appropriate solution. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as RECENTism. Moving to draftspace would be an acceptable interim solution. --Leyo 10:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I would be surprised if this does end up to have long term notability, but it's not implausible. As such, draftifying the article to see what happens, thus allowing us to easily recover the content if it does turn out to have long term notability, seems to be the best option. BilledMammal (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by recentism, but it is not encyclopedic either a media result since the round of 16...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While this match will undoubtedly be remembered fondly for all time by those associated with FC Sheriff, it's too soon to know how it will be remembered in general. There have been plenty of giant-killings in the Champions League that haven't had widespread coverage in the media, so how about we wait and see how this one goes? – Pee Jay 17:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having an article for every unexpected scoreline in football would be nonsensical. Yes, this was bigger than most, but it still doesn't pass SPORTSEVENT. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, a big upset but it was a group stage match and not more. Kante4 (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure this thrills some fans, but it's a small (obviously one-time) event. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify*. Let's wait and see if this has got any documentation (apart from standard match reports) in six months time. BMB YT 500000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Same arguments as the ones above - first it needs a better styling, and second, it's too early to say whether this result is significant enough to be remembered with an article. --shika99bul (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete or Redirect. Please do not delete this article but this article did not meets notability and need a redirection in 2021–22_UEFA_Champions_League_group_stage#Group_D. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[TimesR19850106-1] "Exhibit Honors 'Lonely Eagles'". The Times Recorder. Zanesville, Ohio. 1985-01-06. p. 19.

[Montgo19400521-2] "Cadet Officers Receive Awards". The Montgomery Advertiser. Montgomery, Alabama. 1940-05-21. p. 10.

[MiamiH19950104-3] "Willie Howell Fuller". The Miami Herald. Miami, Florida. 1995-01-04. p. 22.

[Birmin19420816-4] "What Negroes Are Doing". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-08-16. p. 11.

[Pittsb19420815-5] "More Tuskegee Men Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 5.

[TampaT19841225-6] "'Lonely Eagles' flew to fight color barrier". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa, Florida. 1984-12-25. p. 38.

[Pittsb19430619-7] "Untitled Clipping". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-06-19. p. 4.

[Pittsb19431009-8] "'Capt. Roberts First Negro Squad Commander'——Rouzeau". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-10-09. p. 13.

[9] Francis, Charles E. (1997). The Tuskegee airmen: the men who changed a nation (4th, rev., up-dated, and enl ed.). Boston: Branden Pub. p. 278. ISBN 9780828320290. CPT Lawson was another pioneer of the 99th, who received very little credit for the part he played in carrying the battle to the enemy. .... Lawson was sent overseas with the first group of pilots of the 99th. In combat he distinguished himself as one of the most aggressive and daring pilots.

[Newsda19940222-10] "Cleo Lawson, 76, Widow of Tuskegee Airman". Newsday. Suffolk Edition (Melville, New York. 1994-02-22. p. 81.

[Pittsb19420815-11] "More Tuskegee Men Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 5.

[Pittsb194208152-12] "8 Cadets Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 1.

[Birmin19420816-13] "What Negroes Are Doing". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-08-16. p. 11.

[SelmaT19411212-14] "Fourth Class Starts Tuskegee Air Course". The Selma Times-Journal. Selma, Alabama. 1941-12-12. p. 2.

[SiouxC19520228-15] "2 Area Airmen Among 12 Hurt in B-50 Crash". Sioux City Journal. Sioux City, Iowa. 1952-02-28. p. 8.

[Beatri19520228-16] "Release Names In Omaha Crash". The Beatrice Times. Beatrice, Nebraska. 1952-02-28. p. 10.

[Sacram19520227-17] "Dead In Crash Of B50 Bomber Are Identified". The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, California. 1952-02-27. p. 27.

[FortWo19520227-18] "Airmen killed in crash are named". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Fort Worth, Texas. 1952-02-27. p. 4.

[Tucson19520227-19] "Wrecked B-50 Ramey Plane". Tucson Daily Citizen. Tucson, Arizona. 1952-02-27. p. 13.

[Alabam19520227-20] "Victims Identified In Crash Of B-50". Alabama Journal. Montgomery, Alabama. 1952-02-27. p. 2.

[Pittsb19490618-21] "Air Force Shift Now Under Way; 66 Moved". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1949-06-18. p. 4.

[Pittsb19431106-22] "Five Pilots of the History-Making 99th Return to the United States". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-11-06. p. 5.

[Detroi19420613-23] "Nose Dive Of Plane Into River Ends Graduation Hopes Of Youthful Cadet". The Detroit Tribune. Detroit, Michigan. 1942-06-13. p. 1.

[Tuskeg19420611-24] "Cadet Killed In Army Plane Crash". The Tuskegee News. Tuskegee, Alabama. 1942-06-11. p. 1.

[Birmin19420609-25] "Two Plane Accidents Kill Three White, One Negro Army Aviators". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-06-09. p. 12.

[TampaT19420609-26] "Negro Flier Killed As Plane Falls in River". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa, Florida. 1942-06-09. p. 5.

[Decatu19420609-27] "Negro Flying Cadet Killed". The Decatur Daily. Decatur, Alabama. 1942-06-09. p. 2.

[Alabam19420608-28] "Power Line Cut By Plane Crash". Alabama Journal. Montgomery, Alabama. 1942-06-08. p. 1.

[Hartfo19410129-29] "Five Hampton Students Named Air Corps Cadets". Hartford Courant. Hartford, Connecticut. 1941-01-29. p. 12.

[DailyP19410129-30] "Select Five For Training". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. 1941-01-29. p. 9.

[Philad19670326-31] "McLurkin-Lawson". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1967-03-26. p. 76.

[Pittsb19420124-32] "Join 99th Air Squad". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-01-24. p. 13.

[Skiomusic_Charts-33] Skiomusic. Skiomusic https://skiomusic.com/charts. Retrieved 28 September 2021. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[34] "Ebstar storms into Skiomusic TOP 400". Wang Ai. 1 October 2021. Retrieved 1 October 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[1]

[2]