Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 15	September 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Cartoons[edit]

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

This company and its principals were involved with some notable cartoons - but I cannot find any evidence to indicate they meet WP:ORG. There's a claim there that Tiny Toons won them (or Glen, it's unclear/unsourced) an Emmy, but with notability not being inherited I think this is a tough call. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well there's this - ProQuest 435996476. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nfitz mind some context for those of us without access? Thanks Star Mississippi 02:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a 1989 Toronto Star article about some local animation studios - this being one of them. You should be able to access using your Wikipedia Library account from this link. Nfitz (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you @Nfitz:. I apparently don't qualify (Sorry, your Wikipedia account doesn’t currently qualify to access The Wikipedia Library.) but hopefully others who see this discussion can access thanks to your expanded info. Star Mississippi 15:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - You surely do qualify @Star Mississippi:. The criteria for basic access (including Proquest) is any non-blocked editor with more than 500 edits, 10 edits in the last month, and have an account older than 6 months! I'd have assumed that most participating in AFD would be using this tool, at least for decades-old subjects! Nfitz (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks again Nfitz. I cleared cache and logged back in and this time get Permission denied. Sorry; you aren't allowed to do that. If you think your account should be able to do that, please email us about this error at [email protected] or report it to us on Phabricator (?). Will send an email as I definitely meet the criteria you indicated. Star Mississippi 22:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those without access, I'll attempt an overview. The article discusses the fact that Toronto's animation studios have never been busier and a bigger push should be made to reduce the amount of work being sent overseas. Various companies are name-checked including their current project(s) and in this vein, Kennedy Cartoons is mentioned and their current project is described. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company/organization, the relevant guideline is WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability which includes content which is in-depth about the company and original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP per HighKing's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sow's ear effect[edit]

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

No evidence this phrase exists. All google hits are copied from the Wikipedia page. It is either a neologism WP:NEO or a dictionary definition WP:NAD. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be (possibly) a sporting term where there is no defensive play. No evidence that it is an economic term related to GDP or supply-side economics. As per nom, en-wi is not a dictionary, nor a thesaurus. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The phrase certainly exists, and it appears in a number of tertiary sources, including the Penguin Dictionary of Economics. The coverage doesn't go beyond a few sentences, but it does suggest that there might be more sources available: such a concept doesn't appear in a dictionary unless it's been thoroughly discussed in scholarly sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Old, unsourced, and I can't find any sources to support it. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CounterPath Corporation[edit]

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

Promotional article, flagged since 2016. Created by SPA. Was previously deleted at AFD as advertising created by an SPA and worthy of WP:TNT. According to the article talk page, it was recreated by an employee of the company, and not speedily deleted as a recreation against a deletion discussion, as it should have been. The WP:RS sourcing situation on CounterPath has not improved in the past five years - the article as it stands is entirely composed of press releases, and a WP:BEFORE shows only press releases and churnalism based on them - nothing meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it'd have to be shown with solid RSes. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now. Indeed, the article needs work, and normally I would suggest merging into its parent company. However, its parent does not seem to have an article yet. However, there were public filings in the SEC database, which are reliable albeit not totally independent. This does appear to be a long-lived company at least with real customers etc. so maybe more could be found and a neutral article developed. W Nowicki (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ah yes, it's listed. But we do need at least some RS coverage - there is literally zero present in the article right now, and if the bad sources were culled there'd be literally no article - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and HighKing. No prejudice for the article to be undeleted and moved to draft if someone wants to work on it if quality RS is found later.4meter4 (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Boxing Union (GBU)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxing organisation. One of the many lightly-regarded organisations that award "world" championships. My before search didn't produce a single reliable source with even a hint of significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. ².O.^Boxing 19:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 19:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 19:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be another of boxing's many organizations. My search found no significant independent coverage of this organization. It appears in a number of lists of boxing organizations, but there's nothing to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 22 September 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. There is no support for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mashrur Arefin[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Some trivial mentions and self written articles have been used as references. No notable works to keep his article in Wikipedia. This is possibly a paid article or written by the person himself. Highly promotional. 103.4.65.218 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this person got significant reliable coverage pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Breekup69 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject with plenty of reliable sources proving this notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. This AfD was initially created in the wrong namespace and was not added to the log until September 11. A relist may be appropriate to ensure the discussion is visible for a full seven days. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets the General notability guidelines. All 3 issues mentioned by the IP user/ edit is wrong. Written like an ad is too broad and too generic statement about articles. If an article have issues on writing style and sources, it can be added to that specific section, and start a discussion on the talk page. I saw that the article is mostly written by one single user and that does not indicate the close connection. -- Nasir Khan Saikat (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting despite relatively clear consensus, as this hasn't really been open for 7 days, and closing early risks wasting community time at DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article meets the General notability guidelines. All 3 issues mentioned by the IP user/ edit is wrong. Written like an ad is too broad and too generic statement about articles. If an article have issues on writing style and sources, it can be added to that specific section, and start a discussion on the talk page. Even writing style can be improved by the one who is adding the tag. I saw that the article was started and updated mostly by one single user and that does not indicate the close connection issue. So the article should not be deleted. --Nasir Khan Saikat (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I struck your second !vote. Geschichte (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is fine and the person concern is a notable person. A novelist, literary award winner, poet etc. After reading the article I tried to know more about him and find few more information to add which I will shortly. The information in the article are well sited and referred properly. If we think there are some issues with the writing we can change it in appropriate way. Thank you Munirhasan (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC) — Munirhasan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This article actually satisfy the rules and guideline which provided by the Wikipedia. I don't think this article is highly promotional because all the references are true and the article is referred every information to properly. Mashrur Arefin is a famous poet, writer. I have read the article and I found a writing error that can be corrected by editing but there is nothing issue I haven't been for deletion. I was supposed to say that the article should not be deleted and can do some major changes in writing style. Rownak.borhan.himel (talk) 8:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC) — Rownak.borhan.himel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Two of the above posters are single-purpose accounts, having only edited this discussion page. Where did you come from? Geschichte (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Geschichte for pointing this. I am also little bit confused that none of my previous contribution is shown in my page. Thank god that my user page is re-directed to my Bengali Wikipedia page. If you visit that page, you will hopefully realized that I am with wikipedia for last 15 years. I was also the founding president of wikimedia foundation Bangladesh (2011) and step down from the board early this year because of my inactivities. Thank you. Regards Munirhasan (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Geschichte (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there are clearly issues with the article and coi/spa voting at this AFD, it appears the author has won two literary prizes of note; one of which has its own wikipedia page ( BRAC Bank-Samakal Literature Award). As such, the subject appears to meet criteria 4c of WP:NAUTHOR and criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO. Issues with the article itself can be addressed through editing as WP:AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rygnestadtunet. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vonde-Åsmund[edit]

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

Some coverage but not enough to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rygnestadtunet. The legend itself written from an in-universe perspective, so to speak, is not very interesting, and any writing about Åsmund should thus focus on the cultural significance. Much of the current article should be WP:TNT'd. As it turns out, "Vond-Åsmund" is mentioned in at least 62 books, such as a passing mention in the biography on Jørgen Moe; he is mentioned in general Norwegian history books written by Ståle Dyrvik and Øystein Rian, a geography book by Werner Werenskiold, tourist books, cultural histories of Setesdal and Southern Norway, in Olav H. Hauge's diary, as well as in old general-purpose encyclopedias Norsk allkunnebok and Gyldendals store konversasjonsleksikon - among others. The latter encyclopedia, though, has Vond-Åsmund down as a soft redirect to Rygnestad. So why not do the same here? (although WP:NOTPAPER.) Geschichte (talk) 07:42, 3 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) 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Rygnestadtunet per WP:CHEAP.4meter4 (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ViroStatics[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google News turns up a lot of results in Italian; unfortunately I don't speak Italian so I can't comment on how reliable or substantial they are. If anyone does it would be helpful. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:53, 4 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) 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be anything that meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I'd have simply listed it for G11. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 20 September 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) 09:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hafyal[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was able to find 3 references that I could use and added them to the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:10, 5 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) 21:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to identify even passing mentions in English-language sources. The sources identified by Ngrewal1 look like 2 Wikipedia mirrors and a mapping website. In general, I'm concerned that "Hafyal" is transliterated incorrectly into English, and there may be sources available for some other term. However, absent input from an expert, the present topic doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Suriname0.4meter4 (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Suriname0. and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Yves Billette[edit]

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

Seems to be an entirely self promotional article with no relevant sources Robynthehode (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has some sources now, but they may not be enough. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:00, 3 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) 21:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had a look at the French article, still the same sources. Not sure if his awards are notable, I'm leaning towards not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is more a self-promotional writeup than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 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 Hanging Canyon. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowhead Pool[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND, which requires "information beyond statistics and coordinates". The GNIS link doesn't even yield an article about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only pieces of coverage I could find were brief mentions in hiking guides. No significant coverage that would be sufficient for a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Grand Teton National Park per WP:CHEAP.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to Hanging Canyon, but not to the park, as it's not even mentioned in that article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me.4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 23 September 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator as indicated below. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagger: Rebel, Rock Star, Rambler, Rogue[edit]

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

Purely promotional, limited coverage ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 23:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our article is written promotionally, but the book appears to have attracted reviews in several reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given reviews in The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, The Boston Globe, The A.V. Club, Maclean's, and more. I have removed the promotional bit which appeared to be copied from the publisher's description. This meets WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT #1. DanCherek (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been tired and missed that. I'm happy to withdraw my nomination if it'll speed up the close process. 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 23:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Mukherjee[edit]

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

Not a notable musician. The article was written without any references and mainly based on the musician's personal webiste which is no longer available. No secondary references, no notable coverages, in no way satisfies WP:SINGER. Dixiku (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some additional references and added them. I also used InternetArchiveBot at https://iabot.toolforge.org/index.php to recover the pages from the musician's personal website and added those archived pages to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey Eastmain, can you highlight which references do you think are helping with notability? At first look, I felt it failed. But seeing your comment, I might be missing something. Please list them here at this discussion. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:56, 6 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) 21:33, 9 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) 23:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources added by Eastmain are mostly not independent and unreliable. Those that are not consist of trivial coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 08:35, 23 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Divided Heart[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF, lacking any other indication of notability per WP:NFO BOVINEBOY2008 21:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and NFILM. 4meter4 (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:15, 23 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vartkess Knadjian[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Was dePRODded in 2015, so we're here. Not mentioned at Backes & Strauss and would likely be undue to mention one CEO in a three hundred year old company's history. BEFORE only indicates name drops in connection with the company, and an interview or two. Nothing to meet WP:BIO Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 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) 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Backes & Strauss where his name currently appears in the Infobox. I agree with the nominator that merging more information about this person into the article on his employer would unbalance it. A man with a job, in which role he has some coverage, but I am seeing no evidence that he has distinct biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is not met properly. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 IPT Futsal League - Circuit 4 (Eastern Zone)[edit]

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

Nominating all three of these for deletion because they all concern a season of a non-notable regional division of a minor league for a minor sport. Searches of the title of the league in conjunction with teams involved bring back no independent sources about the tournament. Given that it's an amateur tournament played between university teams in the same region, I'm not surprised by the lack of coverage. That being said, I am impressed by the level of statistical detail in these three articles given that there don't appear to be any sources at all about any of these tournaments. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - follwing discussion below, I'm also now including the main article 2013 IPT Futsal League, which also has no WP:RS coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the other two:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they all fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just deprodded 2013 IPT Futsal League. @Spiderone: why was this not included in this nom? If that is just an oversight, I suggest adding it now, it's only a couple of days into the AFD. SpinningSpark 07:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't find anything for that either. For example, this Malaysian search leads us nowhere. The article itself is, again, only cited to primary sources. Pinging @GiantSnowman: and @Joseph2302: to see whether they would keep their delete vote the same now that I have included the main 2013 IPT league article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to delete that as well. Giant Snowman 10:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same, delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Clog Wolf _Howl 04:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. 4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 23 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DBKL Youth Futsal League[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a sports almanac and doesn't need to document every single minor youth tournament of every sport in existence. I attempted many searches including this one and couldn't find any reliable sources independent of the subject. In fact, almost everything was just a Wikipedia mirror. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the sub-article:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no claim to notability. Geschichte (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:03, 23 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalya Sengupta[edit]

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

This new article, which has received 114 edits in the 24 hours that it has existed, is full of BLP-violating claims that get put in and taken out. I've checked some of the sources through Google translation and they don't support the statements. I'm not sure that notability is established here, aside from the crime complaints, but it's clear that this article is the result of a news story or a discussion on social media. Given the flurry of activity, the article will probably undergo a lot of changes during the period of this AFD discussion and I'm hoping someone more familiar with Indian online sources can discern if there is anything here that should be retained. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: doesn’t meet WP:GNG. The English sources cited don’t have any connection to the subject .defcon5 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 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) 🐱 19:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14 times over the last 10 years this article was anonymously vandalized. Several months ago it was proposed for deletion rather than being updated (prior referenced articles/sources to other websites had moved, so source links were no longer valid - not a good reason to just delete the majority of the content and then the article. So sad. I am happy to spend the time to re-source the supporting content to get this article back to its prior of being about technology and contributions instead of looking like an online resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechHistoryPro (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Roush[edit]

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

This person does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article before today was a clear resume, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT for. Izno (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify He is notable, but article needs to be rewritten. Kamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Elbatli, Just going to point out that draftifying a 14 year old article is essentially just deleting it. WP:DRAFTIFY makes clear that draftification is not a backdoor to deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that almost all text on the page was deleted before the nomination. -GorgonaJS (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Not enough independent coverage to justify notability of individual, article had zero content other than resume material. (WP:NOTWEBHOST) A Google search of the individual only brings up information about him as an IBM employee. Theknine2 (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:12, 23 September 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) 🐱 19:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative for Sweden[edit]

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

Not notable per lack of WP:ORGDEPTH. The footnotes are numerous, but if we ignore the plentiful references to AFS's own material (which is not a reliable source, nor independent), the other references are trivial mentions which do not go to establishing notability. Sources such as Svenska Dagbladet, Expressen, Sveriges Radio and MediaMatters are indeed independent, reliable, and secondary, but the references to them are not significant. They lack WP:ORGDEPTH, whereby "deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". Nyheter24 and Fria Tider also purvey only trivial mentions, as well as, in those cases, being of dubious reliability. Expo (magazine)[1] is the single exception, as it's both reliable and provides significant coverage (describing AFS as "A right-wing extremist party characterized by anti-Muslim propaganda and ethnonationalism... and [with] clear points of contact with the Swedish white power environment" (per Google Translate)). Mind you, I can't find any reference to Expo's description in the article — the footnotes are poorly formatted, so it may be hiding). But there is a reference in the corresponding Swedish article, which could easily be imported. That's surely not enough reliable coverage, though. Bishonen | tålk 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources need improving, but this party has played a part in Sweden's history, complete with two Riksdag members claiming allegiance at one part. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs improvements. But this party is definitely a notable party. And as stated above two Riksdag members for other partys have been claiming allegiance. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge) — I regret making the article in retrospect, because I think the time it was created was the peak of the subject's notability. The party failed to return anyone to the Riksdag in the 2018 election, and it doesn't seem to have been in the news much at all since the original MPs' defections. Especially on the English Wikipedia it doesn't seem notable enough. It maybe should be merged into the Gustav Kasselstrand article. —ajf (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other things to think about: “Alternative for Sweden” is never mentioned in the Sweden Democrats article, which is the one place other than Kasselstrand's article that I'd most expect to see a mention of AfS, and there's also extremely few English-language references in the current article. —ajf (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is swedens 10th largest party, and if National Democrats (Sweden) and Party of the Swedes is notable, so is this party (which is 10 times larger than the other parties i mentioned here) Gooduserdude (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps those pages should be deleted too, then. —ajf (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, those pages should not be deleted too, they are also notable Gooduserdude (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I leaned "keep" at first given their relative visibility in the news over the past couple of weeks, but it really is a brief flurry, around their participation in the Church of Sweden elections (where they got all of 10,000 votes throughout the country). That they are a tiny fringe group doesn't mean they couldn't be notable anyway, but I don't see the sustained and significant coverage in reliable independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The party enjoys a substantial media coverage and it's one of the larger parties outside of the riksdag. The fact that the article has few English-language references is totally irrelevant per WP:NOENG. However, I do agree that there is work to be done about improving the sources and adding proper maintenance tags to the article is a better alternative than rather just delete. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was expecting more significant coverage than I could find, to be honest, but I think there's enough to qualify the minimum requirements. As Bonadea states, they're not too visible in the media on a sustained basis; just looking at Swedish print media in w:sv:Mediearkivet for articles that mention "Alternativ för Sverige", I get 1277 hits, 264 in 2019, 143 in 2020 and 507 so far in 2021. (A few of these are probably false positives, talking about an alternative for Sweden in som other context, but most of them will be about the party.) This is mainly not the kind of material we're looking for, and I'm not sure I'd call it substantial. They did, however, not just get several seats in the nationwide elections for the Church of Sweden recently, but also had a couple of Members of Parliament in the Swedish Riksdag in the summer of 2018, in addition to getting enough coverage, looking both at sources currently in the article and some of what's not, though I should stress that most of that is "this MP defects to AfS", "what will AfS mean for the Sweden Democrats in the election?" or "AfS got a few seats in the church election". But there are relevant, separate political events with several years in between them, and coverage of those. /Julle (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be all articles in Swedish print media, to be clear; not all newspapers are included. But most of the important ones are, and it should give a decent indication of how coverage has differed over the years. /Julle (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Keep’’’: There are hundreds of articles about Trotskyist groupuscules all over the world. If we’re to cover those than a much larger party that actually has had some representation seems like it ought to be kept This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kudasai (artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of awards or charted songs. Unable to locate biographical information in reliable secondary sources. The article cites Lo-Fi Culture, which is a personal blog, and Earmilk, which uses unpaid writers to review user-submitted music. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a rookie Wikipedian and this is my article so I'll refrain from saying if it should stay or not. I added an extra source next to earmilk, which was mostly to show that it was released this year, but I guess Spotify verifies that anyways now that I think about it. I know myself that he is a prevalent artist, he has over half a million monthly listeners, but it's in a very niche scene, and neither interviews nor tours are really a thing. So I wouldn't be mad seeing this get deleted for those reasons. More or less just saying that he is most likely notable enough for at least remaining as a stub, but sources should be added to strengthen this. Official Dieborg (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two new sources added was to Spotify, and the other was a link to Music Existence, a website musicians submit music to for review, and where they can pay for sponsored posts and the promotion of new releases. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a link with an itunes charting history if it helps in any way, plus a trivial link i found while searching. Did not know about that factor with music existence unfortunately. I found the exact same review on Original Rock which to means he either put it there too, or if original rock is reliable, that it could perhaps be validated. But I'm giving up my search for more sources. If the article lacks too much validation to simpy put a notability template, then I am for deletion. Moving it to my user page / drafts (im very confused how english wikipedia works sorry), in case he gains more notability in the future, would be very appreciated. Official Dieborg (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The EARMILK source is pretty in-depth. Is that site reliable? Mlb96 (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say anything about the sites actual reliability, unpaid writers making user-submitted reviews doesn't seem too wrong to me. User-submitted would just mean someone asks to review that artist? Which to me means someone wants to know what a writer/music interested person thinks about the music and artist. It's not the same like the other ones where the artist could pay to get a short review. This is an in-depth review of an artist, that someone wished for a review on. To me that means notability. But I can't really find out how to see if the site itself is reliable, since I do respect that reliability is worth a lot more than assumptions. Official Dieborg (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication that he meets WP:NMUSIC.-Xclusivzik (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 23 September 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 Donnelley Financial Solutions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDGAR Online[edit]

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

The company doesn't seem to be notable by itself. Previously PRODded, it was rescued with the edit summary "WP:REFUND" in 2019, but nothing much has been done to improve it in the meantime. The only source provided is to an SEC filing and WP:BEFORE only seems to bring up press releases and the like, none of which seem to cover the company in detail. ♟♙ (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into RR Donnelley. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough references to provide much of anything to be merged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest it meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. I also agree there's nothing to merge. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donnelley Financial Solutions per WP:CHEAP.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naiga (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. All indication is very very early career. scope_creep^Talk 16:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has enough sources and also is kinda notable Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 22:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are mostly primary, and the few secondary ones are not RS and/or sigcov enough to establish WP:GNG notability, and there's nothing to indicate WP:MUSICBIO either. Also, a promo/vanity piece by a SPA, with possible COI/UPE issues. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep by the sources of article, I think she passes notability per WP:MUSICBIO.Gravehoot (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did somebody give you an order to come in vote on this morning. You know its not a voting system, its a discussion. SPA scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the comment above as it was made by a sock puppet now permanently blocked.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is primarily sourced to Spotify and other sources that lack independence. Not enough significant independent coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 03:20, 23 September 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) 🐱 08:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Computer-aided quality assurance[edit]

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

Article was once marked as poor due to lack of citation. Marking for deletion once more due to lack of content, citation, structure, meaning, etc. From QA POV, CAQ might be a thing in the very future (AI-driven Q) but FMEA, for example, is more of a process and most of the activities we do today to improve quality are surrounded and driven by calculations (on top of a machine, a computer) but this is not consider a specialty as such. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. 17387349L8764 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 17387349L8764 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. it may not seem intrinsically meaningful, but the world seems to think otherwise: I'm going to limit my citations to the best sources in patents and peer-reviewed journals and conferences in a variety of fields (using just a plain Google search without even checking other sources)--
Computer aided quality assurance software system Jun 21, 2004 - The Boeing Company [2] A patent, but from a major company. Defined as"A software system including simulation routines embedded inside a computer aided drafting (CAD) platform.", which is al ittle more specific than the present article, and not really totally redundant with everything else in the field. *Computer aided quality assurance software system Jun 21, 2004 - The Boeing Company [3] A patent, but from a major company. Defined as"A software system including simulation routines embedded inside a computer aided drafting (CAD) platform.", which is a little more specific than the present article, and not totally redundant with everything else in the field.
Haynes RB, Walker CJ. Computer-Aided Quality Assurance: A Critical Appraisal. Arch Intern Med. 1987;147(7):1297–1301. doi:10.1001/archinte.1987.00370070111016. , available in [4] (from JAMA)
A. C. P. Guedon, F. C. Meeuwsen, J. Dankelman, J. J. van den Dobbelsteen ISQUA16-2984 - Computer aided quality assurance in the planning of the surgical pathway. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Volume 28, Issue suppl_1, 14 October 2016, Page 47, [5]
A Wagner IV, Schneider W. Computer-aided quality assurance in oral health care: the image of electronic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1992 Nov;21(4):195-7. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.21.4.1299633. PMID: 1299633.
Hein, Hartmut and Barjenbruch, Ulrich and Blasi, Christoph and Mai, Stephan (2012) Computer-aided quality assurance of high-resolution digitized historic tide-gauge records. In: Hydro12 - Taking care of the sea., 13 November 2012 - 15 November 2012, Rotterdam https://doi.org/10.3990/2.240 (another conference, published by University of Twente
Gupta V.K., Sagar R. (1991) Computer Aided Quality Assurance Systems. In: Dwivedi S.N., Verma A.K., Sneckenberger J.E. (eds) CAD/CAM Robotics and Factories of the Future ’90. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-84338-9_60. (Conference paper, but published by Springer, a major scientific publisher)
K. Wick, W. Gohe, F. Meuters and H. Schmedders. Computer-aided on-line control methods for rail quality assurance Rev. Met. Paris, Vol. 87, N°5 (Mai 1990), pp. 479–490 [6]
Jansche, Martin , Computer-Aided Quality Assurance of an Icelandic Pronunciation Dictionary", Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14), 2014, "European Language Resources Association (ELRA) "

and, finally, an actual iso standard:

ISO/IeC2382-24 1995, [7] " Item 24.01.09 computer-aided quality assurance CAQA (abbreviation)CAQ assurance (abbreviation) "Quality assurance ensured by computerized planning, monitoring and control of processes, parts, and products throughout all phases of the product life cycle. Note 1 to entry: Computer-aided quality assurance includes a quality report System from design to field Performance and from shop floor to management, and may include manufacturing history."

I will admit I'm rather surprised. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wedel[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPROF. A search does turn up lots of reliable sources which mention the subject, but all of them are passing mentions, with no significant coverage of the subject. AryKun (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AElExF8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra Citations 1793, h-index 22, i10-index 27. And at the Library of Congress: this search Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reasonable citations in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain.4meter4 (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted under WP:CSD G3 as obvious hoax. None of the information beyond the mere existence of this person can be confirmed. Clear hoax. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John L. Georgiou[edit]

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

Can't actually find any independent secondary sources for anything dealing with the subject. All references that were in the article that I checked were falisified and didn't mention the subject. Many images that were in the article are obvious photoshops, including the current one in the radio section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at this point I'm convinced the article is a hoax. Almost all of the pictures from this version are photoshopped or otherwise manipulated. There's no information about any of the supposed radio shows anywhere that I can find. Every citation I checked did not mention the subject. The only website for the "internationally syndicated" radio show is a facebook page with like 28 likes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a one of the "citations" is a real citation in a format which can be checked or verified. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Get rid of this nonsense ASAP, and the perps should be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ScottishFinnishRadish. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - blatant hoax, horrific Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atif Rahman[edit]

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

Coverage is about his company and not him. Not meeting WP:GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 23 September 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 23:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shailesh Gandhi[edit]

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

There are letters written by him to various people. But they don't talk about him as a person. I feel this doesn't have enough coverage for WP:GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haripad Ramakrishna Pillai[edit]

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

Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

@Rajeshb n: Can you please provide an explanation as to why this article should be kept?--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with the nomination. Not enough to meet WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major Kathakali artist. Tintin 12:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now there are hundreds of Kathakali artists in Kerala and to a lessor extent even in Tamil Nadu not everyone is notable not clear why the particular subject is notable the article does not have single WP:RS reference 2 are youtube links , one is a blog and in a movie song in which it is claimed his name is mentioned and last one is also not WP:RS .Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Herbrich[edit]

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

Non-notable. Does not appear to have won any truly significant film award and otherwise fails WP:GNG, as the only sources in the article are press releases; own website; and catalogues, and what I could find elsewhere is an interview or another one about a film he produced... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note The recent additions to the article by its creator are also similarly based on dubious sources (including the two I found above, and more listings and trivial coverage)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: New references enclosed on Sept 3rd 2021 are all live status and acknowledged. This concerns

Ref 1: Issued by Filmmuseum Düsseldorf – stating Herbrich's Vorlass (= Nachlass of a living person) has been taken to its collection in 2019

Ref 9: Issued by Hanns Seidel Foundation – information about film workshop on „Searching for El Dorado“ and „Bikini – mon amour“ held by Oliver Herbrich in the renowned institution in Dec 2019.

Ref 11: Issued by German newspaper Die Zeit – article on release history of „The Bavarian Al Capone“ in 1987

Ref 12: Issued by German newspaper Donaukurier – article on re-release of „The Bavaria Al Capone“ in Nov. 2019 (full page article)

Ref 13: Issued by German newspaper Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung – Interview with Oliver Herbrich on „Earthbound“ from Aug 2018 (full page article)

Ref 16/17: issued by German Films – archive information (synopsis, film data, festivals) on „Priests of the Condemned“ and „Rules of the Road“ in English

Ref 19: Issued by German newspaper Münchner Merkur – article on Oliver Herbrich on start of retrospective form Nov 2017 (full page article)

Post scriptum: The English press releases (= references 2, 5, 8, 10 and 15) have been replaced by information from DFF – Deutsches Filminstitut und Filmmuseum Frankfurt providing archival material on German films in English language. The films referred to are 30 to 40 years old – only references from that time are printed newspaper articles and interviews in German language (i.e. pdf) – no recent web sources available from that pre internet era). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henriette2018 (talk • contribs)

In order: ref 1 = database entry; ref 9 = pamphlet for a seminary which looks both like routine coverage and non-independent coverage (it's clear the Herbrich was involved, "Wir freuen uns, dass Oliver Herbrich mit uns über seine Filme diskutieren wird [...]" [We are happy that Oliver Herbrich will discuss his movies with us]); ref 11: can't access [8], but looks from the title more like a candidate for coverage of the movie than of it's director (and WP:NINHERITED), and might even be an interview like refs 12 ([9]) and 13 ([10]) - interview are not independent of the subject, so are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG; 16/17 are also database entries; and 19 is also an interview (as I've identified in my original post here). So basically none of the sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: More (non-interview) media coverage from German press on Herbrich and his work (1980 – 1995) is available as printed newspaper articles and could be submitted as pdfs. However, inclusion as download (via “filesur.com”) has been inhibited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henriette2018 (talk • contribs)

The reason for that is because hosting of content like that without the approval of the copyright holders is a copyright violation and Wikipedia can't link to copyright violations for obvious legal reasons. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all refrences have been replaced - please see leastest version of the article. No more interviews or data base entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henriette2018 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World 2022[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. The 2021 competition hasn't occurred yet. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. Clearly Miss World is a notable competition, and everything in the article so far is verified by sources. Since there is encyclopedic content that can be written about the competition (even if it hasn't happened yet), a stand alone article is warranted Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Also the coverages are majorly about the contestants who will be participating. - The9Man ^(Talk) 17:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until the 2021 event is actually held, as cancellation is still widely possible. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 14:31, 23 September 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) 4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic guard[edit]

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

Totally unreferenced WP:OR, and tagged as such for 8 years. This is basically an overgrown dictdef. I can't find any WP:SECONDARY sources that talk about this in a significant way. I'd be happy turning this into a redirect, but I can't find any appropriate place to redirect it to. Maybe w:wikt:flagger? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously going to be kept, so saving some time and withdrawing my nomination. I hope that some of the people who went and found sources actually use them to fix up the article, which is still 100% unsourced. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in Australia these are called "traffic controllers" (an altname already listed in the lede) and as a profession the subject has received quite a bit of coverage, primarily because of gender hiring preferences: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably should make that clear. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:SOURCESEXIST. In the US these people are almost always called "flaggers" and any documentation, reporting or regulations would report them as such. They show up in OSHA and State regulations with in depth coverage of how they're supposed to perform their duties. If you do a WP:BEFORE with "flagger" or "traffic controller" then you'll find plenty of sources. The article should not have remained unsourced for so long but it shouldn't be difficult to improve through editing. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOURCESEXIST is one of the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The two documents you linked to are WP:PRIMARY sources, of which plenty exist. The problem is finding significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a small sample of the available secondary sources above. I suspect Qwaiiplayer was simply pointing out that there are also technical primary sources available to verify some of the article content. Unless I've misunderstood both comments here...? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, my intent was to point out that there are plenty of sources under other names as pointed out below. Jumpytoo's scholar search is good. The UK terms brought up by Andrew are less common but I found one scholarly source that uses that term. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources, here's three that I picked randomly from a Google Scholar search:

Ullman, G. L.; Levine, S. Z.; Booker, S. C. (April 1987). "Flagger safety and alternatives to manual flagging" (406-1F). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Kim, Il-Gon (2010). "A Suggestion on the Traffic Flagger System in Japan". Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference: 200–203.
Booker, Scott C.; Ullman, Gerald L.; Levine, Steven Z. (1987). "SUPPLEMENTAL DEVICES TO ENHANCE FLAGGER SAFETY". Transportation Research Record (1148). ISSN 0361-1981.

Jumpytoo Talk 06:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the UK, these might be known as a traffic marshal, banksman or slinger. The key point of WP:DICDEF is not that we should delete stubs but that "in Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by". Also, per WP:V, sources are only required for quotations and controversial facts. See WP:CAPTAINOBVIOUS. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep evidently there are sources that discuss this profession whether under the name "traffic guard" or under a different name. NemesisAT (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is proof that reliable sources are available. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:39, 19 September 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 Honey Bunny Ka Jholmaal. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Bunny in Double Impact[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. dudhhr_Contribs 19:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Honey Bunny Ka Jholmaal per WP:CHEAP.4meter4 (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Honey Bunny Ka Jholmaal per above. Non-notable otherwise. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 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. As Eggishorn points out, moving the article does not solve the problem of lacking sources (WP:V). Sandstein 15:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War Telephone[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While the particular iteration of the company may not meet CORPDEPTH, its likely the historic War Telephone Company does. With a bit of work looking through historic newspaper archives to source the content, the article could probably be salvaged by simply moving the article to War Telephone Company and making the historic company the primary subject and the current company as a secondary mention in the article. A google books search yielded several Us Congressional reports and FCC reports involving that company from the 1940s through 1980s. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to War Telephone Company - seems sensible and there doesn't seem to be any objections. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources in the article or searches, not surprisingly for a single-county utility subdivision. I don't see how renaming addresses the almost complete lack of sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 21 September 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 12:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Al Ameri[edit]

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

Previously deleted on CSD A7 grounds, has since been recreated. Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 16 September 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 ~~transwiki~~. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting with an admin on en.wiktionary I've learned that they no longer accept transwikis from Wikipedia. This AfD is therefore to be considered closed with a decision of delete. If anyone wants the deleted article content to create a new Wiktionary entry with quotations, leave a message on my usertalk. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meal train[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Another editor discussed the lack of notability on the article talk page in 2016 and I don't see that anything has changed since then. No in-depth discussions of this topic seem to exist in WP:RS. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mean, it's a valid term, Gnews turns up a few hits here and there of the term. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if the entry doesn’t already exist transwiki to Wiktionary, for obvious reasons already stated by Oaktree. Dronebogus (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Article is a dictionary deference, and WP:NOTDICT applies. However, wiktionary is a dictionary, and since it doesn't currently cover the phrase, transwikifying is the appropriate decision. BilledMammal (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, Wikipedia isn't for dictionary definitions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as above: it exists, but it doesn't seem to have attracted GNG-qualifying coverage. Sending it to Wiktionary strikes me as a reasonable alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - I was surprised that no academic sources discussing this concept exist, but I was unable to find any, including in e.g. caregiving and nursing journals. Thus, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above.4meter4 (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Per everyone above, textbook WP:NOTDICTIONARY.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pavilion Bukit Jalil[edit]

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

An upcoming or Under construction shopping mall does not pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I moved the article into Draft and the same is declined by Usedtobecool. It seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. DMySon (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage is just press releases, the article is just an advertising poster - as the nomination says, it is too soon.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 23 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Head of the Class (2021 TV series)[edit]

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

Relies primarily on a single source. Article about a future HBO series. Main purpose appears to be promotional (WP:PROMO). Lacks WP:SIGCOV. At best, WP:TOOSOON. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: No reason to delete the article when work have been put into the article and it can be draftify. There are currently 8 reliable sources on it and that is not a single source. I don't believe it is WP:PROMO at all. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 23 September 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 10:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Seung-tae[edit]

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

Article has been here since the early days of Wikipedia but I'm not sure what the actual claim to notability is; he appears to have only played at semi-pro and amateur level so there is no claim to WP:NFOOTBALL. Korean searches in Google News and DDG don't seem to come up with any detailed coverage of him, so can't presume he passes WP:GNG either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:06, 16 September 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) 09:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Myung-sung[edit]

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

Non-notable semi-pro footballer; see Soccerway; fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Article alleges that he was in the squad for Football at the 2009 East Asian Games, but this was the B team for South Korea so wouldn't count towards NFOOTBALL anyway.

Korean searches in Google News and DDG yields only trivial coverage. Best I can find in terms of coverage is a photo caption and more photo captions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFOOTY. Lorenzo the great (talk) 17:46, 17 September 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. – Joe (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anga area[edit]

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

Lack of adequate citations. Jakichandan (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Anga area appears to be defined as where the Angika language is spoken. The absence of references comes from a content dispute in which another editor removed some valid references. This old version includes references. Jakichandan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) placed an AfD notice, and then removed a lot of text, followed by adding a {{csd-a3}}. I added a reference, which Jakichandan then reverted. I am not interested in edit warring, but I would encourage an uninvolved editor to revert to an old version such as this one. I do not think the article should be speedy-deleted, particularly when the apparent lack of context comes from an unjustified edit. I take no position on whether Angika is a dialect of Maithili language, which seems to be under dispute here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, I've restored the missing references and content for now, and take no position on the article's notability at this time. The addition of {{csd-a3}} clearly was incorrect. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain and Firsfron: I have tried to explain my case here. Regards.–Jakichandan (talk) 22:49, 1 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) 17:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge It seems Angika should be able to provide the area it's spoken in. Sources are not clear that this is a distinct region. Reywas92^Talk 13:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: couldn’t find any source that establishes this as a distinct area in India. The books cited in the article don’t seem to contain the word Anga in them.defcon5 (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to NASA. ✗plicit 12:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NASAcast[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Previous AfD did not present any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, and searching Google News, Google News Archive, Google Books, and Google Scholar yields only passing mentions of the subject. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to NASA. My BEFORE also failed to find any WP:SIGCOV. That article can mention it in some relevant section about NASA-related media, in a passing sentence. Does not need its own article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NASA. Clearly fails WP:WEBCRIT, as the notability is not inherited from the parent organization and there's little to no independent coverage to be found. Perhaps whoever merges this should create a new section like NASA#Media which could include information on NASAcast and NASA TV. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NASA. Fails WP:WEBCRIT per Piotr's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to NASA. ✗plicit 12:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Edge[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Searching Google News, Google News Archives, Google Books, and Google Scholar only yield passing mentions or WP:ROUTINE mentions of events. The article was tagged for notability issues way back in 2007 and then a user removed it in 2008 without providing reliable secondary sources that show in depth coverage of the subject. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nasa Edge is a podcast now, not sure what it has to do with this. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: I'm not sure I understand your comment. I opened the AfD for NASA Edge and it's true that it's a podcast. Was it at some point not a podcast? The article says it's a vodcast or video podcast. Either way it needs to meet the requirements of WP:N or perhaps WP:WEB. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was a television show, I hadn't looked at the article before posting. Oaktree b (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unable to find reliable, secondary coverage. However, is there a viable merge target for NASA Edge, NASAcast and NASA 360? Maybe an article about NASA outreach/media? It seems to be a notable topic overall, although the video podcast itself is not. Star Mississippi 01:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi I am no sure if NASA outreach/media is a notable topic. I'd start with a section in the main article, if it grows it can be perhaps split off. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me as well, Piotrus. Star Mississippi 13:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to NASA. My BEFORE also failed to find any WP:SIGCOV. That article can mention it in some relevant section about NASA-related media, in a passing sentence. Does not need its own article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NASA. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NASAcast_(2nd_nomination). Clearly fails WP:WEBCRIT, as the notability is not inherited from the parent organization and there's little to no independent coverage to be found. Perhaps whoever merges this should create a new section like NASA#Media which could include information on this, NASAcast, NASA TV, and NASA 360. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NASA. Fails WP:WEBCRIT per Piotr's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A number of leads to sources have opened up during this nomination, and the article creator may yet respond to their ping. If it turns out there's not enough to properly source the article improve we can go again with another AfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panchanan Chakraborty[edit]

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

Article is based on two offline sources: one of which was written by the subject and the other by Pabitrakumar Gupta which I can not even find evidence of its existence ( a google search yielded no further information with no hits in libraries, publishers, etc.) With no publisher given, it's not clear that this offline source is even a reliable published resource. A WP:BEFORE search yielded many sources about a different person, the economist and economics professor Panchanan Chakraborty, but nothing about the revolutionary. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete: Do note that just because a source is offline or you do not have access to it does not necessarily make it unusable as a source. That being said, the nominator is correct that the one source written by the author is unusable, and the second can't be found. A somewhat thorough search in both English and Bengali returned very little; there are some passing mentions under his alternative name (searches using the article title are clouded as there is a modern professor with the same name), but nothing substantial as far as I can find. This is all in addition to the fact that the article seems to be written in the form of more caste war nonsense. I'm opting to put lean delete because sources may exist, but my best effort turned up zilch. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found some sources which mention him but none that discuss him in any depth; i.e, Ray 1979 (p. 612) mentions him as the leader of revolt groups in Faridpur, Ray 1980 (p. 460) mentions him as an example of inaccuracies in Intelligence Reports where he was represented as the leader of a revolt group in Madaripur, Chattopadhyay 1984 (p. 73) is about Santosh Kumari Devi (note for me to create a page on her) and cites his testimony as a primary source, Hasan 2016 mentions him as an example of flogging by colonial authorities, Dhar 2009 (non academic memoir) mentions him as a "legendary name" associated with the Forward Bloc.

All in, this confirms that he as a person existed, was at least a mid level figure in revolutionary groups and was (is?) fairly well known in Bengal, but the sourcing as far as I could find is just name dropping here and there. There also appears to be multiple other people with the same name including his contemporaries which makes finding sources much more difficult. I can't read Bengali and google translation is too poor with Indian language especially for this kind of focused searches, so it's also quite possible that other Bengali language sources exist as well. Pinging Soman and Goldsztajn who may be better able than me at finding sources in this topic area and for confirming whether ref 2 in the article is usable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep kudos to Tayi Arajakate for doing the legwork here. Clearly there's a variety of English transliterations of his name. I had attempted some searching a little earlier and got as far as one of the Ray articles, but RL intervened. There's also a mention of him (p.79) as an influence upon Prafulla Das, the Oria writer who spent his childhood in Calcutta. My Bangla is not strong enough to do the detailed textual reading (rather than searching) necessary, but given the presence of multiple mentions with regard to his actions within the Bengali elements of the Freedom Movement around Chandra Bose, this is very much a case of it being more than reasonable to assume offline sources exist. For example: Bangla text searching turns up this: "এই বিক্ষুব্ধ গােষ্ঠীর অন্যতম প্রধান নায়ক ছিলেন পঞ্চানন চক্রবর্তী" ( "One of the main heroes of this rebellious group was Panchanan Chakraborty") from bn:Arabinda Poddara's বাংলার অগ্নিযুগ সূর্যোদয় ও সূর্যাস্তের দিনগুলি (1997) [16]. I've left a notification on the article author's page; FWIW, they seem an editor who had an unfrivolous focus in this subject area. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Goldsztajn, the mentions indicate notability as a historical figure and AGF with respect to ref 2 provided by article's author. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is notable as a historical figure, although online references are very sparse.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sources provided by Goldsztajn are brief mentions of the subject and don't contain in-depth coverage of Panchanan Chakraborty. While these sources do make claims about the subject that would seem to indicate some notability, they don't count as RS per the purposes of WP:GNG. GNG states that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail which these sources don't. Additionally, the article is entirely based upon material written by the subject and a text that we have no publishing information about. We have no way of knowing if the Pabitrakumar Gupta text is self published, or is an essay, or a book, or to what extent the source is independent or reliable. I really don't see how the keep votes can be justified or supported by wikipedia's notability policies in the face of the lack of significant coverage in RS.4meter4 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, for failing WP:GNG. 4meter4 rightfully points out that "mentions" do not count for notability. Ifnord (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nomination. I agree with what 4meter4 has already pointed out.defcon5 (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a historical figure. This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encylopedia of the English language speaking world. References to sources in languages other than English are entirely acceptable to establish notability, although English sources are preferable when readily available to choose from. A topic covered in reliable, independent sources in Hindi languages is notable for inclusion in the English Wikipedia even if English sources on the topic are lacking. VocalIndia (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- VocalIndia, what sources in Hindi????? As far as I can see, there aren't any that provide WP:SIGCOV (assuming good faith for the offline source, of course). Curbon7 (talk) 18:11, 22 September 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 10:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anhar Al Deek[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:1E. SL93 (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider renaming to Incarceration of Anhar Al Deek, per examples such as Incarceration of Daniel Chong. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not significant. She attempted to murder someone when she was already pregnant and and as a result was held in jail pending trial. Free1Soul (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG also seems to be one sided WP:POV push --Shrike (talk) 06:45, 22 September 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) 09:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim In-kyo[edit]

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

Article makes no claim to playing in either of the top two tiers in South Korea nor any other professional league per WP:FPL, so looks like a failure of WP:NFOOTBALL. I can't find any database profile for him that would suggest otherwise. Korean searches in Gnews and DDG come up with nothing relevant to suggest a WP:GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY. Clog Wolf _Howl 04:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#6, article is currently on the mainpage. (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Aust[edit]

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

Notability doubted. The main source for this article is an autobiography; three of the sources here are self publications from the unit he commanded. Love and Parting (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Love and Parting (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this page has recently been a 'Did You Know', with the reviewer AngryHarpy stating that the article was 'adequately sourced'. Template:Did you know nominations/Charlie Aust Turini2 (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while a number of the current sources do not appear to be independent, a quick Google search shows that he is at least mentioned in a number of books, indicating SIGCOV. I also have to question whether the Nom who has only been on WP since 21 July 2021 and has only made 43 edits in total is really competent to make an AFD nomination at this point. Mztourist (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the number and range of the sources quoted, this seems like overkill on what is basically a well written article in need of a little polish and tidying up. Downsize43 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No real argument for NOTE, which seems self-evident, this is really just about requiring better sources and that's not deletable on its own. Don't delete what you can fix, and this seems easily fixable. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:SNOWCLOSE this AFD. There are sufficient sources to fulfill WP:GNG. Sadly WP:SOLDIER is no longer a notability guideline but he'd have met that too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep- last leader of a military faction

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 10:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia Sedykh[edit]

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

She clearly does not pass WP:NSPORT as all her achievements are at the junior level. Most sources in the article are databases, I see one short interview, which imo does not create notability as per WP:GNG. Some info together with this reference can be easily merged into the article about her father. Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This falls short of WP:SPORTCRIT's stipulation that athletes competing at the highest level are notable. Age-restricted competitions are not. The European Championships or something of that order would have been. This was probably written by a Youth Olympics fan (retired from enwiki since 2013) who also took into consideration her famous pedigree. Geschichte (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both the above. Not enough for GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete She may not have competed at the highest level, but she is more than just a Youth Olympic competitor. She won a gold medal there, which alone should warrant at the very least having a page, since that is in fact a well-respected competition. 13:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a competition reserved for children. We don't cover children's football, children's soccer, children's basketball... Geschichte (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a child athlete does have enough significant coverage from reliable sources over a significant period of time to pass WP:GNG then we absolutely do cover them. So if Sedykh has that kind of coverage, the article should be kept. If she doesn't, which so far looks like to be the case, then the article should be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:32, 23 September 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 10:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apache XAP[edit]

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

I just can't find any sources on this that aren't from Apache itself, or a minuscule passing mention (even entire books on the overall topic only mention this in passing). This seems to be a very niche software project that lacks wider notability. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your findings. I think it makes sense to delete the Apache XAP page.

Delete never got past incubation, then retired 12 years ago before getting notable. W Nowicki (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Litbits[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The Samantha Ellis source is a WP:BLOG. The Guardian source is trivial. The ABC source might be the only source that is more than a trivial mention, but WP:GNG states that more than one source is generally expected.The remaining sources appear to all be permanently dead links to primary or unreliable sources. When searching there are some WP:GHITS because James Kidd wrote some articles for the South China Morning Post and a journalist named Ron Cerabona has a column at The Canberra Times called “Litbits”. Searching Google Books and Google Scholar yields a few sources discussing a blog by the same name, but full previews are not available for the books and it looks like the blog is by a guy named Bedford so I don’t think it’s related to the radio show. I also couldn’t find anything on newspapers.com related to the radio show. The article is also an orphan except for one of the guest’s pages links to it, but as far as I can tell there isn’t a real redirect target. It’s also worth noting that the article has been tagged for notability issues since 2015. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Glass[edit]

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

Originally sent for deletion in 8 June 2019. Rationale by User:Bearcat stated as: Original research article which tries to invent an art genre. This is referenced primarily to sources which verify the existence of glass artists who identify as LGBTQ, alongside a couple of sources that tangentially verify stray facts like the definition of "LGBTQ" and the broad overall history of LGBTQ art — but not a single source here actually discusses or contextualizes "queer glass" as a recognized or defined genre of art in its own right. As always, "people who happen to be both X and Y" do not automatically always constitute their own distinct genre: art critics would have to identify and analyze "queer glass" as a thing before a Wikipedia article about it became appropriate scope_creep^Talk 06:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't sure about the simple re-stating of a 2 year old deletion nomination but I went and did some digging and, honestly, I don't think the availability of sources has substantially improved. Or really changed at all. There are still sources that incidentally put the two words together in the context of unusual glass, unusual spectacles, the queer "lens", glass blowers that are pro-LGBT (but not exclusively about making glass products for LGBT people), and other such things. But really nothing that supports the suggestion that there is some specific art movement or school or concept or trend that expresses queer-ness through the medium of glass. I'm sure that there are some artists who might do so, and even some who have dedicated particular pieces or collections to an LGBT cause or concept. But that's not the same thing as the subject here Its difficult, then, to conclude that this is anything other than synthesis. Indeed, the only place this idea exists is here on Wikipedia, and that's obviously not appropriate. The article itself has been filled to the brim with "references" (most of which make no mention of the term, let alone give it significant coverage) but relies heavily on this blog, the publishers of which also publish a local "newsmagazine". The blog post in question actually references the first deletion discussion here on Wikipedia, and then republishes an essay (of sorts) from the person our new article credits with having invented the term. Its the worst kind of self-referential circular sourcing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see two new museum sources added to this article, including (arguably) the best known glass museum in the world in Tacoma, which according to the reference hosted a discussion on the term "Queer Art" and what it means. The fact that the planet's leading art museum did this, is clear evidence to the most casual reader that this term exists in the glass world and not just in Wikipedia as noted above. As for the "cicular sourcing" I do not what's so odd about the museum lecture being done by the artist credited with inventing the term? It would be like Clement Greenberg discussing the Color Field genre of painting. I do not find it difficult at all to conclude the existance of the term, and suspect that since a few museums have now used it in ehibitions, that outweighs any WIkipedia's editors personal opinion of the validity of the term. --JaxChix (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, they hosted a talk by Tim Tate (self-credited with having created the term); a talk he named after the term he created. Within the announcement for that talk, the term itself is hyperlinked (in place of an explanation of the term) and directs to a Wikipedia mirror with a copy of our own article and its explanation that Tate created the term. Even if we accept that Tate created the term (an assertion that, as far as I can tell, cannot even be verified) we still need for the term to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Otherwise, the only source available to support this Wikipedia article, is this Wikipedia article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Stalwart111 makes a very compelling case here. This could be a case of WP:TOOSOON and maybe better sources treating this subject more fully will emerge in the future. ~~At the moment the basis of the article seems to basically be Tate - so could we not merge any of the good stuff from this article into his article?~~ I also really don't see the utility of a list of non-notable "Queer Glass" Artists. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Normally a worthwhile suggestion, Vlad, but in this case even that would be circular. Tate first thanks someone for using the term (in passing) in this blog post in 2019 and, in that post, then ascribes the term some broader meaning or use. But to define what "Queer Glass" is supposed to mean, he cites the original Wikipedia article itself. That blog post did not exist until this article existed (in its original form), not the other way around. We would be using a blog post that cites a previous iteration of this Wikipedia article as a source for this Wikipedia article. Merging the content elsewhere doesn't change that very significant problem, unfortunately. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. So my understanding is this article was mainly formed on the back of a singular LBTQI+ Glass art exhibition and then became one of those weird cases of a WP article influencing its own subject. This probably happens more than we realise. No way this meets GNG. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have been a single throwaway line in one particular introductory speech at one specific art exhibition, but yes, you're exactly right. And I suspect you're exactly right about it happening more often than we realise. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reminded myself that WP:WINARS exists... I love that acronym. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Circular referencing at its worst. Fails WP:GNG when the bad sources are discounted. Mlb96 (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Removed the "circular referencing from the article based on the feedback from this page -- It seems to me that this issue became the rallying point for deletion, while ignoring a limited - yes, limited - but nonetheless existing multiple references to the genre term in now several publications, which included a fully-titled major exhibition in Pittsburgh. --BoriquaZurdo (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you removed one reference from the article. It still includes - in the lede - the claim that the term was described in the Old Town Crier. But that very first reference itself describes the first time the author encountered it; here on Wikipedia. As does the other blog entry that blog references. All paths lead back to Wikipedia. And even if that were not the case, use of the term in the title of a thing isn't significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not multiple shows have used the term, this is a pretty textbook example of how the intersection of two notable things (art glass and LGBTQ artists) does not inherently create a subject notable in itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. I think this clearly fits under neologism policy; and we need far better sourcing to establish it as an encyclopedic worthy concept.4meter4 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 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 10:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. Narayana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN.-- TheWikiholic (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: This article is likely notable but it need improvements by adding more citations and information. After improvement it can go through AfC. So better to draftify this and tell the draft author to improve it in draft and then submit for AfC. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 06:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG the subject was a candidate in the 2014 elections from Khammam (Lok Sabha constituency) which he lost and finished 3rd.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-elected politician.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and fails WP:NPOL. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 04:47, 21 September 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) 09:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Silwal[edit]

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

This undisclosed WP:PAID/WP:COI article's subject does not appear to be notable. My first attempt was to clean up the article but I soon realised that there is almost nothing worth retaining: unsourced, poorly sourced, and material that would be WP:UNDUE in any biography, cover more or less the whole of the article. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NJOURNALIST, fails WP:NACTOR, and the core content policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, aside from the almost certain violaton of the terms of use with WP:UPE. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probably in G11 territory, and fails WP:BIO anyways. I have no problems if this is nuked as G11, but given the UPE going on here, raising the likelihood of multiple recreations, I'd like to see the higher bar imposed by WP:G4 to prevent more time from being spent on dealing with paid-for spam here in the future. Java Hurricane 07:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this probably could be G11-ed as this is straight up spam. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:27, 23 September 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) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Fedelin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article in question does not fail WP:GNG at all. According to WP:Actor, an actor is notable if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Fedelin had two lead roles in two movies (Wild Little Love and Abandoned), lead roles in two notable TV series (Click Like Share and Huwag Kang Mangamba), and a supporting role in another notable series (Kadenang Ginto). That sounds like "significant roles" in "multiple films and television shows" to me. This information, by the way, is all contained in the current article. As for sources, a Google search yielded the following, but I'm sure there's more: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Koikefan (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep in my opinion This article in a question does not fail WP:GNG.

Wiki Scientists (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ENT with sources presented by Koikefan. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SBKSPP's reasons. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ENT. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 07:15, 20 September 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) 🐱 08:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Hapi[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced since September 2010. Likely fails notability in TV programming. In addition, too short. May be redirected to a listing, perhaps List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippines), if warranted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network). AnsrieJames9 (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as has already been done on tl.wiki. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the show, whether briefly or fully: [26], [27], [28] and [29]. It is also mentioned here as well. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:TVSHOW. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Superastig: note that mere mention (or trivial mention) is not enough. The subject must be the main topic in the sources you cited. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:TVSHOW with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep presented by Astig. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add the sources presented by Astig. Per WP:RPRGM a tv program is likely to be notable if it airs on a regional/national tv station. It is to be noted that the program in question was broadcasted in TV 5, a national television in the Philippines. --ERAMnc 06:45, 24 September 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) 09:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Gisborne earthquake[edit]

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

Couldn't find any indication of significance; casualties or damage. Information in this article is already covered in List of earthquakes in 2021. CactusTaron (Nopen't) 01:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn’t find any sources for this topic. I assume the author might have original researched.CycoMa (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insignificant natural event with next to no lasting effects. Ajf773 (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems it is a pre-shock to 2021 Kermadec Islands earthquakes and should be given a sentence there if so, otherwise no big deal, not notable. Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:21, 16 September 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) 09:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Scottish Amateur Cup[edit]

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

Deleted PROD. Amateur season competition which fails WP:FOOTY threshholds; fails WP:GNG due to scant media coverage. Author has now added many more results but only additional sources are self-published tweets from the (mostly very small-scale) clubs themselves. Crowsus (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Crowsus (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Crowsus (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Not a professional league. Fails NFOOTBALL. Lorenzo the great (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not wishing to be pedantic, but WP:NFOOTBALL makes no mention of leagues, this isn't a league anyway, and there has never been a requirement for a competition to be professional to have an article. If it was there would be no article on the FA Cup or even the UEFA Champions League, both of which have non-professional teams in.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have significant coverage. Peter303x (talk) 20:15, 21 September 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 though honestly there was no reason to bring this to AfD. A talk page discussion to determine the primary topic and {{db-move}} would have sufficed. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Arkhipov[edit]

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

Quite a useless disambiguation page. ~~The two entries listed here don't even have the same first name (Vasily Arkhipov (general) vs Vasili Arkhipov (vice admiral) .~~ The vice admiral is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on pageviews and notability. Hatnotes, such as For the Soviet general twice awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, see Vasily Arkhipov (general). should replace the disambig page. Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Arkhipov and Vasili Arkhipov are merely different romanizations of the same name in Russian. Their names are both Василий Архипов. Their names are pronounced the same. Having different disambiguation pages for different romanizations of the same Russian name is not done here. Russian names can be romanized in various different ways, and the any use of the same Russian name should have a disambiguation page. This is a stupid deletion nomination.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close - I'm not sure about "stupid"; it's probably just a misunderstanding. Best to just close this and move on. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A disambiguation page is evidently merited here. Java Hurricane 05:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the developments after my comment, I support moving the vice admiral's page here and moving this page to Vasily Arkhipov (disambiguation). Java Hurricane 16:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further correction: given that ONEOTHER recommends against having a disambiguation for this case, I support a deletion of the disambiguation and moving of the vice admiral's page to this title. Java Hurricane 02:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with hatnotes as we normally do when there are only two ambiguous topics, per WP:ONEOTHER. Mccapra (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. WP:ONEOTHER applies when we have a primary topic; at the moment, there is no primary topic here. Thus, the applicable part of WP:DISAMBIG would be WP:NOPRIMARY, which recommends the current system: a disambig at the base name and the two topics linked from there. Java Hurricane 06:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say that going by pageviews, the vice admiral known from the Cuban Missile Crisis is obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. TompaDompa (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vasily Arkhipov (vice admiral) per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The vice admiral is clearly the primary topic here by usage, accounting for 433,000 views against 13,000 views for the DAB page and general combined. There are already hatnotes on both articles that serve as sufficient DAB per WP:ONEOTHER. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the disambiguation page and move Vasily Arkhipov (vice admiral) to this title. WP:ONEOTHER applies, and the vice admiral is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. Hatnotes are already present at both Vasily Arkhipov (vice admiral) and Vasily Arkhipov (general). Redirecting this title to Vasily Arkhipov (vice admiral) would just complicate things needlessly (though I suppose it would be better than keeping the disambiguation page). Of the three redirects to this title, Vasily Arkhipov (disambiguation) should be deleted whereas Vasiliy Arkhipov and Vasili Arkhipov should point to the article on the vice admiral, which would mean that they would keep redirecting to the current title if my suggestion is implemented. TompaDompa (talk) 02:56, 17 September 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.