Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 17 September 19 >

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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live: The Ugly Truth (Upcoming Film)[edit]

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

No significant coverage from WP:RS. I didn’t find anything about this film on Google search. Fails every criteria listed on WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 14:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ojante Bhalobasha (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing notable on my search. Kolma8 (talk) 02:31, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhathinte Pinnale[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE . Was dePROD'ed without an explanation. Kolma8 (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:33, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aashamsakalode[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE . Was dePROD'ed without an explanation. Kolma8 (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The film's title translates as Greetings, so lots of false positives on a Google search. I don't see a corresponding article in the Malayalam Wikipedia.. The article already has two references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eastmain, all the references are to IMDB like sites that list the cast and nothing else...zero reviews and so on. Thus, so not really "references" per WP standards. Kolma8 (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kolma8. Agree with assessment of sources as unreliable IMDB type sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kolma8 fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:45, 25 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) 22:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R. Wessel[edit]

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

political operative & commentator -- i do not see the basis for notability DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:57, 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 keep. ✗plicit 10:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Veasey[edit]

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

Indications of notability, but not enough evidence, in current article or from Google search. Article has been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment - This [1] leads me to believe there is notability there....his work is in the permanent collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum. [2] Also this show at Mass MoCA [3]. But what it a little odd is that of all the museum collections listed on his CV,[4] the V&A is the only one that can be verified. Netherzone (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC) UPDATE: I've changed my Comment to K**p, as it has been established that he meets WP:GNG per SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources over a period of time, and per several of his works in the collection of the Victoria & Albert Museum (as above and in the comment below). Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 22:35, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Boundaries: Religion, Region, Language and the State[edit]

Beyond Boundaries: Religion, Region, Language and the State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rather promotional article about a research project that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also the related article on The South Asia Inscriptions Database (SIDDHAM), the result created through this project. A redirect to that article could be a reasonable outcome? However it would be good to also establish more references about SIDDHAM. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, AllyD. That might be a possibility if some more secondary sources can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Couldn't find any independent refs on the project. Everything was primary sources.4meter4 (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and per user 4meter4. Masterhatch (talk) 14:10, 25 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) 22:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Warne[edit]

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

A blogger and associate professor at Utah Valley University. I wasn't able to find much independent, secondary coverage (so fails WP:GNG / WP:AUTHOR, and none of his professional accomplishments satisfy WP:PROF). This article was recently created and appears to be largely promotional. Note that, though there are quite a few references, the vast majority are primary sources / author bios, etc. After searching for a while, I was unable to find additional secondary sources beyond the four which were included in the article up until a few days ago (when two were removed).

The two sources that currently remain are this piece in New Scientist [6] and this brief interview on the blog portion of Psychology Today [7] (note that Psychology Today is listed on WP:CITEWATCH, which directs us to the external site Quackwatch.org, where it is listed as "fundamentally flawed").

One that was removed appears to be a solid source, Research Digest, which discusses a paper co-authored by Warne (it was removed for not mentioning the fact it was used to cite, but could hypothetically be re-added): [8].

The other is a piece by disgraced former academic Noah Carl on The Critic [9]. Whether this source is reliable and independent is questionable (I recently raised the question of whether it can be used to establish notability for Warne on RSN and there does not appear to be anyone arguing that it can). Carl and Warne are both part of a tight network of fringe racial hereditarians who argue that there is a genetic basis for observed differences in IQ test performance between racial groups (if you're skeptical that this view is fringe, see this recent RfC), but I am unaware of any specific evidence that they are personally close. It's also worth noting that Carl is now an independent researcher since being sacked from his university position for "poor scholarship" and "selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes".

Happy to discuss these issues here, but by my reckoning only the New Scientist and Research Digest pieces are truly reliable and independent, and taken together they do not establish notability for this person per WP:GNG or any other criteria. Generalrelative (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete - I tagged the article for notability, but I was wondering if his assorted journal editorships might swing it, and if there were sources of notability tipping him over the line for WP:NPROF, but none of these are "the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." For WP:GNG, a quick WP:BEFORE shows zero coverage. I concur that a review from Noah Carl, a fringe pseudoscientist in The Critic, a questionably-notable magazine that's funded as culture war astroturf (the editor said explicitly in an interview that that's why the billionaire funded it!) is WP:UNDUE The only other review of his book was in Intelligence, which he's an editor at. He wrote a piece for Deseret News suggesting more COVID testing. If there's anything else about him that would pass a notability criterion, I'm willing to be convinced, but I couldn't find it - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Warne doesn't meet any of the 8 criteria in WP:PROF. His achievements seem more or less routine for an associate professor at a third-tier university and have not attracted significant coverage from reliable 3rd-party sources. NightHeron (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being cited and even quoted occasionally is part of a typical academic's job, not a sign of exceptional achievement. The BPS Research Digest item is a blurb summarizing a then-unpublished preprint, not an instance of in-depth journalism that took the serious effort of getting outside evaluations from other researchers. (Rule of thumb: if it doesn't quote somebody "not involved in the study", it might as well be a press release.) It looks like the only viable reference is the New Scientist story, and one source isn't enough. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. He may not technically meet the eight criteria. "Criterion 1: The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work" The APA's top articles "https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/12/top-journal-articles" are based on downloads, not citations- therefore may not be important "Criterion 1: Service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals" The journals he's on the board for may not be prestigious enough "Criterion 2: For documenting that a person has won a specific award (but not for a judgement of whether or not that award is prestigious), publications of the awarding institution are considered a reliable source." The international awards he has won are probably not prestigious enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaverett0 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definitely fails WP:NACADEMIC - none of the sources (even the weaker or more dubious ones) remotely support the idea that he has had significant impact. --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila Salam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER NMW03 (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 19:19, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinhurst, Delaware[edit]

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

This was prodded, redirected, restored immediately after, and put through two more AfDs after that, all within a few weeks in May 2009. That was well before people took a good look at GNIS's reliability issues, but at any rate the notion that GNIS constituted official recognition was always inconsistent with the authority GNIS actually claimed (which was over names, not place classification). In the end this is well-documented to be just another of the many subdivisions entered willy-nilly, and the coverage cited in the article is routine stuff. This shouldn't have been created, it shouldn't have been redirected, it shouldn't have been recreated, and it should never have been kept when considered for deletion twelve years ago. Mangoe (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 18:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 18:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on the Delaware hundreds are not appropriate merger targets for anything; if anything, the individual articles probably ought to go away. They are obsolete subdivisions which only continue to appear on deeds and titles because it would take work to get rid of recording them. Mangoe (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. After searching through 18 pages of Newspapers.com results, I think I've found enough SIGCOV IMO. What I've found includes this, this, this, this, this, this, and this (none of which are currently in the article). I also found two pieces of coverage for their basketball team in the "Brandywine Hundred Basketball League": this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There does appear to be some sourcing per BeanieFan11, but none of it is particularly impressive. However I do think there is enough to meet GNG though not by much. The problem with these developments is that there is no logical merge target, unlike neighboring New Jersey or Pennsylvania. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per BeanieFan11.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2009-2021 versions very different, the latter sufficiently referenced, particularly with academic study. (The nom seems heavy on the virtues/sins of GNIS which is not of import in determining this specific AfD and the case-by-case basis as mentioned in GEOLAND.)Djflem (talk) 16:36, 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 10:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wajahat Hasan[edit]

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

Though the first afd's result was Delete but that was held in 2015. I again do not find any significant coverage and subject is non notable actor fails WP:NACTOR, References are not justified WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:34, 11 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) 18:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This instance of the article was moved out and then copied back into mainspace, sourced only to the subject's YouTube page, where he posts music and prank videos. Searches find no evidence of attained notability, whether as a dubbing actor, music or video maker. AllyD (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. The last Afd was filled with socks and SPAs, so any suspicious !votes should surely be discounted. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NACTOR defcon5 (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above rationale. Chirota (talk) 05:46, 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 10:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Callahan (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 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) 18:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to have been created by an SPA and the sourcing is a mix of non-RS, non-independent sources, and press releases. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primarily due to lack of RS that could have covered the subject significantly. Chirota (talk) 05:49, 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. MBisanz talk 18:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Greenly[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and journalist, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers or journalists. The notability claim here is that he exists, with no indication that he's achieved any of the distinctions (noteworthy awards for his work, third party reliable source coverage analyzing the significance of his work, etc.) that it takes to turn existence into notability -- and the references are two pieces of his own work metaverifying its own existence and a staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which are not notability-supporting sources.
It also warrants note that this started out in 2012 as an article about an actor who was never properly sourced as passing NACTOR in the first place, until it was turned into "actor and journalist" in 2019 without providing any sources to verify that the actor and the journalist were actually the same person, and then almost a full year later the same single purpose editor who had added the journalist stuff stripped away the actor stuff as "unverified" without providing any sources to verify that the actor and the journalist weren't the same person either — and then this year somebody else restored the original actor article, following which the SPA reverted it back to the journalist again following a failed attempt to prod it for "personality rights". So I can't tell whether this is an article about an actor turned journalist who hasn't been properly shown to pass our notability standards for either occupation, or whether (more likely) the actor and the journalist are two different people with the same name and the actor's article underwent a slow motion hijacking.
But since the actor version was never properly sourced as notable in the first place, I can't justify reverting back to that -- but regardless of whether actor Theo Greenly and journalist Theo Greenly are one person or two, notability as either an actor or journalist has never been properly demonstrated or sourced by any version of this article. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - so I'm 95% sure they are two different people. The reporter has been the subject of a number of interviews, during which he details his career path and makes no reference to having been an actor (like this one). I see now reason why a journalist would detail their experience in media and purposely exclude a career in television. So I think it's safe to assume we're taking about two different people. That said, I don't think either of those people is notable. I think the reporter is closer to meeting our inclusion criteria (with an argument per WP:ANYBIO that he has made a notable contribution to his field of regional journalism) but I don't think we're there with the sources that are available. St★lwart111 02:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Stalwart111.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Stalwart111.Fails WP:GNG irrespective of whether they are two or one neither of those people is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:27, 25 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 IA Private Wealth. ✗plicit 23:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IA Capital Markets[edit]

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

This division is at best a merge candidate. The current references appear to be (1) The company's website, (2) An annual report by the company/parent company, (3) A press release and (4) another press release. These do not help the company pass NCORP, and I can't see much on Google - though if anyone can find sources in other languages that help this to pass NCORP, I'll withdraw the nom. Pahunkat (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:32, 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 delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tapa, Afghanistan[edit]

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

The citations seem bogus and the author has been indeffed. Qwerfjkltalk 15:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Qwerfjkltalk 15:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with nom that the citations do indeed seem bogus. In addition, it's impossible for a town to exist in the Karakum Desert in Samangan Province. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 16:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This place does seem to exist — Google Maps satellite data shows a very blurry settlement named Tapa at these coordinates — but I'm not sure if it meets notability requirements. The current article consists entirely of Google Maps-style information: this place exists, it's near these places, etc.
Apart from the bizarre claim that this place is located in the Karakum Dessert, all that information seems basically correct, but I'm not sure that either source in the article actually mentions this place. That would mean that the whole article is basically original research derived from looking at a map, which doesn't seem like a good basis for an article.
I don't know, maybe I would lean towards keeping it if the sources actually contained this information, and maybe I'm just being arbitrary (I've created plenty of place stubs myself), but I don't think we should have a bunch of articles for every place on Google Maps that only say "this place exists". 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 22:03, 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 keep and move to Tosbulak. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tusplok, Kazakhstan[edit]

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

The citations seem dubious and the author has been indefinitely blocked for creating worthless articles. Qwerfjkltalk 15:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Qwerfjkltalk 15:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I removed the useless references. This community may well be notable, especially if it is served by a railway line, but I think there may be a spelling error in its name, or the name may have been changed. I can't find Tusplok on GeoNames, but I find weather pages for Tusplok that suggest that Tusplok was in GeoNames in the past. Google Maps shows a point with this name at 47°39′18″N 60°20′43″E / 47.655100005626934°N 60.3451989954729°E / 47.655100005626934; 60.3451989954729 At this point, I am going to give up. A timetable and/or maps for Kazakhstan's railway network might show the name of a station at or near the coordinates we have. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Тусплок(Tusplok) was renamed in 2005 [link] to Тасбулак(Tosbulak). There are russian wikipedia pages on it. 107 people were recorded living there in the 2011 census.Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as Tosbulak per Gorden 2211. There are actually several foreign language wiki pages on Tosbulak.4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, clearly notable, but at the wrong name.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:38, 25 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saz, Jalal-Abad, Kyrgyzstan[edit]

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

The sources seem dubious and the author has been indeffed. Qwerfjkltalk 15:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:24, 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 redirect to Provinces of Turkey#List of provinces. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Turkish provinces[edit]

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

Unnecessary fork of Provinces of Turkey. Since that page already exists, and already includes a table of the provinces and their populations, a separate article is not needed here -- if there's a desire to include the most recent known population figures from 2020 in Wikipedia, then they should simply be added as an update to the existing article's existing population table rather than being spun off to a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:23, 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 delete. SpinningSpark 23:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrali Gasimov[edit]

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

While it is verifiable that he was recently appointed honorary consul of Ukraine in Shamakhi ([18]), this is not inherently notable. Does not have SIGCOV. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The person has enough knowledge about Google. It is one of the well-known policies of Azerbaijan. complies with wikipedia rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhosrovAO (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the coverage is not that good. On the other hand, the article mentions that the subject did or is currently doing some important projects, but it doesn't mention which projects or why are they important. Maybe it's even too soon to expect notable achievements from a consul, who was appointed less than 1 year ago. Therefore, I'd suggest to Draftify the article. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

new additions were made. will be done from now on--— Preceding unsigned comment added by KhosrovAO (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not enough. As already mentioned above, most of the sources are covering the same news about the subject being appointed consul in 2020. This year I can see 2 news only. One of them has to do with planting trees, while the other one has to do with a cooperation with a University in Kharkov. Both events are commendable, but too local. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is an important politician for Azerbaijan. It is well known at home and abroad. I think it complies with Wikipedia rules. news sources will be increased in the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhosrovAO (talk • contribs) 13:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: agreeing with Eostrix on this one. - Kevo327 (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not want the article to be deleted at this time. In the near future we will add new references and further improve the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhosrovAO (talk • contribs 17:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KhosrovAO could you specify who you mean by saying "we" ? Are you more than one person? - Kevo327 (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks more like a resume than anything. Appears to fall well short of WP:GNG and honorary consul is not a position that would pass WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our country is one of the most important politicians for Azerbaijan. We do not want the post to be deleted. New resources will be added soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhosrovAO (talk • contribs 18:06, 23 September 2021

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate Abortion Bill[edit]

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

Not notable. This article was created right after a short-lived bill did not pass the US legislature, and has had one citation for the last 15 years — a 2006 news article. The other 'citation' is actually an external link to a primary source, and is not a citation. A current internet search finds very little to no coverage about the bill. S.403 is occasionally referred to in brief comments in footnotes of legal papers when discussing other abortion bills (but not this one), and I am unable to locate any other source discussing this bill in any depth. Wikipedia is not a news service and not an indiscriminate database of things. We don't need to 'cover' every single bill that was ever introduced in congress. This 15-year-old unpassed bill is not notable and this article is best removed from Wikipedia along with the orphan redirect page S.403. Platonk (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: Your comments(ignoring the PA) are only somewhat helpful.
  • The WaPo article you mention is already (and the only citation) in the article.
  • Your Women's Congressional Policy Institute link is about HR 2200 [19] from 2011-2013, not 2006. There are a lot of similar bills that have tried to pass over the years, but this article is about one bill in one half of congress that didn't go anywhere. There's even been a brand new one introduced this year, S.109 (2021).
  • 4 of the links are all AP News repeats/duplicates (of AP News articles I cannot locate): WTHR, Houston Chron, Tucson (won't display), and NY Times (require subscription). So altogether these count as "1" towards notability.
  • That leaves WaPo, Baptist, and AP News (with their repeats) as the only three sources covering this. (So far.) Pretty much what we've got now are a few articles covering passage of bills in congress which doesn't as yet fulfill WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", though we could debate the word "significant". (Is three 'significant'?)
  • Though you mention "combine the House and Senate versions of the bill", you don't provide any wikilink (nor even text) indicating there is another article mentioning a House version. Searching the internet, I come up with HR 748 (2005) which is only mentioned in passing in Nancy Pelosi#Abortion as something she voted against. Similar mentions (to "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act", without wikilink) are in a few other (7) politicians' wiki articles as something they voted for or against. Three other mentions of that name are not even referring to this 2005/2006 version of a bill.
If you wish to expand on this article, then please do so at this time. You should probably cover ALL of the various renditions of this legislation throughout the years where it has been introduced in congress (always failing to pass into law). You might also want to rename it "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act" which seems to be the majority name bills of this concept have been referred to; "Interstate Abortion Bill" is just WaPo's headliner. If you rename it and greatly expand its original scope, is that WP:TNT? Afterwards, you definitely will have an article which passes GNG, and I certainly would have no objection to such an article.
But this article isn't that comprehensive as-yet-unwritten article. This AfD is about a particular article called "Interstate Abortion Bill", referred to as S.403, as a Senate bill, that was/is an orphan article that someone tried to wedge inappropriately/inadequately into Abortion in the United States as part of their project of helping to remove orphan tags across Wikipedia, rather than someone editing an article intelligently on the topic of abortion legislation. Platonk (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bills are weird since they can be nomed multiple times but it seems this is the timeline judging by the sources: the House passed a version in Feb 2005, the Senate passed this one in July 2006, and the House repassed the amended version in Sept 2006. These are all the same "Interstate Abortion Bill" it seems like. WP:SIGCOV is not how many sources it has, but how significant is the coverage from within those sources (i.e. is it a passing mention or is it in-depth). These show that it is in-depth coverage from multiple different outlets.
WP:TNT has no merit here as the issues with the article aren't so egregious it is unrecoverable. Oh by the way you might wanna check out WP:PAYWALL.
I was originally not going to interact with this article after I !voted, but now I'm sufficiently pissed off enough that I'm offering a challenge: 10 (completely fake and imaginary) bucks says I get this to WP:HEY level. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did what I could. A rename is probably in order, but I don't know to what. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is a bit fuzzy-defined doesn't seem to have received continued coverage from multiple independent reliable sources (and the subject is poorly defined, at that). To lump them together as various versions of the same bill feels too much like WP:OR to make it work. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to pass WP:GNG — Qwerfjkltalk 15:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The media references support treating these related bills as one concept by discussing them together. Widely covered and definitely notable.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 03:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has received significant coverage over time from many different sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:39, 25 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammals of South Ossetia[edit]

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

South Ossetia is only recognised by a handful of countries, is almost universally recognised as being a part of Georgia, is not included in the IUCN Red List, and as a precedent, the "Mammals of Kosovo" page redirects to "Mammals of Serbia". The source used for the article is a dead link. Therefore, redirect to List of mammals of Georgia (country). J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IUCN, ADW, and MDW are all valid sources and cited in the article, so am not sure the “one” reference that is bad. Having a list of mammals is not a statement of sovereignty: Many subnational divisions have similar lists. Despite what you may have heard, Texas is not succeeding, despite the existence of List of mammals of Texas. --awkwafaba (📥) 11:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not saying it's a statement of sovereignty personally, but when even nature sources don't consider a region important enough to be assessed, then maybe it means something. J0ngM0ng (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect No indication that this subset list is necessary. Reywas92Talk 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename  This is not only unrecognized, but it is not a subnational division either. The article on South Ossetia tells us that its territory “does not correspond to any Georgian administrative area (although Georgian authorities have set up the Provisional Administration of South Ossetia as a transitional measure leading to the settlement of South Ossetia's status), with most of the territory included into Shida Kartli region. When neutral language is deemed necessary, both Georgia and international organisations often refer to the area informally as the (legally undefined) "Tskhinvali Region".” It also has unstable boundaries, due to borderization. —Michael Z. 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately, it depends whether reliable sources have recognized this as a notable subject, per WP:NOTABILITY. At a glance, it doesn’t appear that any of the cited source mentions South Ossetia. “Mammals of Texas,” in quotation marks, returns over 20k Google Books results; “mammals of South Ossetia” returns one bogus book titled after an experimental visual artist. —Michael Z. 13:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to redirect. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article doesn't mention the political status of South Ossetia. I don't think there is a rule to confine the listing of flora or fauna to national borders, especially because the borders may change anytime. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirect, per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder when this page will finally be reviewed? J0ngM0ng (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Awkwafaba and Dr.KBAHT.4meter4 (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems fine. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't have any specific objection to a redirect, but South Ossetia is specifically referenced in the infobox under "States with limited recognition", which would seem to not contradict the assertion in the nomination here. I don't think anyone is trying to pretend that such a list confers any form of sovereignty. St★lwart111 02:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Clearly the purpose of this article is politics, not biology. Tercer (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don;t see that clearly or otherwise. it's appropriate to have such a list for any substantial defined region, regardless of what anyone may think of the politics. If the article mentioned politics at all, that would be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for two reasons:
  1. This whole page is an original research. It does not use any sources like "Fauna of South Ossetia".
  2. This is not a unique geographic region, with its own endemic fauna. So, no, it does not make sense to create such lists for any arbitrary defined geographic region. And yes, it was not recognized as a country.My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again in support for redirect : A search for land regions at www.iucnredlist.org reveals that there is NO entry for South Ossetia, whereas 1,223 species are listed for Georgia. Imo it is NOT relevant whether South Ossetia is or is not recognised as politically independent. Relevant is that NO RL list or RL assessment is available for South Ossetia. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it might be redirected or merged, but given lack of sourcing and WP:OR, I think it better be just deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel disease[edit]

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

This is an apparant neologisms - a search on Google shows that the term is not in common use. The majority of the people included are referenced to one or two sources that used many times, or are original research with no mention of the term in the reference being employed. Bilby (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bilby (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bilby (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Oh... Come on! Bilby. Sure, it's a neologism, but it isn't "one or two sources". It has been in use for well over a decade and it has been well-documented in several reliable sources. I counted at least 6: Gorski, 2008, Berezow, 2016, Carroll, 2015, Basterfield et al, 2020, Winter, 2011 Diamandis, 2013 and these are just the ones that are currently used in the article. As for the OR, I have removed an entire WP:OR section myself (see talk), might have missed another. But the other links with no mention of nobelitis are there for a reason. Even if you remove all of them, there are enough reliable sources discussing it for the article to be kept. VdSV9•♫ 14:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Google only gives approximately 6000 hits, which is a remarkablly small number for a term in use for well over a decade. Of those six references you provided, we have a skeptic site, another skeptic site, The Skeptics Dictionary, The Skeptical Inquirer, a skeptic blog, and a non-skeptic article that doesn't mention the term, (but does talk about something similar). I'm not finding much outside of the skeptic literature - there are a very small number of mentions here and there, but nothing particularly significant. - Bilby (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GHITS. Sources are skeptic, so, I guess we should add that the phrase is more commonly used in skeptic circles? Or that would be OR? Or are you claiming that this somehow means that they aren't reliable sources? The Diamandis source uses "nobelitis", but it talks about the same thing. VdSV9•♫ 15:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that there is no evidence of the use of the term in wider society. As you acknowleged, it is a neoglism - that it is used in a small number of specialised sources is interesting, but there is no evidence of wider usage beyond that. It would be better handled in wikitionary than here, especialy given that more than quarter of the names included in the current article don't even have a reference that uses the term in relation to them. Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I'm looking for evidence of wider usage. Even the source you raised used terms like "some wags have dubbed this tendency the Nobel disease", or "somewhat tongue-in-cheek". The lack of usage found through Google shows how little the term is used. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, 'wider society' defined as everyone you choose to not ignore. The Skeptical Enquirer and ACSH are mainstream organizations, not fringe POV morons. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume that the "fringe POV morons" was not aimed at me, but my issue is that a small number of blogs and articles within one specific community does not demonstrate widespread usage. This is in no way a suggestion that skeptics are not mainstream - just that they are a specific community using the term, and generally I'd like to see that the term is used more than that. - Bilby (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I'm refering to the Skeptical Enquirer and the ACSH not being fringe POV morons. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michael Levitt VdSV9 (my bad, misread a signature). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what do you mean? There was a Levitt section which was deleted since it was OR... VdSV9•♫ 15:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. Winning the Nobel prize is not a disease and it is derogatory to suggest that the winners are cranks. The issue obviously arises because the prizes are awarded for outstanding and ground-breaking achievements and these are not likely to be made by conventional thinkers. Other outstanding minds like Newton have had their quirks and Feynman was rejected for the draft on the grounds that he was crazy. Cherry-picking such anecdotes is pseudo-science. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does MEDRS have to do with anything? This isn't a medical condition. No one is claiming that winning a Nobel prize is a disease, the "condition" is about how some winners go on to make unsound claims. It is not about suggesting that the winners are cranks, it is about the FACT that many winners go on to become cranks. Did you even read the page? VdSV9•♫ 15:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The title plainly says that it's a "disease" and the lead defines it as an "affliction". The OED explains that an affliction is "A disease or other condition causing ill health, pain, etc.; an illness, an ailment." Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can be a crank even if you have a Nobel prize. Case in point, these people. Kary Mullis's reasoning wrt to Astrology is not suddenly valid because he has a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Derogatory or not is irrelevant, what matters is that multiple reliable source all refer to this as 'Nobel disease', which is obviously not a medical disease/diagnostic, but rather an semi-humourous/informal term. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Humour is, by its nature, not reliable. This joke is being used as a WP:COATRACK to make derogatory attacks on specific individuals. Their winning of the Nobel prize is being used as a form of guilt by association. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • How lucky are we that things other than medical claims can exist and be notable then! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Headbomb is now censoring this discussion. The essential point is that we don't have reliable sources to decide who is suffering from this alleged disease. It is easy to make a case for many others so who decides? This is WP:OR. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's plenty of such sources, see VdSV9's results above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • These sources are not reliable. For example, consider Nobelitis: a common disease among Nobel laureates?. This suggests that many laureates are sufferers of this alleged malady because they receive the prize after they have passed their prime and so are encouraged to overreach per the Peter principle. This includes Einstein but Headbomb took it personally when I added the famous photo of Einstein sticking his tongue out to this discussion. So, for example, Paul Nurse is included. They are still living and now runs the Francis Crick Institute where I have attended several editathons. Are we really going to open the door to allegations of this sort against the most powerful scientists and scholars in such institutions? There will be no shortage of jealous rivals to make such insinuations but are they really reliable? My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • They are reliable sources for general commentary on various societal issues. SI and the ACSH and the others above aren't disgruntled rivals complaining they were overlooked, but qualified scientists holding other scientists' feet to the fire for embracing innanity, pseudoscience, junk science, and pure and utter nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Paul Nurse is not included in the article at present, and I've found no evidence that he should be. On the contrary, he's a Nobel Laureate who has explicitly warned other Nobel Laureates not to fall into the trap of presuming that they know everything [20]. As for the question Are we really going to open the door to allegations of this sort against the most powerful scientists and scholars in such institutions? We're not opening any door that reliable sources haven't already opened. But yes, we do cover the misdeeds of "the most powerful scientists and scholars". That's kind of our job here, when the "allegations" are plain, incontrovertible statements that a scientist has started talking nonsense. We also cover what happens when papers are retracted for being fraudulent, or when a prestigious scientist is booted from the National Academy for sexual harassment. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, sure, Paul Nurse is not included in the list and he should not be included. But he does appear as a member of the list in sources typically used on this page: [21] (published in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)). A lot of other people should not be included just as Paul Nurse. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • But that source doesn't indicate any specific weird/unscientific position that Nurse has endorsed. It just quotes him talking about his own fallibility. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes, indeed. It say Nurse’s symptoms of Nobelitis include his statement, “I am rather arrogant, I prefer to do something which wouldn’t happen unless I was doing it”. But is not it a good thing? Which brings the question: what is "Nobelitis"? Just an arrogance (as this source say)? Yes, apparently. Talking on various subjects where they are not expert? Yes, they do it. Some of their words or ideas will be seen as outright wrong 50 years later. But should this be described as disease? Yes, if certain "scientific skeptics" want to make a mockery of Nobel Prize winners, and that is precisely what this page about. Saying some "incredibly stupid things, some of which are quite delusional". Well, this is something a lot of people do. Are they saying it because they are Nobel Prize winners? No, the percentage of such people would be much higher in a general population than among Nobel Prize winners. Overall, this "disease" "concept" looks to me as nonsense and WP:COATRACK. [22]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but strip of any examples where the source does not explicitly use the term. I don't see a case for deletion on grounds of WP:NEO - we have articles on neologism terms with a fraction of this usage (man, do we ever...), and routinely pass those at AfD too. As for WP:MEDRS, get real please :/ But that's not an excuse to fill up the examples list with conjecture and OR. If sources use the term "nobel disease", fine; if not, remove. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well-known and well-attested concept, jocularly called a "disease" but not actually a medical condition. The article could probably stand trimming to remove equivocal examples, and a bit of rewriting to avoid the implication that it's actually some kind of brain tumor acquired in Stockholm, but deletion is not cleanup. I concur with Elmidae's !vote just above, with the proviso that I'd allow obvious synonyms. For example, "Nobelitis" [23] was defined as "believing you are expert in almost everything, and being prepared to express opinions about most issues with great confidence, sheltering behind the authority that the Nobel Prize can give you", in the words of Paul Nurse, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine [24]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, also agreeing with Elmidae. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's a few more examples of usage, or articles specifically about it, to add to the several sources I already cited before. One from The Atlantic that mentions it in passing. In other languages: One from the Mexican version of BI and one from a major Spanish newspaper. Here's one from a major Brazilian magazine. And one from Italian Wired. I think this more than settles it. VdSV9•♫ 22:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided. Clearly not an actual disease, or even the tongue-in-cheek treatment of an actual ailment (like Man flu). But as a colloquialism - an idea - it seems fairly clearly notable. Agree with the suggestion that examples that rely on sources where the term is not use should be removed. There's nothing wrong with an article about a phrase, but using our own interpretation to determine when that phrase should be applied (in the absence of reliable sources that do the same) is a problem. St★lwart111 03:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but MAJOR cleanup needed. Enough sources discuss this idea to give it WP:GNG but I think it's pretty bad to discuss this as a 'phenomenon' rather than an observation or a term used. I don't think there is any scientific evidence linking the winning of the Nobel to later holding unscientific ideas. I think there also needs to be a major consideration of WP:BLP within the list of examples and a removal of WP:OR. But WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have stated, there is no claim that this is a DSM-based diagnostic category. Rather, it highlights the interesting, and notable, fact that a non-trivial number of Nobel Prize winners have used their nobel-based fame to push fringe non-evidence-based ideas.Regutten (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A term recognized and used by a number of RS. Its applicability is also evident when one examines the track record of some quacks with Nobel Prizes. Sad. -- Valjean (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per whoever it was that said "Oh, .. come on Bilby" above. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 07:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:COATRACK (see my comment here) or clean this list significantly. Of course this list must be sourced, i.e. one must have some RS saying that person X was sick of the "Nobel Disease". Given the nature of the list (i.e. criticizing Nobel Prize winners), I believe such sources must be very strong. For example, I would think that a blog [25], Skeptical Inquirer or website Science-Based Medicine would be insufficiently strong sources for that purpose (for sourcing something else - yes, maybe). The problem here is due weight. For example, Linus Pauling liked vitamin C too much and erroneously thought it might cure cancer (see Linus_Pauling#Medical_research_and_vitamin_C_advocacy). Yes, sure, but should that be described in WP as his "disease"? One must realize that a lot less was known about cancer 50 years ago. Not a personal opinion by non-expert in the history of science like David Gorski, please. A published academic book by a good historian of science - yes, that would be great. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't history-of-science stuff. This is regular-science/popular science stuff, and well-known mainstream/popular science magazines like SI and SBM are more than sufficient to establish that someone has a 'case' of Nobel disease/Nobelitis. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is something like that is an essay on on the history of recent science? I would say the biographies of Nobel Prize winners definitely belong to the history of science. Some stories/issues here are complicated, and I think this popular science source is attempting to oversimplify and misinterpret them, first of all by describing them as a general phenomenon authors call a "disease". I simply think that using popular science sources for disparaging Nobel Prize winners is not such a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but vet the examples. Some are obvious examples of a Nobel laureate making strange, unfounded claims -- but the references don't use the phrase "Nobel disease" or *appear* to discuss the concept (without using the term). I'm concerned about WP:OR for some of these.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 03:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ample evidence of notability in sources listed by VdSV9. ~Kvng (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that it meets notability, as described above. It is closely related to the Appeal to Authority fallacy, as some people can believe that any statement made by a Nobel laureate--even when speaking well out of their area of expertise--is reliable. Femme du Pays (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a neologism, but a notable one with enough evidence to support GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was an econometric article a few years ago by George Borjas about the same phenomenon for the Fields Medal in mathematics, that found some negative effect on productivity. I think he used "curse" rather than "disease" in that context. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, covered in a wide variety of sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:42, 25 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. While the votes are somewhat split, the arguments for deletion are more compelling in this case. In particular, the argument that this article cannot exist without violating WP:SYNTH is likely the most compelling. It seems that the sources in this article are used to verify various specific instances of a vehicle apparently driving on its own, but no source covers the overall concept of "phantom vehicles" in any significant way (or even uses the term "phantom vehicle"). Feel free to recreate this article as a redirect, if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom vehicle[edit]

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

WP:PROFRINGE article that consists solely of a WP:SYNTH of anecdotes and urban legends of mysterious incidents involving cars that allegedly vanished or operated without drivers. See also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Phantom_vehicle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see enough serious, in-depth coverage of this topic by folklorists and independent sources to justify a standalone article. While there is certainly a number of credulous and uncritical anecdotes and clickbait sensationalism like 20 CREEPY URBAN LEGENDS ABOUT CARS THAT COULD BE TRUE, that stuff isn't the kind of sourcing we can use to build an encyclopedia article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Urban Legend. No objection a plain deletion either; the coverage we have is not sufficient to meet GNG, and the current list does appear to be WP:PROFRINGE that provides WP:UNDUE examples. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Phantom vehicle (folklore). Add a {{more citations needed}} template at top. It would be useful for researchers to have a place to go for the urban legends side since there are the real-world articles Unmanned ground vehicle, Self-driving car, and History of self-driving cars. 5Q5|✉ 11:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a one-sentence summary to List_of_urban_legends#M–S and redirect. The idea of a ghost car is a popular enough type of legend but the sourcing would need a great deal of improvement before keeping was an option. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Without a reliable source that covers these events together as a single topic, this is just a WP:SYNTH collection of anecdotes, most of which are one-off "weird news" stories with no lasting coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Phantom vehicle (folklore) The pages needs a rework more than anything, the subject is indeed notable and a well known urban legend, some sources I found include https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=masters-theses https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=usupress_pubs http://folklore.usc.edu/new-jersey-vanishing-camaro-legend/ and google books brings up plenty more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pladica (talk • contribs) 08:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really about one particular legend? If so, perhaps there's an even better name... In any case, this reminds me of the much more notable many-legends of ghost ships, in which it potentially could be merged as trivia. A picture also suggests it's a halloween prank, it could potentially be mentioned as trivia in one of the related articles... —PaleoNeonate – 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is generally the same legend. (That of course, involving disappearing, cursed or driverless vehicles). You're right about them about them sharing similarities with ghost ships, but they aren't the same thing (trivia sections are usually frowned upon anyways). Only that one picture is described as being a Halloween prank, to say they are all Halloween pranks or pranks in general is incorrect. Pladica (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right now this article is a mess of synthesis, with no secondary commentary from experts. However, we would benefit from an article similar to it and/or one focused on specific motifs, such as E535.1 "phantom coaches and horses" and various other E items. In fact, maybe an article dedicated to the E motifs. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but substantially rework. While this is definitely a common motif in legend and folklore (as Bloodofox has noted above), there is no justification for the current format of the article, which is a huge list of incidents in which a car did something weird (with the implication that it was for a spooky reason). jp×g 20:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Urban legend discussed credulously as if it were an actual thing.VdSV9•♫ 11:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename support the keep and rename as described above. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As already mentioned by Dlthewave above, there are no sources that cover this purported subject as a whole, meaning the entire article is simply WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which cannot remain in the encyclopedia. An actually well-sourced article on a more specific related topic, as suggested several times above, could certainly be created in its place, but in the meantime, an article containing nothing but poorly sourced anecdotes cobbled together as pure WP:SYNTH should not remain, and neither should its editing history. 15:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep/rename per Pladica.4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kazeem Aderounmu[edit]

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

Semi-pro footballer that has only played at WP:NOTFPL clubs. The Lithuanian language Wikipedia article has more references but every single one is trivial match report coverage or a database profile page. More of the same in Google News as well as a Latvian search and a Lithuanian search. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:02, 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels So White movement[edit]

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

The underlying issue, as with all socio-political issues, is likely notable. But this hashtag, and it appears to be just a hashtag as I can't find evidence of a movement as such, fails WP:GNG. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are certainly articles that give coverage to the idea but they fall short of calling it a "movement". There is no evidence of an organisation, or organised group, with shared goals, or a manifesto, or anything approaching the level of commonality required for this to be considered a "movement". I couldn't find a single place where this was described as a "movement" except here on Wikipedia. St★lwart111 04:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - definately no evidence of a movement except here on Wikipedia. Masterhatch (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 21:29, 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 11:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Jinkinson[edit]

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

WP:NFOOTBALL states that "Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable". His one game for Derby County against Chorley F.C. fails this requirement as Chorley were playing in the semi-pro 6th tier of English football at that time. I have checked NFT for Latvian caps and not been able to find anything to suggest that he has played for Latvia and he obviously hasn't played for England. Given the level that he is currently playing at, I don't see him meeting the SNG any time soon.

I also did a search for WP:GNG coverage here and found only passing mentions in Derby Telegraph and Telegraph neither of which are even borderline. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nehme1499 13:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If he had stayed with Derby then, given his age, I would have said draftify. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 22:53, 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 keep. ✗plicit 11:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Xuereb[edit]

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

My first thought here was to find references for Xuereb's appearances for the Malta national football team. This article asserts that he has played seven matches for Malta. Given the extensive coverage of association football in online media, I thought this would be easy to WP:VERIFY. I found nothing in the usual go-to websites for footballers: for example espn.co.uk No available information. It would appear to me that this lack of verifiability for international matches calls into question whether Xuereb's Maltese Premier League career is, to be blunt, factual. Looking at the history of this article, it has never had what would be considered reliable references. At best, this article would not appear to pass any number of policies and guidelines including but not limited to WP:NFOOTY, WP:ANYBIO. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the claim to notability (Malta international) was verified in 3 seconds at this (which is already an external link at the article!). Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 10:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Xuereb passes WP:NFOOTY by playing for Malta. Reliable sources confirm it. 1 2 3. Dougal18 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ESPN isn't the best source for caps. NFT, which was already linked in the article, is the most reliable one, in my view. World Football also has all 7 caps listed. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very easily passes NFOOTY per GiantSnowman's NFT source above. Nehme1499 13:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY played for Malta.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: on reflection, my rationale for this AFD discussion could be neatly summarised as "If I had started this article, I wouldn't have included the matches for the Malta national team, as that assertion did not meet my personal views about how articles should be referenced." If I'm the only person saying I'm right, and everyone else (including the editors of a number of other Wikipedias) are saying I'm wrong, I think it's a pretty sure bet that that I am wrong. I could attempt to mitigate this by pointing out that this was at one point tagged for A7 speedy deletion. This would pretty much ignore the obvious: that I'm the only person saying I'm right, and everyone else is saying I'm wrong. Particularly egregious would my completely wrong-headed and quite possibly WP:BLP-violating claim " this calls into question whether Xuereb's Maltese Premier League career is, to be blunt, factual." A search within articles in the Times of Malta easily dismisses this. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above, however there is still a big gaping problem of zero inline citations on the article. Govvy (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GiantSnowman. International player. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:23, 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. ✗plicit 09:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden Howard[edit]

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

Article does not cite reliable sources. Can't find anything online, literally. Would appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The contributor is up to no good.[26][27] Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as autobiographical with inflated claims by primary sources bordering on hoax. Ifnord (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - zero reliable sources found, additionally, the creator seems to be using Wikipedia purely for spam purposes Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well in G11 territory, but I'd also rather have the additional protection of G4 against future recreations by spammers and/or UPEs. Subject clearly fails WP:BIO, there's hardly any viable source about him. JavaHurricane 18:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nice try son and good luck getting your career started. You don't get an article in Wikipedia until someone other than you talks about your music. Your list of "associated acts" is fake too. The violated Wikipedia policies include WP:NMUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PROMOTION, and others. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as autobiographical with inflated claims by primary sources bordering on hoax. User:24.244.23.204 (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not notable. Cannot find any coverage in reliable sources.Gravehoot (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per others. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G11 or at least invoke WP:SNOW and delete via AFD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Also protect from creation. Subject is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. ––FormalDude talk 21:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 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. MBisanz talk 18:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keyvan Dehnad[edit]

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

Delete: WP:PAID. Regards. MMA Kid (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC) (Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC) )[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although the nominator was blocked for sockpuppety, I tend to agree with them that the article does not meet notability criteria.Mardetanha (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Despite the large number of sources listed, there is virtually no significant independent coverage. There are pictures and his name appears in lists, but nothing to show significant coverage. There's also no indication of him meeting WP:MANOTE or any other SNG. Martial arts halls of fame do not show notability and there's nothing that shows he's any more notable than he was when the article was deleted originally. Papaursa (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is the first Iranian international judo referee (as reported by IRNA in 1992). He has been a judo referee in several official championships including Tokyo Team World Championships 2008, Junior World Championships Dominican Republic 2006, Grand Slam Tokyo 2009 and 2011, Grand Slam Moscow 2012 and Grand Prix in Rotterdam in 2010 (here) including final matches. How else a judo referee can be notable? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He becomes notable by having significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Your first source is a one sentence statement, the next two are from judoinside.com, which anyone can edit--and one of those doesn't even mention his name. Papaursa (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Papaursa The following sources are all coverage of his work: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. In most of them, Dehnad is the main topic of the source and no original research is needed to extract the content as specified by Wikipedia:Notability. He is known as the first Iranian international judo referee and the founder of yongmudo in Iran which can meet the second criterion of WP:ANYBIO. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of these are interviews, which are generally not considered towards meeting WP:GNG. The others are about him being scheduled to ref at various events, receiving his latest rank (rank is not considered as showing notability in WP martial arts discussions), and about him coaching and awarding medals to his team. He didn't create yongmudo, he simply started teaching it in Iran--that's not "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." In fact, past discussions have said that even creating your own martial art doesn't qualify you for WP notability since many people claim to have created their own art simply by combining things from several existing styles--and yongmudo is considered a hybrid style. Papaursa (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a none-or-all concept. When the sources are covering his activities as an international referee, it means that these activities are important and it guides us towards his notability. Nowhere in notability guidelines is it said that interviews are not considered in assessing notability. These interviews are not interviews with ordinary people; the news agencies has recognized him as a prominent expert (for example, here by Iran International). As far as is evident in Wikipedia pages, the Judoinside is cited as a reliable source (including Judo) and it is supervised by IJF sources. Fake titles cannot be published there. I can provide you with other sources about his refereeing anyway. I'm still emphasizing the point that he has the "highest" achievements a referee can achieve and this is covered by reliable independent sources. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:35, 25 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 09:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Reza Hejazi[edit]

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

Delete: Clearly does not meet any of WP:NKICK. Also WP:Articles for deletion/Tofan Pirani closed as deleted. Regards. MMA Kid (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC) (Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC) )[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although the nominator was blocked for sockpuppety, I tend to agree with them that the article does not meet notability criteria. Mardetanha (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My search found no significant independent coverage that would show WP:GNG is met, just some routine sports reporting. He also fails to meet any kickboxer notability criteria at WP:NKICK. Papaursa (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NKICK.4meter4 (talk) 23:16, 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 09:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hunter (footballer, born 1981)[edit]

Andy Hunter (footballer, born 1981) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the inclusion criteria for footballers as he did not play in a fully professional league, the highest league he played in: NIFL Premiership is in WP:NOTFPL. Does not appear to pass GNG. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No FPL so fails NFOOTY and is nowhere near GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:12, 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 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 09:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmala Prasad[edit]

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

Principal of college with no extra ordinary award. Venkat TL (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree with the nomination. No significant coverage except her death. The Hindu article about her death is staff written.defcon5 (talk) 15:26, 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. ✗plicit 09:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yinyang ren[edit]

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

This alleged Chinese gender identity or gender category is a complete fail of WP:GNG. No WP:Reliable sources in English appear to exist, and the lack of interwiki links to Chinese or any other Eastern language is highly suspect. The Portuguese article's sources are either non-RS, don't verify the claim that this is a recognized gender category, and/or are about the use of this as a word for intersex people. We obviously don't do articles on mere translations of words for well-known concepts.

The one source cited in this article, per Google Translate, is about recommending that everyone display "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics, and does not call it a gender identity of its own. In fact, the author even implies that, as the Chinese sources in the Portuguese article show, this is just a Chinese word for intersex, since the author explains their own use is different from that. Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – notwithstanding the single source cited, this word normally means "intersex". No evidence of notability for the supposed distinct gender identity. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Intersex - if we have an article for the subject under its English language name, and this is a plausible search term in another language, we should probably just redirect it. The subject itself is clearly notable (by it's English language translated title), which is why we already have an article. St★lwart111 04:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger: yeah, I'm conscious of WP:FORRED but the fact that some people might think its different, or at least sufficiently different to create an article or search for it (though its not), makes me ere on the side of caution. And ultimately, redirects are cheap. I don't have any strong objection to a redirect not being established though, should someone choose to apply WP:FORRED strictly. St★lwart111 23:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that WP:FORRED warrants deletion, not redirection, and redirects being cheap doesn't negate the reasons given there. Deletion also makes it easier to clean up the links - they are removed by XfDCloser or turn red if missed. Crossroads -talk- 04:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was more a specific reference to the first line of WP:CHEAP which says, "A redirect page may even avoid the creation of duplicate articles on the same subject". Given one has already been created, we are essentially avoiding recreation. St★lwart111 00:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – As per WP:PERMA: "There is little verifiable information to be found on the subject", "There is little important to say about the subject.", and "The article has few incoming links if any at all, so editors aren't seeing the article.". This article hence no reasonable prospect for expansion, and should be deleted unless an editor can expand the article with verifiable information. Theknine2 (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Scholarly RS exist but it's still a wp:dicdef that evidently means intersex. If non-intersex people in China are adopting this term to describe themselves as nonbinary, we could talk about that at LGBT in China but we'd need sources for it, not, like, English-language blog lists of supposed third genders in nonwestern cultures. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:FORRED. This is a dictdef with some additional dubious unsourced material. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Third gender#Asia-Pacific, just as x-gender (which means the same thing as non-binary in Japanese). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacielle (talk • contribs)
That would not be correct, since no material about this is there or should be there, as there is no evidence that "yinyang ren" is a gender identity or a word for one, and instead evidence that it is a word for intersex. Crossroads -talk- 03:52, 25 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. No consensus would be a reasonable close here just on the numbers. However, many editors called for delete quoting WP:CRYSTAL without explaining that rationale any further. Others rightly pointed out that CRYSTAL does not forbid articles on future events, only unverifiable ones, and verifiability has not been challenged here. The CRYSTAL rationale, by itself, therefore is in my judgement, not a solid policy based rationale. A further argument put forward was that this fails NLIST because such lists are not found in sources. This claim was comprehensively refuted by ScottyWong with evidence.

A number of participants called for redirect on the basis that the list is duplicated in another article. A couple of participants also said the list should not be at both locations but were easy on which it was. This close does not prevent a future redirect, or removal of the duplicate list from List of tallest buildings. Not duplicating is a good idea, but which way round it should be can be decided by normal editorial discussion and action. It does not need to be resolved here right now. SpinningSpark 07:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of future tallest buildings[edit]

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

Topic lacks sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. There are also WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns for an article about buildings that may or may not be constructed. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 01:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 01:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 01:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, I agree with this approach. Maybe simplify the title slightly to List of tallest buildings under construction? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC) On second thoughts, I think the redirect suggested by Vladimir.copic is the best option. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong objection to that, but I don't want to be clear that it captures buildings under construction that have not yet reached any particularly great height, but for which the construction plans envision that result. BD2412 T 02:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about a redirect instead to List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction? Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/modify per the above suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just rename it. Most of the things listed have their own articles. Dream Focus 17:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to List of planned tallest buildings under construction as suggested above by BD2412. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per BD2412. Kerberous (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are certainly notable tall buildings planned. This is not the forum for a rename, and I rather think editors of the list-article would have agonized about its naming at its Talk page before, or at a WikiProject talk page or elsewhere. I think participants voting for a rename here already might know that the wp:RM process for a contested move is appropriate, would get the appropriate notice and attention and expertise applied. Although, frankly, IMO the name is fine. --Doncram (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming is within the valid outcomes for an AfD. If the article isn't limited to "under construction", I think it becomes open slather for buildings that will never get built. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not "slather". I think renaming here in order to change the scope of the well-constructed list article would be inappropriate, too casually done by drive-by editors; changing the scope can/should be discussed at its Talk page. Buildings not under construction can be planned, documented, covered in reliable sources, too. --Doncram (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vladamir.copic. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep falls within WP:LISTPURP, potentially could be merged back with a redirect to the section, but that would run the risk of bloating the parent article even if done carefully. Scheduled and expected future events have always been allowed under WP:CRYSTAL when verifiable without original research. While individual under-construction buildings are sometimes never finished, the same could be said for future sporting events or other similar topics, the key is that the event be highly likely to occur, once a project of this scale is initiated sunk costs mean that construction is nearly always continued to completion, hence the glut of towers that often finish after an economic downturn has started. Issues with sourcing for individual entries can be dealt with by normal editing, WP:NOTCLEANUP etc. I'm a bit meh on the rename as it's rather clunky, I think when readers are at this title most will already understand it to be a list of planned tallest buildings under construction without having that spelled out explicitly. A better strategy to avoid well-meaning but detrimental drive-by additions would be a more carefully worded lead, and perhaps a hidden note or two. 81.177.27.61 (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per the comments above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anything beyond currently being under construction (i.e. being approved, being on hold, and so on) is too WP:CRYSTAL-y for my comfort. I have no strong opinions about whether the buildings under construction should be covered at this article (in which case a rename would be called for) or at List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction, but they shouldn't be covered at both (because then we would have a WP:REDUNDANTFORK). So either keep this article while tightening up the scope (and changing the title) and removing that section from the other article, or delete/redirect this article to that section. TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as it is already a part of List of tallest buildings defcon5 (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to a better title like List of tallest buildings under construction, and then delete the list at List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction and link here instead with a hatnote. I don't think that this list violates WP:CRYSTAL, but the current title is strangely worded and I can see how it would make people think that it would. The list clearly states the inclusion criteria at the top, and seems to define a clear threshold for when a building should appear on the list. All other building "concepts" that never even got close to being constructed are included in a different list. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vladimir.copic, TompaDompa and defcon5. List of future tallest buildings is already a part of the more comprehensive List of tallest buildings. List of future tallest buildings fails WP:NLIST because sources haven't covered a group of future tallest buildings. Rather, each source on the current page covers one building. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Heartmusic678: What about these? [36] [37] [38] —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Im not sure the standard notability rule of “if there’s 3+ decent sources it’s notable” applies when the subject is relying on presumed future notability (i.e. predicting that the projects will actually be finished and therefore still notable in the future) and finite past notability (i.e. the fact that the projects were the tallest planned buildings at a certain point in time, in this case 2020). Neither of which is generally a good determinator of notability. Plus the list already exists in its entirety elsewhere on Wikipedia, so what’s the actual purpose of this article? Dronebogus (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scottywong Thank you. My vote is still delete because the information is already present elsewhere, as Dronebogus and others mentioned. Heartmusic678 (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, you might think that locating the content elsewhere is a better idea, and that's a valid opinion. I don't necessarily agree, but it's a legitimate argument. I was just refuting the notion that "sources haven't covered a group of future tallest buildings", which is apparently not true. If sources are covering these buildings, then they are, by definition, notable. We have articles on solar eclipses that won't happen for 100 years, and we can't be 100% sure that they'll actually happen (i.e. what if aliens come along and blow up the sun), but we're pretty sure. WP:CRYSTAL isn't a license to say "we can't have an article on anything that hasn't happened yet", we just have to be reasonably sure that it will happen. And, if a building is already under construction, I think it's safe to say that we can be reasonably sure that construction will be completed at some point. Of course, there are always exceptions, and we'll never be 100% right. But, considering that the majority of the buildings in this list are bluelinks, I think it's safe to say that notability shouldn't be a major concern here. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:22, 28 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 Model Latina. MBisanz talk 18:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Model Latina[edit]

Model Latina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Model Latina: LA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Model Latina: Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Model Latina: NYC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Model Latina: Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Model Latina: South Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. A BEFORE shows no significant coverage. At best, the existence of the show could be mentioned at NuvoTV. JBchrch talk 02:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 02:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 02:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 02:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one article, but keep the parent 'Model Latina'. Together there seems to be enough coverage of the franchise as a whole. See [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. A couple of those are about the network, but very clearly note that it is considered to be the network's "flagship show." matt91486 (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment undecided on the Model Latina article, but the others should not remain standalone articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Model Latina.4meter4 (talk) 23:19, 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. While the subject seems to be on the borderline of notability, the consensus in this discussion is that this individual is on the non-notable side of that borderline. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Siner[edit]

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

There are sources in the article that make it look legit, but once I scrape below the surface a bit, I cannot find any sources that are in-depth and independent.There are one or two good mentions, but no record of museum collections or significant shows outside of the private gallery circuit that might make her meet WP:NARTIST. --- Possibly ☎ 02:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 02:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 02:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth mentioning that he article is here because the person who wrote it made several trips to Venice to interview the artist. At some point they became friends and the article creator continued to edit/maintain the page. See the talk page for four new maintenance edits that are requested. I really wonder if we would have a page on her if it were not for these COI efforts, which is why I nominated it. --- Possibly ☎ 14:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That was very enlightening. Definitely decisive in my vote for deletion above then. ExRat (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there I think it is not fair on Morningbastet tu showel suspiscions of retributed contributing, I think she discovered the artist, started to write and then befriended her not the other way round. However I have found that the Thomas Balch Library has acquired one of her paintings but they have not yet put it up on their website. However the information is here. I think the subject of this article is effetively in a grey zone of notability, but still the longevity of her appearances (from 1988) is a fact. It is such a shame though that so many primary sources were used, but Morningbastet just made a newbie mistake there :/Nattes à chat (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no suspicions at all here. Morningbastet confirmed that they worked in person with the artist to create the article through interviews, and then maintained the article over the years as a friend. Those are just facts that came from Morningbastet. --- Possibly ☎ 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have received from Morningbastet about 4 scanned articles of printed newspapers but there are no online versions. The newspapers are Loudoum Time's Mirror, Elan Magazine among (which this one cited in the references : “Bones Become Man’s Likeness”, Washington Post, April 4, 1988). I can send the articles for a check. I think this establishes the fact that she is known over a period of time. I am afraid that most of the articles can only be found in their printed form. There is also an article in the "American artist" from Betsy schein Goldman of 1993 which is centered on her an not an interview. I think it would be a mistake to delete this article just because the refs are not online. Nattes à chat (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Vexations. Where can I find versions of these two articles :
  • Weak delete I did a search on ProQuest and there were a few sources better than mere mentions: a 1993 article on her in American Artist magazine (just the summary); a fairly short article in the Washington Post; and a half-decent article in a publication called Roll Call. I suspect if all the sources were gathered she might pass WP:GNG but so far I'm not seeing enough out there. Curiocurio (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I found a 2019 Washington Post review that has three paragraphs about her work, and a 2017 Washington Post review with two sentences, a 2019 local news with four sentences of attention to her work, a 2008 local news interview with an artist citing Siner as an influence, a 2016 art gallery's blog interview with another artist citing Siner as a mentor, a 2016 interview with some WP:SECONDARY context and commentary in Nashville Arts Magazine, a fairly promotional 2016 mention in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and the 2010 Roll Call article focused on her, but this is not enough for WP:NARTIST and also does not appear sufficient to support WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On ProQuest, there is a May 1991 Washington Post article titled "Neighbors" with quotes from her, as well as a general reference to her experience teaching anatomy at Georgetown University and as a medical illustrator, a mention about how 3 years prior she assisted police, how she is currently planning an educational trip to China, that she previously taught at the Cleveland Institute of Art in France for 6 months, and she is currently showing work at a local gallery. The abstract for the American Artist feature is two lines and includes, "Maggie Siner is a prolific artist whose ease with her chosen medium and understanding of color and light make her a standout among those working in oil". Based on the Elan magazine About page, and its submission guidelines, the publication does not appear to have the type of editorial standards to be a notability-building source per the guidelines. The Loudon Times-Mirror is a weekly county newspaper, and while I would prefer to review the article, I think more would still be needed to support WP:BASIC even if it is a solid, in-depth feature. Beccaynr (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC) comment updated (website reference removed) to reflect additional research Beccaynr (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I saw there is an exhition here going on now at the Dr. Bernard Heller Museum in New York and there is an exhibition catalog HERE where for this exhibition, which comforts me with the idea that her work is being recongnized. There were articles about her in 1988 according to the references so notability is demonstrated throughout time. For sure she is in a grey zone, but I think that given the current exhibition her notability has not disappeared and could progress in the future. Nattes à chat (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]
It may be worth noting that the Heller museum is a religious institute and not an art museum. The two sources given do not help much as they consist of a name check on the site, which lists about 50 other artists in the show, and a single sentence description of her work in the catalogue, presumably written by the artist. --- Possibly ☎ 11:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being a religious museum nonetheless makes it a museum and Siner appears in the exhibition catalog. I am searching for more of these exhibition catalogs as I don't think this has been done. Nattes à chat (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A group show in a religious museum is something, but what is needed to establish notability or artists is a set of reviews or critical texts that are independent of the artist and talk about their work in depth. Exhibition catalogues are not great as they are produced in concert with the artists to show the artist in a favourable light. Another possibility is that if the artist has been included in museum collections, these can be used to establish notability via WP:NARTIST. Neither of these seem to be true here, and several skilled editors have found only minor coverage. I'll stop commenting here. --- Possibly ☎ 14:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is abundant and centered press coverage for Maggie Siner from 1988 to 2020 and a centered article originally in italian by Gianfranco Munarotto on Ytaly, a 2006 centered article on Elan magazine from Sally Proutz, by independent critics and peers. Some of the press articles, for example the 1988 articles about the breakthrough identification of a murder victim through her facial reconstruction skills, are only available in paper version, that I can provide by mail, if need be. She has had many solo exhibition in Alliance française de Venise (2014) Washington Studio Gallery (2013), Alliance Française de Washington (2010), Artists Museum (1996), Bernard Heller Museum (2019-current), Loudoun Museum (1986), American University Library (1996) and others. These exhibition are not yet mentioned in the article Morningbastet (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 2016 Ytali feature is available online: Maggie Siner: The Non-conformity of True Art, and as noted above, Elan does not appear to be a sufficiently reliable source to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 16:03, 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. ✗plicit 10:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore Bio-Cluster[edit]

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

A non-notable article about an informal grouping of three biological science research and development institutions. Any sources that one will find that mention this bio-cluster is done mainly in passing. And all do mention the three schools listed in the article, but again, it's only in passing. There's very little information about this bio-cluster that can establish why this informal grouping is notable outside of the three institutions. One of which is currently the subject of an Afd I started on the lack of sources similar to this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCleanerMan (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No useful info worth putting in an encyclopedia. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:35, 11 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 01:55, 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 keep. ✗plicit 09:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Bergmair[edit]

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

Notability of this BLP is largely inherited from MindGeek. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 01:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 01:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 4 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 01:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These are in-depth [45], [46]. Also Financial times is behind paywall [47] but would seem to be in-depth. The guy is behind Pornhub, one of the biggest adult sites, that is notable. Peter303x (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Peter303x demonstrates, there is easily enough to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peter303x.4meter4 (talk) 23:25, 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 09:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Ekşioğlu[edit]

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

Zero convincing reliable sources to established claimed notability; refs appear to be nothing more than the same recycled promotional/press releases. No independent coverage, does not meet WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be a vanity article on a singer with no chart success or any following at all, having checked all social media. All of the sources look self-published and all have mostly identical content to each other, indicating that they were probably submitted by Murat himself. He's on all the usual self-published sources like Deezer, SoundCloud, IMDb etc. but nothing to indicate notability per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are from unreliable sites which don't cover him deeply. Most "Kimdir?" sources are PR pieces anyways. Also has been speedied from trwiki 25 times, which isn't a good sign. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not notable. Cannot find any coverage in reliable sources. Keivan.fTalk 01:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it should be deleted. If many artists can stay on Wikipedia when there are no references, then reference pages that provide information about a cited artist should remain. The artist is verified, especially because he is known on YouTube and TikTok, which means that he is well-known in his country, partially well-known in his country. People who do not know, write to the search results, already have information, recognize and follow them fondly. Let me be frank, I just got to know you, but I follow you with love. That's why I wanted to add and contribute to Wikipedia starting with the person I love. This means that it is significant. It doesn't need to be deleted. If they contain copyright, I would appreciate if the sources were removed with your help. Because I am the creator. You can also move it to the draft section. I lead the follow-up and development of the page and invite you as well. (Google Translate) Deryakayaer (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Deryakayaer[reply]
    • Comment I already tried moving it to draft and asked you to go through the WP:AFC process; you ignored that advice and moved it back to mainspace, so here we are. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being verified on social media doesn't mean anything for notability. I don't see a reason to draftify this. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 11:38, 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. ✗plicit 09:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Boxing Gym Youth Program[edit]

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

this is a local organization which has never attracted any notice outside its own city. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My before search only found local coverage. – 2.O.Boxing 11:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this baldfaced lie: "this is a local organization which has never attracted any notice outside its own city." So CNN and ESPN are local to Detroit?! Get a life instead of spending your time deleting pages of organizations that matter. Loser. Alwayslearnedstuff (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nariman Abbasov[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria for not having 3 fights in a top tier promotion. Fails WP:GNG as fights are merely routine reports. HeinzMaster (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is a well-known fighter. — Xeyal talk 12:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has news from many reliable sources as a fighter. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 WTW7 (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has zero top tier fights so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. None of the coverage mentioned above or in the article qualifies as significant independent coverage for the purpose of meeting WP:GNG. Fight results, promotional material, and interviews are all considered routine sports coverage. Being "well-known" is not a valid notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 13:54, 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 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 09:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaventura Di Bello[edit]

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

I was going to stub and clean this up, but an English/Italian BEFORE shows only interviews and nothing that would meet GNG/BIO. Star Mississippi 14:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 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 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 09:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Metternich[edit]

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

I'm not sure Jan Metternich meets our criteria for notable musician biographies (WP:MUSICBIO). The current sourcing are mainly articles published just this year and, beyond the Earmilk capsule review and The Hindu interview, don't give me the impression that he himself or his creative works have received enough coverage in reputable publications to presume notability. Aranya (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Sources are mainly interviews and as such lack independence. Ultimately the couple independent reviews aren't enough to establish notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 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 keep. Wide agreement here that TNT is not necessary. I encourage everybody to work to improve the article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Germans[edit]

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

This article is predictably a WP:SYNTH of random countries, novels and original research and not scholarly at all. The topic is certainly noteworthy, but I'd propose WP:TNT until someone else recreates a scholarly draft. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 10 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 00:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:TNT. JBchrch talk 03:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nominator: "The topic is certainly noteworthy" ie. AfD is topic-level not content-level. AfD is not Cleanup. An article on stereotypes will list stereotypes describes from various sources. -- GreenC 17:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the worst offending (badly-sourced) pieces have been removed or tagged appropriately. Other than that I'm satisfied this passes GNG, just needs work. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the nominator admits the subject is notable and suggests WP:TNT - but that is not a policy. WP:N is the relevant p̶o̶l̶i̶c̶y̶ guideline. The nominator does not propose a WP:ATD and that is a policy. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it is true that WP:TNT is not a policy, there's substantial consensus around it, and it could be argued that it's a commentary on WP:DEL-REASON #14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. JBchrch talk 18:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of TNT is "blow it up and start over". To start over requires an article about the topic. If you AfD the topic, you can't start over (any time soon). The purpose of TNT is to blank the page and rewrite it from scratch. That is fine, if you want, but AfD says Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic at all. -- GreenC 19:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to the use of TNT for deletion when something is bad enough. It's great for nuking some articles that are so incomprehensible or POV-filled that the extent of removal required to "improve" then would essentially leave them a useless stub. I recall a while back some user who had some serious competence issues writing an article on "Transport in X country". The entire article was a mess and the only thing left after stubifying would have been "There is transportation in X country", which is not helpful to anyone at all, so it was deleted. That said, I don't think this article warrants TNT anymore. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, you decided the topic was not useful, so it was deleted with AfD. That is different from TNT, which is a "start over" ie. the topic is not deleted. AfD concerns deleting the topic. TNT is about deleting the page content and starting over. They seem similar but are different concepts. In the example, you began thinking TNT was best, but then arrived at AfD was better since the "start over" part of TNT was not worth it. -- GreenC 21:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Err I think there is some confusion here over what you think I meant. I'm saying, hypothetically, if the only left from this article after cleanup was the single sentence "There are stereotypes of Germans" than it should be AfDed per TNT. That doesn't change whether the topic is notable per se. Yeah yeah I know AfD isn't cleanup, but in that instance I think it's better left a redlink so a different user with some editing experience can actually layout a new basic structure for the article. Otherwise it becomes a drive-by magnet for IP users who add random unsourced and incoherent trivia. Of course, in this instance there is the basis for a useful article here (with sourced info) so TNT is no longer required. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me also note that WP:ATD states that If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. So that's another policy ground for the practice expressed by WP:TNT. I have now added a new paragraph at WP:TNT documenting these policy grounds for deleting severely deficient articles [48]. Feel free to challenge. JBchrch talk 22:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Not sure about this line you inserted - seems like an unsupported statement Although this is an essay, the practice of deleting severely deficient articles is grounded in established policy. Why use an essay to support deletion rationale if there is an actual policy or guideline. I think we would all do well to read the difference between Afd and TNT as explained by GreenC. We do not delete notable subjects because of errors or missing items. WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTPAPER are applicable TNT related policy. The fifth pillar of Wikipedia is a good message: WP:5P5 no rules, but really says we should follow policies and guidelines (no mention of essays). The fact that you can insert any statement or opinion into that essay with no discussion further makes it not applicable here. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Re Why use an essay to support deletion rationale if there is an actual policy or guideline, well that's the point of the change. We should probably use these policy provisions instead of WP:TNT, in order to avoid the essay/policy debate. The change drives home this idea. Re unsupported, you would have to be more specific: there is a practice, and it is supported by ATD and DEL-REASON as far as I can tell. Re We do not delete notable subjects because of errors or missing items: no one is claiming that... JBchrch talk 00:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am staring right at your Delete ivote with your TNT rationale. So yes, delete is the opposite of TNT. TNT is as GreenC says. Blank it and start over, not delete at Afd. Find ATD so that we can keep notable topics and fix surmountable problems. Lightburst (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm contesting the recent addition to WP:TNT by JBchrch as a sort of circular logic and outside what TNT was meant for. See talk page there for discussion. -- GreenC 02:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Article is not in such bad shape that TNT is warranted.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_September_18&oldid=1046790711"