Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 14 August 16 >

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 merge to Gatlinburg, Tennessee. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gatlinburg Police Department[edit]

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

Much like was the case prior to the first AfD, this article asserts no notability. A BEFORE finds your typical run of the mill coverage about incidents involving GPD, but no reliable in depth coverage of it to meet GNG. Police departments are not inherently notable. Would not mind a merge to the city, but as this has been at AfD before I thought it merited discussion. Star Mississippi 23:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Moser[edit]

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

Promotional page that is almost completely unsourced. Luthier that does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG. Moser was indeed a luthier, as confirmed by several classified advertisements found in newspapers.com. He was a luthier of some reputation, as confirmed by [1] and [2]. I would not consider either of these to be significant coverage. Since this is the entirety of what I was able to find on the topic, I don't believe the topic meets our General Notability Guideline, or any other notability guideline. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet occupation of Ukraine[edit]

Soviet occupation of Ukraine (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 major POW content fork of the History of Ukraine. Also origibnal research of WP:SYNTH type, because Google gives close to no hits for the search term, with possible exceptions in the recent Ukrainian writings of the 21st century. Unlike Soviet occupation of the Baltic States, modern Ukraine started from the Ukrainian SSR, which emerged from the Russian Civil War, where it was split between Poland and Russia and where multiple proto-states were created and dissolved, and in fact Russia gave to it part of its territory to make comparable with the Polish part. Heck, Ukrainian SSR was one of the founding states which former the Soviet Union and the member of United Nations! Its economy was second in the Soviet Union after Russia. The only part of really Soviet occupation was grabbing parts of Ukraine from other countries after WWII: Soviet annexation of Eastern Galicia and Volhynia, etc. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know where this is copy pasted from? Is this POV article home at another Wiki?Moxy- 22:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant WP:CFORK. It looks like it is copied/pasted from numerous wikipedia articles, with twist. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, since that is essentially what this article is talking about. Also, I doubt Ukraine is really that "grateful" to Stalin. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I explained what it must be grateful for: without Staling there would have been no independent Ukraine: first, it was his politics of separate national republics, then he increased territory of Ukraine 3x. Without Stalin there would be one single Soviet Russian Empire, which would have probably would never collapsed (But this is alternative history :-). As for atrocities, all nations did have their skeletons in the cupboard. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The War in Crimea in 1918 has nothing to do with Ukraine because Crimea became part of Ukraine in 1954. The article implies that it's politically incorrect to refer to Ukraine as a former soviet republic, which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOR, and also because hosting revisionist bollocks which is clearly in breach of NPOV is also a stupid idea. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just another copy-paste from Ukrainian Wikipedia by Jafaz. There is no reason for this article, it looks like a POV fork. Mellk (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I haven’t read the article yet.) The nomination makes a valid point about the article title. However, the nomination’s rhetorical style and a statement like “Ukraine must be grateful to Stalin” (is this from a reliable source, or wp:righting great wrongs that never happened?) are straight out of Russian propaganda, synthesized from disinformation or cherry-picked facts (in reality the Bolsheviks invaded the Ukrainian People’s Republic which had seceded from revolutionary Russia, then gave large tracts of Ukrainian ethnocultural territory to the Russian SFSR in 1919 and 1924). Please read the article and judge on its relative merits. —Michael Z. 01:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I have stricken Stalin out. And I am not going to argue that most of Ukraine was Polish land grabbed by Russia and if ever Ukraine joins the European Union, it will be stricken with major restitution claims (Bug River claims), just like it happened in Baltic States. So if tis article stays, I will write one, Ukrainian occupation of Poland; there are plenty of nationalistic sources on this topic. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for "Bolsheviks nvaded", there were plenty of Bolsheviks in Ukraine or the own, who proclaimed the state and then "invited" "russian proletariat" to help them. Same nearly happened with Poland and Finland. And this strategy or overthrowing governments was common all the time all over the globe, not limited to bolsheviks. DO we have United States occupation of Panama or United States occupation of Lybia? Lembit Staan (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dear, first there was the Ukrainian People's Republic, which was occupied by Soviet troops. The UkSSR was created by Moscow's proteges, and if there were Ukrainians, they were accused of "bourgeois nationalism" and killed in the 1930s. Russia has never ceded its territories to Ukraine, all modern borders are ethnic territories of Ukrainians. Moreover, Russia took away from Ukraine the districts of Belgorod Region and Don Region (especially the city of Taganrog). At the Paris Peace Conference, the UPR declared its claims to Crimea, and a whole successful operation was carried out. It was impossible not to mention. I will tell you more, Stalin wanted all "Soviet republics" to be in the UN for the sake of increasing influence. However, Western leaders only agreed with the BSSR and the UkSSR. This "second economy of the USSR" fed only neighboring countries and the RSFSR, while Ukrainians starved and then suffered from poverty. The statement that there would be no independent modern Ukraine without the USSR is as erroneous as possible, and all other statements are as pro-Russian propaganda as possible. The creators of Ukraine are Ukrainians, not the Soviet government, which committed a whole genocide of Ukrainians, which you call a "skeleton in a closet." I just can't wrap my head "We should be grateful to Stalin." Approximately such users require renaming, for example, the article "Russo-Ukrainian War" to "Russian military intervention in Ukraine" or "the Russo-Ukrainian conflict". If possible, they would call it the "Civil War in Ukraine." Or the same Soviet-Ukrainian War, which on Russian Wikipedia is called "Revolution and Civil War in Ukraine." Please take this into account. By the way, in the Template:Soviet occupation, Ukraine has long been mentioned only with reference to the Soviet-Ukrainian War. So far, this topic has not appeared on its own, as has the Soviet occupation of Romania. Jafaz (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, for the record, I did support the renaming to ru-uk war. Whatever you say, these arguments are not the reason to write out a complete POV-fork of the History of Ukraine. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a propaganda piece from a highly problematic user.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, users with Russian native language on the page and the Armenian-Russian university talk about propaganda, because it contradicts their views. Um, then really the Russo-Ukrainian War should be renamed to the "Civil War on Ukraine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.28.179.21 (talk • contribs) — 139.28.179.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Please do not comment on Wikipedians, only on articles. This is violation of our policy WP:NPA. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My education at the Russian-Armenian Univerisity has nothing to do with this article. Best regards, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete propaganda. Super Ψ Dro 20:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - occupation is an inherently POV term here. There were different Ukrainian factions, that contested for power. --Soman (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In fact, @Lembit Staan:'s messages are not neutral at all. For example, here. "An attempt to distatniate Uktraine from Russia as much as possible" - everything is obvious here, all this discussion is in Russian propaganda. I don't know if this discussion makes any sense at all, if its basis is now mostly people from the WikiProject Russia, for whom the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States was a common "accession," and for example the occupation of Romania was a "liberation.". No comments. (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second warning If you continue attacking Wikipedians, you may be blocked from editing. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork.Anonimu (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The name itself seeks to push one particular POV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook case of POV fork.--Catlemur (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utter tripe. Ghirla-трёп- 20:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite (or Delete with WP:TNT...). What I think everyone is missing is that the topic is notable (but not in the matter of fact POV fork form that we have now). Just click the Google Scholar button. The phrase "Soviet occupation of Ukraine" is discussed in academic works related to Ukrainian historiography POV representing faction that includes scholars like Volodymyr Viatrovych. Their POV is a notable view, but of course, it should not be allowed to persist as a fringe POV fork. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The POV of Viatrovych and of whole of his Institute of National Memory (or whats its name) must be discussed only from the point of view of mainstream history as discussed in secondary sources, not added "as is" into Wikipedia. Lembit Staan (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 18 August 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 Aiden. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Ibarra[edit]

Angel Ibarra (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:BANDMEMBER, no resources to show his individual importance as a member of the band, or any subsequent ventures. A google search for "'Angel Ibarra' 'Aiden'" reveals very little that is substantial. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aiden. Except for one solo project that was itself unnoticed, he has no notable accomplishments outside the band and does not qualify for his own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aiden. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs[edit]

Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs (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 journal. Not included in any selective databases, no independent in-depth sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Included in the Bibliography of Asian Studies, the "standard bibliographical tool" for Asian studies run by the field's principal body, the Association for Asian Studies and is compiled on the basis of "durable scholarly interest." See BAS article for source of quotes. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: in case anybody wonders why I don't react to anything posted by Sheijiashaojun, please see this AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was drawn into that Afd by another nomination from you, and didn't have a clear understanding of the protocol, for which I have apologised. It'd be great if you could stick to the matter at hand. Also, the Notability standard is not "in-depth"; it's "significant coverage." Sheijiashaojun (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to let you know, "in-depth" and "significant" are synonyms regarding sources (or coverage) for editors on Wikipedia - perhaps by convention. There might be an SNG that actually uses the term "in-depth." In any case, think of them as synonymous or even interchangeable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OK, thanks for letting me know how many editors understand these words. I think it's worth insisting on "significant" at times. For one thing it's closer to "notable" which is the key issue ("more than a trivial mention" as per guidelines is a different bar than "in-depth"), and for another it's the word used in the guideline. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This journal was a niche journal, but significant in its time. It is a notable journal. It is certainly worth keeping a reference with details on Wikipedia. The page needs to be improved rather than deleted. Pmccawley (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pmccawley, I'm perfectly willing to believe that this was "significant in its time", but would like to see some evidence of that. Just saying "its notable" doesn't cut it. --Randykitty (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep. Being included in Scopus meets the usual guideline for academic journnals. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and disambiguate Eddie891 Talk Work 16:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Davison[edit]

Jake Davison (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 came here originally to argue that this wasn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC compared to a recent murderer in the UK, but I've become convinced that this man fails WP:BANDMEMBER. Nothing on this stub page separates him from his former band, the discography section is exclusively his work with this band. There are very, very few sources exclusively about this man (often in relation to his band). A google search for "'Aiden' 'Jake Davison'" gets the Wiki mirrors on the first page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no evidence of notability independent to Aiden. Appropriate to replace with disambiguation page to direct readers to Aiden and Plymouth shooting. MIDI (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Normally the easy solution would be to redirect to his band, but that is a problem because he unluckily shares a name with the villain in the Plymouth shooting, and that bonehead is more likely to be a search term. I also like the previous voter's idea about straightening things out with a new disambig page. This Jake Davison has no notable accomplishments outside of his band and does not qualify for his own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguatify as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support disambig Redirect the current article to the band (with no redirect) and create the dab page. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab and redirect is a good solution for an otherwise marginallly notable musician. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 23 August 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 per WP:BLP1E. The overall discussion was closely divided, but as is often the case with many BLP1E discussions, many of the arguments did not address the key points. This includes some "delete" arguments that attacked the subject personally, and "keep" arguments that focused on the overall amount of coverage without touching the specific issues of BLP1E. Regarding the three criteria of that policy, the first (coverage for one incident) seems undisputed. The second was discussed in one "keep" argument that asserted he is not "low profile" because he posted information online and accepted media interviews. However, the criterion says "otherwise remains", which I take to mean otherwise beyond the one incident, and there was no argument that he has any media profile beyond this one incident. On the final criterion, it was established in the discussion that the larger event is significant and his role seems well documented, but it does not seem "substantial" as he was only one of many people seeking exit. Therefore the subject appears to meet all the necessary criteria of WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Routledge[edit]

Miles Routledge (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 an obvious BLP violation. Miles Routledge is only potentially notable for one event. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: subject does not meet the requirements for relevance on Wikipedia. Dellwood546 (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: See my below post. I've changed my vote.
  • Draftify:* Sources are not currently adequate enough to meet WP:BIO. Subject is only notable for one event and that one event is still transpiring. This is an example of WP:BLP1E, and while I don't foresee additional sources changing that fact, we'll need to wait for more sources and evaluate the article at that point. Otherwise we are crystal balling. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*No longer think the articles need to be moved to draftspace. It no longer meets criteria #3 of WP:NOTBLP1E. See my additional comments below. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:BLP1ENOT, BLP1E does not just say BLPs notable for one event get deleted. This just isn't the case: it would be absurd to nominate D.B. Cooper or Trayvon Martin for deletion because they were "only notable for one event". There are multiple criteria that must be met. One of them is that the individual is "low-profile". WP:LOWPROFILE gives five ways to assess this: media attention, promotional activities, appearances and performances, eminence, and behavior pattern/activity level. Specifically, he created more than one thread on 4chan about his travels that featured his photo and real name, and eagerly gave multiple interviews to a variety of news outlets. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Regarding sourcing: there are plenty of RS right now, and he's in the middle of getting on a plane; either he makes it out, and does a ton of interviews with every newspaper in the world, or he doesn't, and there are a ton of articles about that. I think that seven days is long enough to find out (and if not, I will draftify it myself). jp×g 22:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since it seems like a large number of people are going to read this AfD, and possibly use it to inform their opinions of what Wikipedia editors are like, I'll clarify that I do hope he makes it out, and that later expansion of the article will continue the biography of a living person. jp×g 08:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only notable for one event. WP:BLP1E requires substantial and significant coverage for an individual to overcome this. An article in The Times does not meet that. Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I second JPxG, also the article has been expanded a fair bit since the first comments were left here, and it should be pretty clear within the next 7 days whether this should be kept or not. Theres definitely enough media coverage now to justify Notability. jonas (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's one, maybe two reliable sources significantly covering Routledge. That is not enough media coverage to justify notability. It's probably not even enough coverage to consider this a WP:BLP1E. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I second JPxG. He is a well known public figure with 10s of millions of views about his struggle. He is a important cornerstone of this event. This event is big enough, and he is well known enough now, that it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.110.43.121 (talk • contribs) — 116.110.43.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep: Many articles across multiple languages in the mainstream press regarding him right now and the situation is still developing. I second JPxG regarding the issue of BLP1E. It's very unlikely he'll drop off the face of the earth after this is over, whatever the outcome. 0x004d (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is quite possible that he will be forgotten when this has ended. Wikipedia is not a repository of things that might become notable in the future. Instead, it is a repository of things that are notable now. On a different note, I have noticed that many of the keep voters mention coverage, but none of them have actually linked any reliable sources here. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Concur with other editors, specifically JPxG's point. There are many people notable for just one thing. Miles is still notable and has received widespread media attention. At the very least we will know soon whether he is notable or not. InspectorRage (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC) — InspectorRage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and has been receiving wide media attention. Yes the subject may be only notable based on one event WP:BLP1E. But I still feel the subject would get more pressure coverage in coming days due to the subject's involvement with Fall of Kabul (2021). Abishe (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am noticing that many of the keep votes are justifying their positions using a crystal ball. This discussion is about whether reliable sources exist now, rather than at some nebulous point in the future. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Routledge is not sufficiently notable. NotGordon (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This figure is most certainly not an "a important cornerstone of this event". Does getting an article in LadBible, The Sun, The Daily Express (all complete rags) & a few regional newspapers etc. really warrant a Wikipedia page? Unless he ends up getting killed as a result of his antics I highly doubt this person will be getting mentioned in the media come next week. ToeSchmoker (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should add that The Telegraph[3] and The Times[4] have covered this story. Most of the story has been directed by tabloid non-RSs, but the two papers of record in the UK have covered it. This doesn't change my vote as it's still not substantial or significant coverage. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only notable for one event. If this leads him to go on to become a more significant person (like a reporter or journalist) this article would work, but as of now it doesn't make sense to keep his page up. Fernsong (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lots of new accounts here, possibly being directed here by social media websites? Dark-World25 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely to be a brigade, only one edit is from an IP and the deletion discussion page is advertised at the top of his article which is one of the first search engine results when looking him up. 0x004d (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although he is not notable as part of the event itself and so cannot be included in 2021 Taliban offensive, this person played a significant part in documenting an extremely notable event in a unique way which is in and of itself notable, as indicated by the wide range of articles that have been written on him. This should be an exception to the rule, see WP:IGNORE FAISSALOO(talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in The Times and The Telegraph is good enough for me. The question of whether he will continue to receive coverage is WP:CRYSTALBALL; he is receiving coverage now, and if he does not receive WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in the future, then the article can be renominated. Mlb96 (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even if this article were to be kept, there are a number of issues with the page that need to be addressed. First, the use of quotes around "wasteland" does not seem to refer to an article (if it does that needs to be referenced), and otherwise seems to express sarcasm and therefore an opinion of the writer. Second, although the subject may have purchased a "lordship certificate", I can't find references to suggest that the alternative name "Lord Miles" is in common use. Tojam2 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Faissaloo Qaei ☎ 23:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Its a good primary source for the future. It has the same verisimilitude as a newspaper article on a soldier at the end of WW2, just in the modern era of the internet. Still, it *does* need more work on its verifiability - a few YouTube videos and a Sun article aren’t enough evidence for importance. But it *does* have promise. — 2a02:c7f:146d:7700:a853:22df:1468:3cf4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: Glorifying an incredibly stupid person isn't a good thing to be doing.Echopraxia9000 (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Further news coverage by major media outlets (including in several languages) has now came up and I believe that the article now meets the requirements for relevance. I've amended my prior opinion above. Dellwood546 (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This man means adventure and will go on an another stupid trip after he gets rescued (he's in transit as I write this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankUnderw000d (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I've been on a trip of my own the last couple days, so haven't been able to edit at full throttle until now. I've added another ten sources, as well as done a lot of expansion and copyediting. I wouldn't say the article is "done" at this point, but it is certainly stronger than it was before (and has much better sourcing; I think the Daily Dot, Telegraph, Input, The Tab, the Times, and Vice are relatively solid). I will be back in a few hours for more -- stay tuned. jp×g 09:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Apart from Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I am worried that this could be a hoax. Either way, if, something more substantial than 'student gets stuck in a warzone' then the article can be recreated. EhsanQ (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only notable for one event. LieselD (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: This could be potentially important information about the events going on in Kabul, but I don't think he is a figure with a large enough following or reputation yet to warrant his own page (maybe in future though?). That being said, information about his reporting from Kabul may be important to know, and people may come to the site wanting to find out about him, so I'd suggest having a section about him, or that at the very least references him, on the 2021 Fall of Kabul page. SpamPorpoise (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He is now safe in Dubai. Any media coverage, in RSs at least, will end here. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: much less significant articles than this on Wikipedia; some of the arguments are ridiculous - as if this Wikipedia article is somehow the tipping point between some other fool doing something similar and not. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all aware that other stuff exists. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 17:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not, otherwise people would not always be so selectively outraged at fluff articles. Sumbuddi (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNP the individual is not notable in any way and this article should be deleted swiftly. Astuishin (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNP for swift deletion. Insufficiently notable, promotional, possibly self created. Anvib (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anvib: While he is certainly self-promotional, I think it's unlikely that Miles would prepare to write an article about himself by spending seven years editing Wikipedia pretending to be an engineer from the United States. That said, I'd be happy to email you a photo of myself pointing to this AfD on my monitor and making a silly face of your choosing, putting keyboard/shoe on head, et cetera. jp×g 22:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article was not self-created; JPxG is a well known and experienced Wikipedia editor. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individuals role in current events is not substantial WP:1E. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, otherwise many more people who have appeared in major media outlets would be added WP:NOTNP. Humongous125 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I understand the viewpoints of those supporting deletion, but I feel the references as they stand now are enough to warrant keeping the article and any issues could theoretically be improved upon with time. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more appropriately covered by a newspaper, not by wikipedia Thecitizen1 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Per ToeSchmoker. I was in disbelief to discover this page. The comparisons with Trayvon Martin and D B Cooper are weak. This is clearly a brat whose actions in the middle of a real crisis have generated enough inconvenience and shock value to land him in newspapers. He will justifiably be forgotten by the end of the week, and if he isn't, we can have another conversation about whether he's notable enough for an article. I am properly indignant that he's being considered a cornerstone of this crisis and repulsed that we are contributing to it. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the point you are making; whether the guy is a dick is not a relevant consideration for notability (and even if it were, it's hard to see how he is more of a dick than a guy who brought a bomb on an airplane and threatened to murder everyone with it unless he was given $200,000). D.B. Cooper doesn't have an article because we think he's a great guy, he has an article because he's received substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. jp×g 20:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without meaning any disrespect, I find it difficult to explain the obvious with reference to granular policy. I cannot see how you analogise Trayvon Martin (whose killing sparked a movement) and D B Cooper (whose hijacking has captured the imagination for decades) with a kid who happened to be at a war zone in the middle of the war. He is the among the least important things in this conflict. I could do the “Wikipedia is not a crystal ball” or “Wikipedia is not a newspaper” thing, or get into the weeds on the notability guideline, but I see this as one of those clear, in-your-face examples where the subject obviously is not notable in any reasonable sense. Many of the other “delete” comments here are clearly inspired by the same sentiment. And apologies if I confused you by calling him a “brat”; that wasn’t the point, it just made me feel better. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Routledge has been covered by multiple major publications as part of a significant event, which is good enough for WP:BLP1E. Whether Routledge's actions are foolish or immoral is irrelevant; many foolish and immoral people have Wikipedia pages. Shannon Alther (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shannon Alther: Being mentioned in major publications as part of a significant event is not a reason for someone to have a Wikipedia page. Anvib (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think JPxG has made the case for notability; I just wanted to add that the article doesn't merit deletion on BLP-related procedural grounds.Shannon Alther (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After careful consideration, I'm going to lean on the keep side. The subject's coverage of the siege on Kabul and his escape are sufficiently distinct for me to say it passes WP:1E. The sticking point for me was on "There is usually no need to write articles about things with no historical significance whatsoever." The siege on Kabul was historically significant, and in my opinion the subject's coverage of the events that transpired, as well as his wider media coverage, make him sufficiently notable to have an article. Tojam2 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The siege on Kabul was historically significant, but I fail to see how a college student going there while it happened and sharing a couple social media posts is. It's not like he's a journalist. He provides little to no insight to the historical event. I would say he has no relevance to the event. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG presumes notability in the presence of WP:SIGCOV. While there may be a cogent argument to be made in favor of adopting different notability guidelines, it's not really clear to me what an objective measure of "significance" would look like for biographies. As an example, Elián González is a BLP notable in conjunction with only one event (the controversy over whether he would be allowed to immigrate from Cuba to the United States). He is not even mentioned in Cuba–United States relations; in our article on the specific US policy regarding situations like his, he is given only a passing mention as an example of someone to whom it applied. I would say he is notable regardless, since his ordeal was given lots of significant coverage by reliable sources, and consensus is broadly on the side of SIGCOV establishing notability -- determining whether or not someone is "historically relevant" seems like a quite subjective process that's outside our remit as encyclopedia editors (and doing so could potentially be a form of original research).
    I guess what I'm trying to say here is that, if our policies presume notability when a subject is given significant coverage by well-regarded reliable sources, like the BBC (RSP entry), Telegraph (RSP entry), and Times (RSP entry), and in the last few days these sources have all decided the guy was worth writing about, it's not clear to me what basis there is for claiming otherwise. jp×g 23:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: WP:GNG: ---No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.--- Anvib (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reputable media sources here; is there an issue with the reliability of the three I posted in the comment above? jp×g 00:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Did you read above? As per above, sources alone (reliable or not) are not enough, “No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists”. As per above the evidence must show that “this was not a mere short-term interest”. This is evidently a short term interest. This is an individual has appeared in the news for a single incident, at most it merits mention as part of another wikipedia article. He does not merit his own wikipedia article as per BLP. And there are clear concerns about self-promotion as per above. Neither points you have addressed. Anvib (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the topic was notable "because it exists"; I am saying it has a presumption of notability because "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is a direct quote of the first sentence of WP:GNG. jp×g 19:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good points by JPxG. I think he is now notable by Wikipedia's standards. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as per WP:GNG Wikipedia is not a place for promotional activity, which is the motivation behind this individual's actions. This article should be swiftly deleted.Anvib (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article has historical relevance to the siege. At best it should be kept, at worst it should be merged. HungryDinosaur (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify This is a fast-moving story and there is every chance that this thread will be picked up and the subject achieve notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Due to him having no significant participation in current events, I would suggest at most that his name be merged with another article. An example is given in WP:1E; where George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. Miles appears to be a witness who is no different to any other foreign national who was in Afghanistan at the time, only he got noticed by MSM by contacting them.
If his role was significant, would his name not appear in other wiki articles regarding the event, with some links directing to his page?
If his page is kept, does this set a precedence for creating articles about soldiers, aid workers, etc who have had a more significant role in Afghanistan and also appeared in reputable MSM sources?Humongous125 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that deleting and merging this or mentioning this individual in another article would be more appropriate than this article and would be a fair compromise.Anvib (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article about someone who has multiple stories focusing on them in reliable sources is not "creating a precedent", so much as it's "the general notability guidelines that have existed for many years". If I saw an article about an aid worker or translator who was the primary subject of a dozen news stories, I certainly would not nominate it for deletion, and if I saw it at AfD I would !vote "keep"; I'm not sure what stops you from doing this. jp×g 19:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG:Then why is George Holliday given as an example in WP:1E as someone who’s actions were only significant enough to warrant his name being merged with Rodney King? There is quite a few reputable sources such as the NY Times with articles about him. I also ask again, what is different about Miles that differentiates him from the experiences of any other foreign national stuck in the country? Or is the fact that the MSM has selected him as their poster boy to personify foreign nationals trying to leave the country sufficient for a Wikipedia page about him? Humongous125 (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not un precedented, but well documented by reliable sources who chosed to mention him. He's clearly past the point of 4chan or Reddit Hero of the Day. We should wait some time before considering deletion, and treat this article as an internet phenomenon more than a biography. Larrayal (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia has a huge global responsibility and we should be mindful of endorsing people who may commit stupid and dangerous acts merely to "get a wikipedia page" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbHcS3I0sko Anvib (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't think an impromptu commentary video by a random YouTube user with no direct connection to the subject is in any way relevant to the discussion, and including a quote that I'm not sure even comes up in it but could easily be understood to be from Routledge himself (if one hasn't actually watched it) is suboptimal. AngryHarpy‍talk 17:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – oh boy, it's another one of those, huh? I've been passively following this discussion, and a lot of the more recent support for deletion features an increasingly undeniable tinge of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I also have to call into serious question statements like sources alone (reliable or not) are not enough, “No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists“ – sorry to say, but no, the second half doesn't really have much to do with the first one at all, and reliable sources alone indeed are enough. Mainly per JPxG's eloquent words above, I find myself in favor of inclusion by this point. AngryHarpy‍talk 17:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Like, omg, this guy's a racist and obvious right-wing shill! He goes on 4Chan and looks smarmy. Delete it now and rid Wikipedia of this Nazi. Even his name "Miles" oozes prejudice! Reeeeeee 2A02:C7F:CA07:8D00:B9E1:DB0E:A243:2A8E (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Er... What? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article, as it stands, is all about one event. There is RS coverage of that one event but nothing broad enough to source a BLP. We don't want BLPs of the type "That guy who made a fool of himself one time when he was young". Unless his other activities establish a broader pattern of notability, I think it is best, both for us and for him, not to have a BLP about him. That said, unless he changes his name, his Google searches are probably wrecked for life whether we have an article about him or not. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I've tagged the article as an orphan. There was one incoming link but it was this which I had already reverted as unreliably referenced and hence non-notable. I guess I should mention it here lest anybody think that I am trying to be sneaky by deleting the only incoming link and then tagging as orphaned. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a prime example of BLP1E. There's absolutely nothing which indicates that this person has any form of previous significance (i.e. notability is not temporary, and the current events are not sufficient to convince me this is more than just the usual RECENTISM of things that are in the news; given the role of this person in this one event is not significant (the examples of people that are notable for only one event and get an exception are those like Derek Chauvin (significant role in a notable event), which is clearly not the case here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the fall of Kabul is a highly notable event, Routledge played no role in it beyond getting trapped in the city (a trait shared by thousands of foreigners and millions of Afghans). Based on WP:BLP1E, this is simply not enough to get an article. In terms of general notability, Routledge received only a few days of coverage most of which has now concluded. (I did find a Russia Time's article published today, but this is not a reliable source). Thus, I think this article fails WP:NOTNEWS. Finally, Routledge is a young university student. If we keep this article, then over the next few decades we would have to keep track of someone who will almost certainly be a private individual who does nothing further of encyclopedic note. This poses major privacy concerns and runs afoul of WP:5P1. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spirit of Eagle et al. If he was one of the three known fatalities, that might be notable, but he's alive. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Lerner Hall[edit]

Alfred Lerner Hall (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 article has been unsourced since 2007. A search for Alfred Lerner Hall excluding the columbia.edu domain returns almost no results with significant coverage. Filetime (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Columbia University as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this was designed by a notable architect who was actually Dean of Columbia's School of Architecture at the time, there would be expected to be discussion in material about his work--I'll take a look. . (but for what it's worth, and as the article quite fairly indicates, it's a pretty horrible example of campus architecture, ) DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I thought , major works by major architects always have references. (just using Google Scholar), there are the following 3rd party articles:
Pelkonen El. "In Context: Tschumi at Lerner Hall." PRAXIS: Journal of Writing+ Building. 1999 Oct 1;1(0):82-7.
Campbell R. "Alfred Lerner Hall, Columbia University, NYC: Modernism and contextualism meet at Columbia's new student center, with provocative results". Architectural Record. 1999;187:94-101.
Danziger B, King M, Raiji A. "Alfred Lerner Hall, Columbia University, New York". ARUP JOURNAL. 2000;35(2):24-7.
Capurso R. "Bernard Tschumi Architects/Gruzen Samton Associated Architects Lerner Hall Student Center, Columbia University, New York." Industria Delle Costruzioni. 2001:40-5.
Rahim A, Tschumi B.(An interview with Bernard Tschumi on his collaboration with DJ-Spooky on Lerner-Hall for Columbia-University). Amodyne (2001): 17-19.
Sowa A. "Students' Center, Lerner Hall, Columbia University, New York-Bernard Tschumi and Ove Arup architects". Architecture D'Aujourd Hui. 2000 Jul 1;329:60-3.
Henninger P. "Special effects genereren nog geen event-architecture. Alfred Lerner Hall in New York van Bernard Tschumi." Architect-Den Haag-. 1999;30:70-5.
and a book that covers it, but I do not know in what depth: Hartoonian G. Architecture and spectacle: a critique. Routledge; 2016
There is also the architect's book about the building:
Tschumi, Bernard, Hugh Dutton, and Jesse Reiser. Glass Ramps / Deviations from the Normative : Alfred Lerner Hall, Columbia University. London: AA Publications, 2001. ISBN 9781902902005. That's perhaps not strictly third party, but I think it counts.
And the architect's web page on the building: Bernard Tschumi Architects "Lerner Hall Student Center, New York, 1994-1999" [5]
I have added them. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to improvements since nomination by DGG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies Wikipedia:NBUILD, thus GNG.Djflem (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AGF on the offline sources provided by DGG, which strongly suggest the topic is significantly covered by multiple reliable, independent sources, thus meeting GNG. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:50, 19 August 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🌀 03:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Bradford[edit]

Virginia Bradford (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 clear if the subject passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:NACTRESS. Only sources are a biography written by a family member which lacks independence, and IMDB which is not usable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. 4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Has sufficient number of films. She is referenced in tcm.com, afi.com, silentera.com, etc. I have added citation/references. SWP13 (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by the nominator (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Crooks[edit]

Brendon Crooks (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, stub article. Peter Ormond 💬 19:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Peter Ormond 💬 00:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Róbert Schaffhauser[edit]

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

Stub article, non-notable sportsperson. Peter Ormond 💬 19:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Peter Ormond 💬 00:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 15 August 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niedorajda[edit]

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

Stub article, non-notable film. Peter Ormond 💬 19:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How, User:Peter Ormond is WP:NFO inclusionary criteria 3 not met? Good grief, it was also released in the USA, and I've added a reference reflecting that. Please withdraw this nomination. Nfitz (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I have trouble finding WP:SIGCOV here (in German?). [6] does have a two-three sentences discussion of reception (translated: The film was made exclusively for the performer of the main role, Adolf Dymsza. It was said that the piece had numerous disadvantages, but also a great advantage - the participation of an excellent comedy actor. The value of this picture also lies in the fact that he has good situational humor logically resulting from the action. An additional attraction of Niedorajda is the popular song by Dymsza "Co z toba Florek", composed by Henryk Wars to the words of Jerzy Jurandot.). The odds are there was SIGCOV in the Polish press of 1937. Would be good to check if the American premier got any coverage? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough to be released in the US, has sources.† Encyclopædius 09:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanna Visser[edit]

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

Unsourced, stub article, non-notable sportsperson. Peter Ormond 💬 19:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. The sources mentioned by Gidonb below should be cited to the article as it is unsourced, and the article may be expanded. Peter Ormond 💬 00:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)*[reply]
Then please cite these sources in the article and try to expand it. Regards, Peter Ormond 💬 20:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEXIST: "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." gidonb (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnawat Wongchai[edit]

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

Stub article, non-notable footballer. Peter Ormond 💬 19:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Peter Ormond 💬 00:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Clark (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Unsourced and not quite notable. Peter Ormond 💬 19:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Peter Ormond 💬 00:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NPOL as a member of parliament. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - ignoring WP:NPOL I'm baffled how User:Peter Ormond thinks that someone would spend 13 years as an Alberta MP in the federal Parliament without easily achieving GNG. Simply quickly looking the the Globe and Mail archive, there's a very significant in-depth article about him, covering most of page 3 of The (Toronto) Globe's Saturday magazine - see ProQuest 1316694717 - surely there'll be even more coverage thousands of miles away in his own riding! Perhaps Peter could explain or withdraw this nomination. Nfitz (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes. Nom incomprehensible without some other info. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's ok, we all make mistakes from time to time Curbon7 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CH Madrid[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced and not quite notable. Peter Ormond 💬 19:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - team played in the top level Spanish ice hockey league for many years. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 20:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per Hockeyben. Nfitz (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, can be verified, but should be verified more. Geschichte (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article in all its versions is a copyright violation by Bluecountrymutt from https://cafriseabove.org/henry-buford-herky-perry. This requires deletion irrespective of the issue of notability. Because this editor has committed numerous copyright violations, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#User:Bluecountrymutt, I am indefinitely blocking them. Sandstein 18:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry B. Perry[edit]

Henry B. Perry (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:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This person was one of the 922 pilots of the Tuskegee Airmen, and the sources listed to support notability are mostly blogs and obituaries. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Perry is best known as the U.S. Air Force's first African American jet pilot and first African American jet instructor, sharing these two honors with three other African American officers." This sounds like a pretty notable distinction. There might have been 922 pilots in the Tuskegee Airmen but that doesn't mean none of them are notable. I was able to find these sources on Google,[12][13][14], [15]. I think this page needs work but not deletion. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the quote you gave from the page says he was the first and then shares these honors with three other African American officers, So which was it? Was he first or one of 4? In any event the only source for that isn't RS. The sources you gave are all just passing mentions with nothing in depth about him. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seemed pretty clear to me that he was one of 4 who became pilots at the same time. This means that they would share the distinction, but the small number still makes it...distinctive. James Voss and Susan Helms share the distinction of the longest single spacewalk, its not less special because 2 people did it at the same time. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its unclear and not supported by a reliable source. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, few RS given, only passing mentions in other RS about the Tuskegee Airmen, a few low medals, Easy Company all over again. Mztourist (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BASIC in my view. Intothatdarkness 14:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous sources and so the subject is an easy pass of WP:BASIC. And I found it easy to add more to the article and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources pass WP:SIGCOV and so are fine for our purpose. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reliable one's clearly don't pass SIGCOV. They are still only passing mentions. One of the most used refs is still his wife's obit. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to the Jack Hadley Black History Museum (a source from the article), Perry is "one of the first Black American fighter pilots". A book source has also been added since the deletion nomination by Andrew Davidson. There is clearly enough information here to warrant a standalone article, and with an image as well, this feels like a valuable article to have on Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jack Hadley Black History Museum has 2 sentences about him and the book is just a passing mention. They do not amount to significant coverage. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. There are two sources in the entire article that discuss the subject in detail beyond simply his name or a couple of sentences; an article from "blackthen.com" (which appears to be open to anyone when writing articles; the Jae Jones credited with writing it does not seem to be a writer of any fame) and an obituary (if this was credited as a significant source, we'd have hundreds of millions of articles on random people by now). Andrew Davidson and NemesisAT seem to not have even reviewed the sources before putting in their vote. Lettlerhello • contribs 00:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lettler seems to be making things up without supporting evidence. The timestamps indicate that I spent over an hour on this topic while Lettler spent less than 15 mins. And I improved the article while they haven't touched it. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? I've spent a fair amount of time working on articles that were kept after I voted to delete them while others who voted keep never touched those same articles. Lettler is entitled to their evaluation of the article just as you are. I don't recall seeing a requirement to work on an article before you were permitted to vote Keep or Delete. Intothatdarkness 00:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions, nothing more. Mztourist (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the Air Force had thousands of flight instructors at the time and there were hundreds of thousands of African-American servicemen who were in the military at the time of integration so beyond the fact that there is no significant coverage neither of those two claims indicates notability. GPL93 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of information and citations. I can't fathom the delete !votes. Deleting this could be detrimental - we can't erase Black history. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I'm not sure that evaluating the lack depth of coverage and reliability of references used is some sort of unfathomable concept and I certainly would not use it to paint other editors of trying to "erase" anything. The history of the Tuskegee Airmen is covered at length and in depth, as it should be, and there are many members that meet notability standards and they have received more than passing mentions, being covered on non-reliable blogsites, and listings on unit rosters. But this is not the case with the subject of the article. GPL93 (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - the main purpose of GNG is to ensure that we can write an encyclopedia artice in a verifiable (reliable sources). neutral (multiple sources) manner that gives the reader some comprehension of the topic. That's what we have here, an article that meets WP:V that is far beyond a stub. This is not fancruft, but details the life of a person with significant accomplishments. Because the conditions of WP:WHYN are met, I believe this encyclopedia is more comprehensive when this topic is included, and would lose some value should the topic be removed. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the sources? Do you seriously believe that BASIC is satisfied? Mztourist (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the sources, there isn't much SIGCOV, but an article with significant information has been created from the pieces. I would return the question and ask "do you seriously believe the article is harming the encyclopedia, instead of helping it", but Intothatdarkness has below presentend siginifcant evidence that in fact this article does harm the encyclopedia. I will re-evaluate my !vote accordingly. Intothatdarkness, your "Easy Company" reference is going right over my head, since this is not an area of expertise for me. Can you help me out? Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that...it's actually a reference to something another poster (I believe Mztourist) brought up in another AfD for an article like this. After "Band of Brothers" you started seeing a flood of articles about members of the unit covered (Easy Company) who were only notable for having BEEN in Easy Company. This is something similar. That and the majority of information is coming from a single website (cafriseabove.org), and if you see my comment below I'm not sure they're a reliable or necessarily neutral source. I'd feel MUCH better about these articles if they were based on something other than it and obituaries (or recycled content from either of those sources). Intothatdarkness 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed !vote, see reason below. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you actually review https://cafriseabove.org/henry-buford-herky-perry/, you'll see that most of this article is a direct copy from that source, including the flight training error identifying Perry as Deiz (the article also links to the CAF article on Deiz at a later point). The massive copyvio alone makes this suspect. I've made some wording changes, but caught the major lift when I tired to confirm the misidentification in the article of Perry as Deiz. It also leads me to question the viability of the CAF site as RS. Notability aside (and I'm still not convinced this isn't another Easy Company situation), there seem to be major issues with the use of sources in this (and likely other) articles. Intothatdarkness 13:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as copyvio. There are earlier versions of this article that aren't a copyvio of cafriseabove.org (which according to Earwig is 87% copied from that source), but the earlier versions are a copyvio of BlackThen. That said, I still think this topic is notable, as Perry was (one of four) the first African-American flight instructor in the U.S. Air Force. I believe an encyclopdic article could be built on available sources. Nonetheless cafriseabove is certainly questionable, as it lists a Wiki source as its base. I list it as "questionable" instead of "unreliable" because it is possible the site has fact-checked the information on that fan-wiki, but frankly I feel that's unlikely. FWIW, another source with a bit of info not available in the current article is [17]. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be possible to incorporate quite a bit of the information in these articles into an expanded version of the Postwar section of the Tuskeegee Airmen article, with redirects to that location. While individual notability is to me low, I think there's some collective notability which might be better-suited for the main article. Intothatdarkness 15:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Intothatdarkness. Merging relevant details into the Tuskeegee Airmen article, possibly in a new section focused on the impact that former members had on the postwar Air Force, is likely more appropriate than independent articles where notability is murky at best based on available sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how that fits into that article/section, what would be better is a "list of accomplished Tuskeegee Airmen" where some verifiable biographical information is available beyond birth/death/marriage dates, since I don't think we want a 900+ list. My idea is probably unmanageable, but I could certainly support moving information to a table provided it is small enough to fit without being unweildly. Anyway, I wouldn't merge anything from this article until it's verified to not be a copyvio. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking a note in the Tuskeegee article could be added listing the first four who transitioned to jets and then became instructors (which seems to be a large part of the basis for Perry's claimed notability...although he shares it with three other individuals). You won't be able to fold all these articles into the main one, but I do believe articles like this one, along with Haywood, Lench (who's still a red link), and Whitehead, are good candidates. It would also help expand the postwar/legacy section of the Tuskeegee article. Just my take. Intothatdarkness 19:58, 24 August 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 The Firm (novel). Consensus is clear, and is supported by the absence of sources giving treatment of substantial depth to the fictional character. Since the previous edit history of the article will remain available under the redirect, any editor who wishes is free to salvage and merge previous article content to the respective articles on the book and the TV series. BD2412 T 03:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abby McDeere[edit]

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

Redirect to the novel. Fictional character with no significance outside of The Firm (novel) and its adaptations. Sources do not establish notability of the character. cagliost (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any information to be retained can be moved here: The_Firm_(novel)#Characters. cagliost (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - some of the sources are certainly focused on the actors that portrayed the character, but several are focused on the characters and provide an in-universe assessment of the subject's relevance to a clearly notable book and movie and TV series. If you came away with the impression that "they refer to performances" then I have to query what steps you took to address steps A, B and C of WP:BEFORE ahead of nominating this article for deletion at step D? St★lwart111 15:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My summary of the sources:

1. The book itself. 2. Does not establish character notability. (ChannelCanada) 3. Does not mention character. 4. Inflation. 5. Does not mention character. 6. Does not mention character. 7. Does not mention character. 8. Does not establish character notability. (Washington Post) 9. Does not establish character notability. (New York Times) 10. The book itself. 11. The book itself. 12. The book itself. 13. Does not establish character notability. (Variety) 14. Does not establish character notability. (Entertainment Weekly) 15. Does not establish character notability. (Ebert) 16. Does not establish character notability. (Hollywood Reporter) 17. Does not mention character. cagliost (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then Keep, as WP:BEFORE here is clearly woefully inadequate and the list above includes 7 references that - by the nominator's own admission - don't align with the nominator's premise (that they "refer to performances by the actresses"). Instead, they offer coverage of the character in the form of in-universe commentary about the character's place within a notable story. That's exactly the sort of coverage we expect to see for notable fictional characters, and in this case they appear in the New York Times, Washington Post and other consistently reliable sources. We should expect more than a vapid "does not establish character notability" without actual assessment of the value of each source. St★lwart111 10:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain how these sources establish this is a notable character?
ChannelCanada says: "Entertainment One (eOne), Sony Pictures Television Networks, NBC and Global are proud to announce that Canadian actress Molly Parker (“Deadwood,” “Swingtown”) has signed on to star as Abby McDeere in the new legal drama series “The Firm,” based on John Grisham’s best-selling novel and executive-produced by Grisham and Lukas Reiter. Ten years ago, Abby helped her husband Mitch bring down a Memphis law firm that was a front for the Chicago mob. Her life was never the same. Abby’s a true partner to Mitch – a smart, resourceful woman who after a tumultuous decade is excited to start a new life in Washington, D.C. as a school teacher."
Washington Post says: "Meanwhile, at the same office party, Mitch's wife, Abby (Jeanne Tripplehorn), is picking up Stepford Lawyers vibes. "The firm does not forbid wives to take jobs," one spouse tells her. "The firm encourages children." Soon Mitch is working too hard and too late, and an increasingly suspicious Abby is resenting him as she broods alone in their posh cocoon... Tripplehorn gives Abby a welcomely elegant and alert presence."
NY Times says: "his blue-blood wife... the show puts Mitch McDeere (Josh Lucas) and his wife, Abby (Molly Parker), in Washington"
Variety says: "Mitch’s teacher wife Abby (Jeanne Tripplehorn) smells a rat from the outset"
Entertainment Weekly says: "But his wife, Abby (Jeanne Tripplehorn), who has worldlier intuitions than he does, is suspicious of the firm, and with good reason."
Roger Ebert says: "Mitch moves to Memphis with his wife, Abby".
Hollywood Reporter says: "So Mitch, wife Abby... until Mitch can get to a pay phone and tell Abby the code-red news... Abby is a dutiful wife but is worried that Mitch’s struggling solo firm doesn’t have enough paying clients to pay the mortgage."
I don't see how any of these establish this character is any more notable than various other characters mentioned. These are passing references while reviewers describe the plot. It would be hard to describe the plot without mentioning Mitch's wife, but that doesn't mean she's a notable character. cagliost (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage of the character here, I don't see how this merits a separate article. cagliost (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's exactly the sort of coverage we expect to see for fictional characters (those and the ones you missed). Again, WP:BEFORE. We're talking about a character that has been represented across multiple mediums. This is a silly and lazy nomination and you know it. St★lwart111 01:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable character from a book does not automatically gain notability because it has been represented in additional mediums. That would apply to practically every character in the book. cagliost (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said "We should expect more than a vapid 'does not establish character notability" without actual assessment of the value of each source.'. I then quoted in full everything each source has to say about the character. Let me now provide an assessment of the value of each source. The ChannelCanada source is not a reliable source, it is a press release. The remaining sources are trivial mentions. cagliost (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say "they offer coverage of the character in the form of in-universe commentary about the character's place within a notable story. That's exactly the sort of coverage we expect to see for notable fictional characters". No, it is not. We don't need trivial in-universe description of the character's place within a notable story, we need sources establishing the character's significance independently of the story. Compare articles for secondary characters like Joker (character), Bulbasaur or Vladimir Harkonnen. cagliost (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with cagliost. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the novel. The current sources are a bunch of cherry picked trivial mentions that really don't have the weight necessary to even be placed in the article. TTN (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not the film or the television show, given that's what most of the available reliable sources cover? There isn't a good redirect target here. St★lwart111 01:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the book is the correct redirect target, since that is where the character originated. cagliost (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stalwart111. ♟♙ (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the novel. Notability is inherited from the novel and its adaptions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the novel, while merging the 'critical review' section to the relevant film/TV sections. Sadly, the critical review as written in the article is not much about the character and more about the actors. I am seeing zero evidence this character has been analyzed in a way that passes SIGCOV (ping me if I missed something, the discussion above is rather messy). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per TTN. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per others. And merge useful content.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:48, 26 August 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 20:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Emery[edit]

Douglas Emery (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. An unferenced article about a sergeant in the British Army. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two awards DCM and BEM may indicate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. His awards do not rank highly enough to confer notability. Page created by an WP:SPA. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a regimental magazine does not qualify as an indepdent/reliable enough source to use as the only source to show notability, and private letters held by the family not only fail every point to establish notability, but their very inclusion as a souce points to violation of the no original research rules of Wikipedia. Sort of like how US census records should not be used as sources for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - bulk of article fails WP:V. Even assumiing the regimental magazine counts toward notability (I'm not sure it should), it's only one source, and the topic fails GNG. I could find no better sources when searching. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:53, 19 August 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 20:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

École Marie Félicité Brosset[edit]

École Marie Félicité Brosset (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 GNG, only web hits (with one exception) after 12+ years of article existence are mirrors of our own article before I edited it. Most web hits are to school namesake, not the school. No accreditation info found (different inclusion criteria back in 2008). GenQuest "scribble" 17:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the only reference used in the article at the instigation of this AfD is the Georgian(?) Wikipedia article. GenQuest "scribble" 17:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 17:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 17:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. GenQuest "scribble" 17:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article creator. The school appears to be no longer in existence. — kashmīrī TALK 22:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and kashmiri. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – the school does exist, or did until very recently. Like the people above, I can't find any secondary/independent sources talking about École Marie Félicité Brosset, but there is a school called École Marie Brosset or École Franco-Géorgienne Marie Brosset in Tblisi. See, for instance, this business directory listing from earlier this year. The WP article was moved from École Marie Brosset to the current title in 2015, so perhaps there has been more than one name change, and there is this source which was added to the article after the AfD was started, and which does call it "Ecole Marie-Félicité Brosset" – so there's a bit of naming confusion to start with.
I haven't found any sources to show notability for the school, only sources showing it exists, which is not enough. There's a couple of independent and secondary sources that mention it, [18] and [19], but that's far from WP:SIGCOV. The Georgian Wikipedia article that was the only reference until two days ago is in fact not related to this school, it's the ka.wiki version of European School. The newly added source looks like it's a brochure created by some of the students to showcase their work in biology class. The school website at http://ecole-brosset.edu.ge/ is not working and hasn't been archived by archive.org since 2018. I don't know any Georgian, hence my weak delete in case there are Georgian language sources I can't find, but if it were notable, there would presumably be sources in French, and I can't find any. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 17 August 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 and redirect. Those arguing to keep this article have not demonstrated that the subject meets GNG. Citing general principles, such as WP:PRESERVE, without demonstrating why they apply in this specific case, does not contribute to this discussion. As this topic does not meet WP:CRIN, that essay is quite irrelevant to this discussion also. I'm closing this as "merge and redirect" given that a reasonable target has been presented, some sourced content has been shown to exist, and no convincing argument has been made against a merger specifically. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherton Cricket Club[edit]

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

PROD removed without reason. This cricket club does not play in an ECB Premier League so fails WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines and cannot be considered to be otherwise notable with no historical notability, failing WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CRIN is an essay and so has "no official status". The club is over 100 years old and so is certainly historic. Detailed sources seem easy to find such as Netherton Cricket Club 1866–1966 One Hundred Years of Cricket and so we have good material for further work per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Other applicable policies include WP:BURO, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hundreds, if not thousands of cricket clubs in England are over 100 years old. But what makes them historically notable? And as Nigel Ish points out, that source is self-published so doesn't add to GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Andrew Davidson, WP:CRIN is an essay, not policy. Dudley Chronicle article on 11 August 1927 says it is "one of the oldest clubs in the country". NemesisAT (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Again, this may well be, but how does this imply wider notability? StickyWicket (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is an example of WP:SIGCOV, which goes towards establishing notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, delete - it's old, but hasn't done anything notable in that time. Being old by itself doesn't make it notable - and 1866 isn't old in cricket club terms. If it was 1766 I'd consider this more, but by the mid 19th-century clubs were cropping up all over the place. Given the issues with cricket notability guidelines, we're trying really, really hard to cut things down, not open them up. If this were a football club playing in a lower county league and was formed in, say, 1930 (the respective difference in age - although I may be slightly too generous in the comparison), we wouldn't think twice about deleting it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There hasn't been anything new since last time; and the keeps aren't particularly convincing (whether some SNG is an essay or not has no bearing here: the only thing that really, truly matters in circumstances like these is GNG, and that doesn't appear to be met here); but re-listing this one last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local club without substantive independent coverage. Reywas92Talk 15:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the references add up to passing GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Netherton, West Midlands. That article only has a passing mention of the club, and some of the content in the article could be moved there. I'm on the fence about if this club is notable enough for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It is already mentioned in Netherton, West Midlands, and a little more information could be added there. --Bduke (talk) 23:49, 15 August 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 Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Laptop and hard drive. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Biden laptop controversy[edit]

Hunter Biden laptop controversy (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 redundant to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory among others. soibangla (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is an independently WP:NOTABLE controversy that is out of the scope for Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, as it is currently named. This controversy is reported by RS to involve 1) the Democratic party which - on behalf of Joe Biden - denied an allegation that is possibly supported by laptop data, 2) a group of 50 former intelligence professionals who made the widely publicised but unsubstantiated claim - during the 2020 election - that this laptop is part a Russian information operation and 3) elements of the mainstream media are allegedly suppressing this story due to lack of access to primary data - just like they did with another topic we all know about - and 4) Federal officials delaying "actions" so as not to adversely effect the outcome of the 2020 elections in favor of alleged Russian's goals. I created this article in good faith because I read the sources referenced here and also read the comments of multiple editors on the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory talk page who do not believe its claims are verifiable or neutral. I would agree to a merge this page with that page if it is renamed as Biden–Ukraine controversy, or something similarly neutral, and reworked to reflect more up-to-date sources. CutePeach (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What did the Democratic party deny that is possibly supported by the laptop data? 50 former intelligence professionals who made the widely publicised but unsubstantiated claim...that this laptop is part a Russian information operation significantly misrepresents what they actually said. Here you say I am new to this subject yet this obvious POVFORK article was created. Consequently I now recommend WP:SPEEDY soibangla (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The group of former intelligence professionals said it had "hallmarks" of a Russian information operation, which is reflected accurately in the article. What the WSK oped says is that they had no way of knowing this and were likely just trying to prevent another Comey type fiasco, and I laud them for that, but elections are over now. Time for WP:COMMONSENSE. We have no idea if/how the Russians are involved and what data from the laptop feeds into whacky conspiracy theories, and what makes up a legitimate political controversy. Good night now. CutePeach (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
former intelligence professionals said it had "hallmarks" of a Russian information operation is not what you just said here: this laptop is part a Russian information operation soibangla (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Russians releasing this video from this laptop in which he says he lost another laptop with even worse videos - to Russians who wonna blackmail him - is just too many wheels inside wheels, which not only makes no sense, but also isn't supported by RS. The FBI - which now has possession of the laptop - hasn't issued any statement in this regard, so we have no idea if/how the Russians were/are involved. Until then, this is just a controversy and there is no conspiracy, man. CutePeach (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your new article is predicated on a report by an unreliable source and echoed by a handful of dubious/unreliable sources. This is not sufficient basis for a new article. soibangla (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge - The content in this article is DUE in the same exact proportion as content on the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory article. It just uses more controversial sourcing (Newsweek, NY Post, etc), and has a title that appears to make this conspiracy theory more plausible than is warranted. I would even go so far as to say this article is a POVFORK of Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory. I don't believe it has notability independent of that theory, and it is never mentioned outside of that theory in our RSes. Ergo, should be redirected to that article, and any non-redundant DUE NPOV content that is of high quality should be merged into a new section of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC) (vote updated to rd/m 17:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Redundant with Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, and possessing a stilted title that makes for an unlikely search term. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to other articles and a POVFORK. The opening is NPOV, but the section about the right wing whining that the story is being covered up is quite POV. Rather than focus on the 50 former intelligence officials who tagged this as a "Russian information operation", the focus goes to Holman W. Jenkins Jr. criticizing them, even while he celebrates a deprecated source in WP:DAILYMAIL and one that probably should be deprecated in WP:NYPOST. Nothing is presented about the refutation of allegations, such as Biden campaign denials that are readily available. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu Sorry, I am new to American Politics on Wikipedia. Are you saying that if a Filipino party denied an allegation made against its leader, then we on Wikipedia could put it as fact in article titles and content, before the Filipino government has conducted an investigation on the matter? What about Zimbabwean or Syrian political parties? I can understand how adding the Biden campaign denials to this article would improve it, and I would encourage you to do so, but I don't get how deleting the article - cutting off our nose to spite our face - somehow makes it better. I certainly don't get how such an argument is based on policy. Please see WP:POVDELETION. CutePeach (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POVFORK of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. I don't think there's much here worth merging, it's already covered using more reliable sources at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Laptop and hard drive. This previously contained BLP violating content, which I removed per WP:GRAPEVINE; the remaining article body is centred on an opinion piece discussing these allegations, which come from two disreputable low-quality tabloids, as Muboshgu points out above. The coverage in some of these tabloid attack pieces is getting pretty nasty, they should be treated with extreme caution per BLP. Jr8825 • Talk 16:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Laptop and hard drive. Per WP:POVFORK. The contents of Hunter Biden laptop controversy duplicates the contents of Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, but with a more right-leaning POV and WP:UNDUE problems, giving too much weight to an opinion columnist. I disagree with deletion, I think this should be a redirect, I find the search term plausible. I disagree with merging, the material is already covered at Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, and is covered with the correct NPOV/WEIGHT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK. The article overlaps with material already presented elsewhere. See discussion at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy. TFD (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (merge if applicable, I guess) - this isn't a separate topic from Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and it has little potential for enough growth to require forking the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. There's already appropriate discussion of the laptop there. History of this page will remain accessible if anyone sees anything worth merging. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article has been changed so drastically from the Stub I started it as [20] that it does indeed read exactly like a fork of the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article, which is misleading for new editors joining the discussion. Gone is the statement sourced from Business Insider saying the laptop data was claimed to incriminate Hunter and harm his father's candidacy. Gone is the CNN report quoting Hunter saying the laptop could have belonged to him, which potentially proves the provenance of the data. Gone is the report of Hunter naked in bed talking about another lost laptop that the entire world saw but which Wikipedia some Wikipedia editors consider too controversial conspiracy for the chaste eyes of our innocent readers. I personally don't actually believe the data on this laptop incriminates or hurts the Bidens all that much, but I don't believe it is a conspiracy theory to say the laptop is his and was possibly handed to Trump allies by a regular dude (and not some Russians, which is in reference to a different earlier lost laptop) - yet some editors here are reacting in a knee jerk fashion as if I and the sources I provide claim otherwise. This is yet another example of how the entire world gets to gets to see the emperor naked (quite literally in this case), while POVPUSHING Wikipedians spin yarn. CutePeach (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to this subject. Others are not. soibangla (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have already been topic-banned in one area, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291#CutePeach. Diving into another contentious topic area and then being extremely combative and belligerent towards others who hold a different point of view does not bode well. Zaathras (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge two articles keeping this name. More NPOV name. There is a conspiracy theory (Biden engaged in corrupt activities) and there is other stuff that may be true [21], so this name is much more suitable. A lot of people use Motte-and-bailey tactics here: if the former is a conspiracy theory than everything tangentially related to it is also fake news. Alaexis¿question? 19:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One topic is a notable political smear relating to a US election and involving 2 US Presidents, the other is about the (currently unproven) dodgy dealings of a private businessman which have had only brief, passing coverage in quality sources. If that private citizen was anyone other than Biden's son it wouldn't be considered remotely suitable for a separate article because of BLP policy, not least the section on attack pages. There's WP:BLPCRIME to consider as well. The vast majority of coverage on this comes from tabloid smears and disclosures of alleged hacked material – including sensitive personal details – which are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Hunter's biography can include the information that's reported by RS, but I don't believe there's enough of it to warrant a separate article with this title, and a neutral article can't be produced from the little material there is (again, because of BLP/attack pages). This title is not a substitute for the article on Joe Biden and Ukraine, as it's only related to one aspect of that affair, despite the fact it was essentially forked from it. Concerns about the conspiracy theory article's name are a separate issue, and are a topic for its talk page. Jr8825 • Talk 20:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with that. It was an important story in and of itself. It has been covered by reliable sources and it is also a media story - what gets and what doesn't get covered. As The Boston Globe puts it [22]:
So pretending that the conspiracy theory is the only thing that is notable here is not right. Alaexis¿question? 21:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was before the laptop story so it's probably better to merge everything into one article with a more neutral title. Alaexis¿question? 21:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Biden's conflict of interest in Ukraine is covered in the article on the conspiracy theory, and is only tangentially related Hunter's Biden's alleged laptop – the sources I read said the conflict of interest was caused by Hunter simply having the Burisma job in the first place. If elements of the "laptop story" are mentioned in reliable sources, then my view is that coverage belongs in Hunter Biden's article. My assessment is that it hasn't had enough coverage to warrant a separate topic – and that there's not enough material to write a neutral article (as I mentioned above). Jr8825 • Talk 22:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantina Pirkas[edit]

Konstantina Pirkas (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 indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NACTOR. I am unable to find significant discussion of her in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not even point us to anything that would have been a significant role in a notable production, even one that we can critique and show was either not significant or not in a notable production. While academics of theatre/acting can be notable for such, we would have to have substantial publications, or being the head of a university, or being editor-in-chief of an academic journal related to acting/theatre that is considered a significant publication, none of which we are even close to seeing indicated. This is the largest failure of actress notability I have ever seen for an actress, and one of the most extreme failures of academic notability I have ever seen for an academic. Of course if we applied a rule like the football notability rule to academics, the academic equivalent might be met here, but that is not at all our rule, so clearly no notability guidelines are met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 19 August 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) Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dragon of Despair[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirect to Jane Lindskold#Bibliography. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 15 August 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 already speedily deleted by User:Fastily. Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Coffey[edit]

Adam Coffey (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:NBUSINESSPEOPLE lacks significant coverage. TheChronium 15:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 15 August 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amiruddin Shah[edit]

Amiruddin Shah (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 lacks reliable indepth news coverage. TheChronium 15:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 August 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 00:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constructor (software)[edit]

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

Exists but doesn't meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now answer the question of its notability. Considered Graphisoft merge/redirect as an WP:ATD, but isn't even mentioned there. Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 15 August 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 00:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celerra[edit]

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

Please see comment by another user at Talk:Celerra. This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years, and although it exists and has minor coverage, it doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2009-07 ✗ deleted ← 2007-06 move to → EMC Celerra
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 August 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 00:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile (West) and Marico Water Management Area[edit]

Crocodile (West) and Marico Water Management Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but what makes it notable? I couldn't establish that it has the necessary coverage or significance. Has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. I wasn't convinced that there was a suitable WP:ATD merge/redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 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 00:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derozer[edit]

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

Borderline, but I don't think it passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Its articles in other languages and its Google search failed to show the significance or coverage we look for. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years - I hope we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Polion[edit]

Elias Polion (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:NATHLETE. No major coverage and achievements. TheChronium 15:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 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 21:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CoSMoS[edit]

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

Doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:NOTABILITY. 1st AfD was closed without a decision due to lack of participation. This has been stuck in CAT:NN for 12 years now - I hope we can now have enough participants to resolve this, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it was pointed out in the previous AfD that references to CosMos existed in this book, the author of that book worked at her internship in the University of York under Prof. Jon Timmis who is listed as involved in the Project at York. It therefore cannot be considered as intellectually independent. Also, this article descibes CosMos as a "4 year project" which received funding between 2007 and 2011 - yet the official webpage describes it significantly differently. It appears that it isn't a "project" per se but an umbrella term to capture activities used to build out understanding/tools/case studies of complex systems. The website describes it as follows:
  • Drawing on our state-of-the-art expertise in many aspects of computer systems engineering, we will develop CoSMoS, a modelling and simulation process and infrastructure specifically designed to allow complex systems to be explored, analysed, and designed within a uniform framework.
At least some of the case studies and tools still continuing up to 2015 at least, based on the last "workshop" listed on the website. I believe that the project did not achieve notability in its own right and some of the case studies, participants and tools may have a bigger claim to notability. HighKing++ 15:13, 17 August 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 Multishow ao Vivo: Ivete no Maracanã. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deixo[edit]

Deixo (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 don't think it meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG, but am bringing it here in case I have missed something due to language barrier. Possible WP:ATDs are redirect to Multishow ao Vivo: Ivete no Maracanã (album) or Ivete Sangalo (artist). There is no source for it being 'a big hit' in Brazil and the source about it charting in Portugal is a dead link. No.42 in a European chart also would generally not be considered charting. Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The arguments that the article has been substantially improved remain uncontested. Sandstein 15:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the President of Pakistan[edit]

Line of succession to the President of Pakistan (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 "line of succession" mentioned. Largely unsourced. The result of previous discussion (held in 2006!!!) was merge. Peter Ormond 💬 14:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 15 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Plus[edit]

Movie Plus (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 TV channel. The sources are also not reliable Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be a small part of a business plan that considers the network as a bait and switch to get you in the door; no source or schedule to be found, and it looks like they only exist because the platform they're on auctions channel slots to the highest bidder. Going by their website, it basically seems to be a 'free preview' channel guiding you to their Android app and YouTube channels, where they either ask for a subscription to said app to watch their movies, or have their acquired films on several YouTube channels filled with plenty of money-making ad breaks (and hideously-placed watermarks making you want to try the Android app instead). Never mind that said company claims perpetual rights for these films on the front page of the website, so it's sketchy they even have the rights to them in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 03:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No in depth coverage in sources, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Ravensfire (talk) 14:28, 16 August 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. Note that the article has already been moved to Pandora's Box (Chinese TV series). bibliomaniac15 22:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora's Box 2021 (天目危机)[edit]

Pandora's Box 2021 (天目危机) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and is likely WP:TOOSOON TheChronium 14:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 14:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This show airs in 3 days. I feel this AfD is TOOSOON; it is very likely this show will have significant coverage after the show airs, was it really necessary to sent it to AfD now? And there seems to be some coverage pre-air from skimming on Google News (China Daily Phoenix). I am leaning keep but holding my vote until it airs. Jumpytoo Talk 19:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard gave good sourcing below, so I'll confirm my vote to keep. Jumpytoo Talk 22:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Jumpytoo. This show will air on August 18 so there will be more references and information once the drama is released. As well, many Hollywood movies have articles made in Wikipedia long before the movie itself is aired, therefore, I don’t see why this article should be deleted. This can be a living article where new information, when each episode is aired, can be updated. This is consistent to the spirit of Wikipedia. So, my vote is to keep this article. C9HappyHarp Talk 20:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • C9HappyHarp, the Hollywood movies you are referring to are probably notable under the WP:NFF guidelines, which allows for future films if the production process is notable. This article, as it is now, does not have any production details, thus not notable yet. You may want to incorporate details about the production of the drama. Additionally, the article should be moved to Pandora's Box (2019Chinese TV series) per disambiguation guidelines (while the current Pandora's Box (TV series)] be moved to Pandora's Box (1992British TV series) since the current article title of the latter will now be a partial disambiguation). – robertsky (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD is WP:TOOSOON. Nominator should have considered sending the article into Draftspace for incubation rather than deletion. – robertsky (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Cunard's finding has been included into the article, and the show is released. – robertsky (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Pandora's Box (Chinese TV series) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Additional disambiguation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 夏奕宁 (2019-06-10). 张喆; 张亮亮 (eds.). "上海电视节丨《天目危机》：软科幻超烧脑点燃观剧新体验" [Shanghai TV Festival丨"Pandora's Box": Soft Science Fiction Super Burning Brain Ignites New Experience of Watching Drama]. The Paper (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-16. Retrieved 2021-08-16.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "On June 9, the suspense soft science fiction series Pandora's Box held an advanced screening event in Shanghai, unveiling the mystery of the first Chinese film screening at the Magnolia Award at the 25th Shanghai TV Festival. The producer/supervisor Kenny Chau (周其良), director Jiang Lei, starring Ray Change (zh:張睿 (演員)), He Dujuan, Liu Xueyi, and Yasuaki Kurata of Pandora's Box also came to the scene to share with the audience the creative story behind the stage, about Pandora's Box. The huge amount of information, the texture of Japanese dramas, and the special discussion of character setting also made the hot search on Weibo."

    2. 冯宇轩 (2021-08-11). "意识远比想象更强大 软科幻悬疑剧《天目危机》正式定档8月18日" [Awareness is far stronger than imagination. The soft science fiction suspense drama "Pandora's Box" is officially finalized on August 18]. zh:三湘都市报 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-16. Retrieved 2021-08-16.

      From Google Translate: "Based on scientific concepts, the play proposes theoretical clues such as "Schrödinger's Cat"... In addition, there are a large number of scenes depicting the world of "consciousness" in the play. The huge amount of information makes people overwhelmed during the viewing process. It is both sci-fi and brain-burning. The creative method is novel and it is also a visual feast. ... In addition to the strong cast and movie-like texture, the high quality of the plot is also a highlight of "Tianmu Crisis". For such a high-quality original IP, the excellent team in front of and behind the scenes also made the show even more powerful, and it is highly anticipated by netizens."

    3. 陸劇星球 (2021-08-03). "苗僑偉張孝全懸疑劇《天目危機》勁燒腦！盤點八月12套必睇內地劇" [Michael Miu and Joseph Chang's suspense drama "Pandora's Box" is brain-burning! Inventory of 12 must-watch mainland dramas in August] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-08-16. Retrieved 2021-08-16.

      The article provides one paragraph coverage about the subject. The article notes from Google Translate: "The TV series Pandora's Box is a suspenseful brain-burning drama. The story tells a physics student who is enthusiastic about science. Because his mother was involved in a traffic accident, he was trapped by others. In order to get out of control, he stepped into the crime of a gangster. The world of spider webs; this film is led by powerful actors such as Ray Chang, Liu Xueyi], Joseph Chang, Michael Miu, etc. The audience is looking forward to it!"

    4. 张心哲 (2019-06-10). "悬疑软科幻剧《天目危机》首发片花 张孝全烧脑演绎" [Suspenseful soft science fiction drama "Pandora's Box": first clip. Joseph Chang's brain-burning interpretation] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2021-08-16. Retrieved 2021-08-16.

      The article notes: "As far as the exposed films are concerned, the whole plot is ups and downs, and the composition, music, and narrative style are all very cinematic."

    5. 白雨晨 (2021-03-23). "奇幻剧《司藤》等热播引关注" [The fantasy drama "RATTAN" and other hits attract attention]. zh:今晚报 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-16. Retrieved 2021-08-16 – via Xinhua News Agency.

      The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Among them, there are 15 sci-fi dramas that have been filmed and produced and are waiting to be broadcast, including ... Pandora's Box produced by Huanrui Century, ... ... For example, the suspense science fiction drama Pandora's Box starts with physics, and ..."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pandora's Box (simplified Chinese: 天目危机; traditional Chinese: 天目危機) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support of page moves - I agree that nominating a show that premieres in three days as toosoon seems unnecessary as the primary argument for its deletion becomes negated before closure. But I do think moving both series to the names as discussed above should be done. matt91486 (talk) 04:23, 17 August 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.  JGHowes  talk 13:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LivHOME[edit]

LivHOME (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:NCORP. None of its claims of services are cited, and everything below the lead reads like an advertisement: "augment its strategic, national growth efforts", "enrich the lives of LivHOME clients". While I can't read the full WSJ article, the first 4.5 paragraphs mention nothing about it, and the business journal just writes about the aquisitions, not about the company itself or what they've done. Catholic Online is not reliable, and the archived 'advance web' page mentions LivHOME once, about the author. No sources indicate notability, and websites that mention it all seem to talk about it's acquisitions. Of the websites on google that talk about it, none are reliable, and some are self-published. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 03:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 03:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: pinging NemesisAT since they objected to the previous PROD, so they might want to join in. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 03:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agreed that the article was/is too promotional, but I feel it is notable thanks to the additional sources I've added. I've also deleted some spammy links. I don't see why Home Health Care News should be considered unreliable. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Company has since re-branded to "Arosa". My search for sources was not comprehensive, I imagine there is scope for expansion thanks to all the acquisitions the company has made. NemesisAT (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as follows:
Having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 14:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Dev[edit]

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

Sockpuppet creation. Subject did exist, but contents of article is fabricated from the sources. None of the text matches the attributions. Possibly can be cleaned up and would be willing to withdraw the nomination, but should not be in main space in present condition since bordering on hoax. I don't believe draftifying is appropriate here (not the purpose of draft space, misuses AfC and the sockpuppet creator is indef blocked). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yes, there is misleading material in there, in summary, a vandalised account. Third reference gives quite a bit of information and validates some material. The Accession section is part BS. Fly in the sky, delete it. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I accepted this draft, and either did not know or did not notice that the creator was a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If he was a real ruler of a kingdom, he passes WP:NPOL. Source can be found in Hindi language. We should wait more comments form other editors who has knowledge on the History of Suryavansh Sankara dynasty. VocalIndia (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might not be a good idea to wait, per WP:TNT. Geschichte (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I would question whether a Rajah is a significant enough ruler to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 14:06, 15 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greenathon[edit]

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

Greenwashing campaign by Toyota in India, that appears to have been of very temporary relevance -- I am not seeing clear evidence of lasting-notability -- perhaps there is somewhere to merge? But its not clear to me. Sadads (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 15 August 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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasoft[edit]

Ultrasoft (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 given only confirm the existence of the company, not its notability. The page was created for self-promotional reasons by the founder of the company Special:Contributions/NeonPuffin aka Louis Wittek. WP:NOTYOU clearly applies. MrMajors (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ultrasoft, with over 40 titles to its credit, was in its time the biggest game software publisher in Czechoslovakia and one of the biggest European producers of computer games during the 1990s. Deleting this article would be akin to altering the history of 8-bit personal home computers, particularly ZX Spectrum. There was hardly a single ZX Spectrum owner on the territory of former Czechoslovakia who wouldn't own at least one gaming title from this publishing house. Regardless who created this article, if Ultrasoft should go, so should Domark, Gremlin Interactive, Ocean Software, Imagine Software, etc, etc... Last but not least - it seems that MrMajors embarked on some sort of personal deletion vendetta against me - I always admired work of 95% of Wikipedia editors, but was often in the past put off and saddened by efforts of a small percentage of those, who seem to be constantly set in a default negativistic attitude and for some strange reason are adamant to destroy other people's work, whatever the cost. This page was not created for self-promotional reasons - hardly - we are talking here about the long-past history of video games (25-30 years ago) - although, history it is nonetheless.
"One of the biggest European producers of computer games" but apparently not a single independent source can verify that. It's also apparently a complete coincidence that pages for both Ultrasoft and Towdie were created just before launching a kickstarter to re-boot the game. MrMajors (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of the reasons for creating the article in the first place, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which requires references to establish notability. Having searched, there appears to be a number of books (history of video games mostly) which provide varying amount of information about the company and I have no doubt there are likely other references in the Czech language. HighKing++ 19:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:SIRS, references must "contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.". Do they? MrMajors (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check out "Copyright and Consequences: Central European and U.S. Perspectives" ISBN:ISBN1572734167 for a start. HighKing++ 10:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is a passing mention on one of 300 pages "direct" or "significant" coverage? The text is about copyright law in Slovakia - not about the company specifically. It doesn't establish notability, especially considering the owner of the company is claiming this was one of the biggest producers of games in Europe comparable to Ocean or Domark/Eidos. MrMajors (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page 118 is entitled "Ultrasoft, A Company to Combat Software Pirates" and is more than a passing mention. HighKing++ 16:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the WP:NCORP guidance specific to companies states "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization". This reference simply confirms that Ultrasoft was a company in Bratislava and had a problem with software piracy - it does nothing to establish the notability of the company. MrMajors (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very interesting point made by HighKing++ (which I have completely forgotten about, as it is a 25 year-old history) and yet another reason why this article should be kept. In addition to publishing own computer games, Ultrasoft also acted as an exclusive distributor within the territory of Czechoslovakia for Domark and Ocean Software game software houses based in the United Kingdom and therefore as a single enforcerer of copyright laws pertaining to the computer game titles published not only by Ultrasoft, but also by the aforementioned two companies. Before this, the territory of Czechoslovakia was with regards to video game sales largely a Wild West-like scenario, with dozens of people selling pirated copies of video games for 8 and 16-bit home computers such as ZX Spectrum, C64 and Amiga literally for pennies. Before, and alongside, Ultrasoft there simply weren’t any other legal computer games distributors in Czechoslovakia - certainly not on this professional level (see the examples of game covers) and at this scale (see the high number of titles published). Ultrasoft was the very first company to try and put stop to these shady practices and promote sale of original computer games – and it deserves a credit for this. If this article would go, it would basically mean that Wikipedia is rewriting the history of 8-bit video games in Czechoslovakia in the 90s and would imply that there was only black market in such video games at that time – which is absolutely NOT the case. NeonPuffin (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These games have coverage in Czech gaming magazines (see Internet Archive and World of Spectrum) and in a worst case scenario would serve as a home for those references as a list of titles. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As others have pointed out, this company published quite a few games in its time and was a significant video game entity in its country. It's entirely plausible that non-English sources also exist. Would certainly seem to pass notability guidelines. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable with many references in books and magazines.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently has zero references from reliable third parties. Where are the "many references" that would reach the threshold for "significant coverage"? MrMajors (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have some coverage in depth in the book "Gaming the Iron Curtain: How Teenagers and Amateurs in Communist Czechoslovakia Claimed the Medium of Computer Games" (Jaroslav Svelch, 2018), and in "Fans and Videogames Histories, Fandom, Archives" ( Angela Ndalianis, Helen Stuckey , 2017). From other hits, likely Czech gaming magazines of the 1980s and 1990s would have more coverage, meaning that this needs a more thorough BEFORE search of those magazines and not a reliance of online searching to verify lack of sourcing. --Masem (t) 14:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effort management[edit]

Effort management (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 can find references to this phrase being used, but not as a clear concept, more as wording order. Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Finlay[edit]

Nate Finlay (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 may be missing something as I know little about gridiron but I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years, so hopefully can get solved now, either way. Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I am not seeing anything that suggests this person was, or is, sufficiently notable for an article. Looking at the article creator and their minimal edit history, I would suspect there is a chance the article was created by the person themself. This is not in itself a reason for deletion, but lack of notability surely is. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:38, 15 August 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 12:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks evidence that he meets WP:GNG, and his career appears to be unremarkable. PKT(alk) 15:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Fitzpatrick[edit]

Joel Fitzpatrick (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 claims to notability here, but I don't know that the coverage is quite enough (small mentions). Has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years; hopefully we can resolve it now, either way. Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some of the references are gossip-kind-of-talk. Others are 404, which is simply link-rot over time. Hush Puppies were pushed really hard in their time, but he doesn't GNG for them nor the basset hound on the roof. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 15 August 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 11:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhharrth S Kumaar[edit]

Sidhharrth S Kumaar (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, pseudo science, poorly sourced, press releases. Theroadislong (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 15 August 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. Withdrawn by nom and no "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asian Review[edit]

Central Asian Review (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 PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded without reason given after addition of some references that fail to meet GNG. Therefore PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just noticed that while there was no edit summary the dePRODding editor left an explanation on the article's talk page. I note that the "Bibliography of Asian Studies", while thematical selective, is not selective in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Bibliography of Asian Studies is selective not only thematically but, importantly, in the sense of being selected by the top professional academic body in the field, the Association for Asian Studies. The journal closed long before any of the current indices were established. Randykitty's assertion of another definition of selectivity has no basis in NJournals. This page is useful and encyclopaedic, even if it needs further work. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've given my rationale and given Sheijiashaojun's behavior in a related AfD I will not comment here further. --Randykitty (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It wasn't the case when it was nominated that it had no independent sources, but I have also added a further one. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have discovered some independent sourcing that covers this topic in-depth, therefore I must ivote keep::
JSTOR 4204697 The Slavonic and East European Review. Vol. 33, No. 81 (Jun., 1955), pp. 585-586
JSTOR 44899204 Osteuropa Vol. 4, No. 5 (Oktober 1954), pp. 403-404. This article is in German but appears to be significant coverage.
I also discovered the first reference in the Wikipedia article on JSTOR:
JSTOR 148944 J. Miller. Soviet Studies Vol. 6, No. 1 (Jul., 1954), pp. 74-76. This too is significant coverage
So this satisfies GNG and NJOURNALS. Anybody with access to JSTOR can read these articles. As an aside, I could not find the quote cited by the second reference so that quote probably has to be removed.
---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have discovered another one:
JSTOR 2605810 H. Seton-Watson. International Affairs. Vol. 30, No. 3 (Jul., 1954), pp. 380-381.
---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Here's the link for that quote: https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Central_Asia/aPuQAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=gave+reports+on+a+wide+variety+of+Central+Asian+topics+glenaed+from+the+Soviet+press+with+often+favourable+comment&pg=PT276&printsec=frontcover

I didn't put the link in the article, but the reference is I think to the right page. I'll correct the typo now too. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic
Just to be clear. I didn't find these references for you. So I don't want to hear "much appreciated" from you. I happened to find them and felt obligated to present them as an editor. It had nothing to do with you. Believe me, after the AfD to which RandyKitty refers to above, I have no interest in editing with you or helping you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's normal and common practice to thank an editor who has rendered a service to Wikipedia, in this case in a field that I care about, but I will in future refrain from doing so since you dislike it. As for the AfD, I did what I thought I was meant to be doing to defend an article that I think meets notability. I went about it the wrong way, and apologised. I also think you would do well to take another look at the sources given in that article, for the same reason: your obligations as an editor, regardless of your opinion of me. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you apologised. I can appreciate that. But I don't see any change in your behavior. You started out this AfD bludgeoning again. Also, I notice you seem to be highly argumentative. And I am noticing a tendency toward owning the last three academic journal articles you edited, including the related AfDs. This is just feedback. You can take it or leave it. If you want to get along with other editors I would take a look at what I have just said. If you don't agree that is your prerogative. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK Steve Quinn, I will try to improve my understanding about what is meant as bludgeoning and owning in this context. I thought I was disagreeing and giving my reasons, and reporting back when I had added new sources that improved notability. I'm not keen to be on AfD at all so I evidently have plenty to learn, but also don't want to have useful Asian studies journals pages deleted. And your comments about East Asian History (journal) not being published by ANU are clearly erroneous, which you can easily check (here for instance http://eah.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/article-content/36/EAH36_01.pdf), but likely to confuse people looking at that AfD. I think as a responsible editor you should strike them out. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add additional comments and ivotes below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: based on my own search and sources provided by Steve there seems to be sufficient coverage in the form of review articles in other journals Eddie891 Talk Work 11:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. as per WP:CSK #3. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oki Dwi Putra[edit]

Oki Dwi Putra (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 actor and musician who fail to meet any criterion from WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO respectively. A google search turns up nothing concrete., Clasher7 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator shouldn't be voting on their own nomination! Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AINH (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kabul (2021)[edit]

Battle of Kabul (2021) (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:CRYSTAL. According to the latest news, there ain't even a battle but a “peaceful transfer” of the city AINH (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: No reason to delete the entire article. As per some sources, there was/is fighting in the outskirts of the city, and even if the city is mostly just surrendered, we can move the article to "Fall of Kabul" or "Surrender of Kabul". This is major event with a lot of coverage; more than enough reason for a separate article. Applodion (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Applodion. The final nail in the coffin. Just rename it to Fall to Kabul. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above Nitesh003 (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it's a notable event. It may need to be renamed, but certainly not deleted. Jim Michael (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Applodion. We just need to rename it to the Fall of Kabul (2021). ArabMan719 (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Err with caution, there is another mirror article (Surrender of Kabul) that just sprung up. It seems everyone and their mother is trying to get credit for the creation. Curbon7 (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see the need to remove since this is a very notable ongoing event which people will want to know what is happening, the bbc are reporting some parts of kabul are having firefight, the article should be kept.
  • Oppose as per everyone else - it's definitely a notable event, there's already a ton that's been written about what's happened so far and we can reasonably except there to be tons more written as further developments come in (and as people have time to analyse things). I'd support the change in title to Fall of Kabul as per everyone else, too. NHCLS (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see the need to remove since this is a very notable ongoing event which people will want to know what is happening, the bbc are reporting some parts of kabul are having firefight, the article should be kept.Yaboi1523 (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2021 (BST)
  • Strongly Oppose Come on, is it necessary to always do an AfD on recent event articles? This is clearly underway and will likely be featured on the headline section on the front page. This is a no-brainer. --AsianHippie (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as others have said, the name is incorrect, not the content.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 11:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TOOSOON. ― Tartan357 Talk 11:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Events are unfloding and as some people pointed out skirmishes have taken place Jibran1998 (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: No reason to delete the entire article.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's a misnomer. Rename to Fall of Kabul (2021). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- we have articles on small battles with hundreds of combattants involved in, for example, the US Civil War. Certainly the battle to take the capital of Afghanistan after a 20 year war is notable, as many sources show. N2e (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it's a notable event. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's a key event in the Afghan War, and should it develop peacefully it can easily be renamed to "Fall of Kabul", per what some editors have already proposed. Goodposts (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - It is an important event and strongly relevant as Fall of Saigon. Chandan Kanti Paul (talk))
  • Oppose but rename to "Fall of Kabul" as the Taliban faced no resistance whatsoever so far. CoryGlee (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super duper strong oppose, stronger than gravitational attraction of TON 618 Just why would you delete it? Makes zero sense. 82.28.152.167 (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but rename to Capture of Kabul. There's no correct WP:COMMONNAME at this point, we don't have academic sources. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 13:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7 and G11 by Materialscientist. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 14:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tshwane Television[edit]

Tshwane Television (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 and very recent. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close requested (article does not exist) --Whiteguru (talk) 12:31, 15 August 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 11:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoeats[edit]

Ecoeats (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 local company, fails WP:N, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Tagishsimon (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable food delivery company in the gig economy. Fails WP:NCORP. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and apparently promotional DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ref 1 is company website, Ref 2 shows no evidence of editorial oversight and isn't even mentioned in the article it redirects to, Ref 3 is affiliated. Nothing on google. Creator's page shows multiple deleted creations for what look like commercial entities, this is likely UPE. —valereee (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article making no claim as to why this start-up is of encyclopaedic note, supported by announcement-based coverage in local/student media, which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Although the company is expanding to the West End of Glasgow, I do not see the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. Daniel (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madan Maharaj FC[edit]

Madan Maharaj FC (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 article is copied from the Draft:Madan Maharaj FC. Also, the other information is unsourced. Also not notable enough as of now. I would like to request for deletion and merge into the draft.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have contacted to the club officials for the information about players staff etc. It is nominated for the upcoming I-League qualifiers and winners of first MPPL which was covered live in youtube. Bharat0078 (talk)
    • I know that they are nominated. But, that's not the point. The thing you are saying is against Wikipedia guidelines of WP:V. Your contributions are WP:OR. The draft existed and the main space article is copied from the draft.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you want now make this again a draft? Or you want to create it by yourself? If you want the credit of creating the article if you want to do that but please don't delete the article entirely from Wikipedia you can copy all of it from here to add it on your draft and move that to main space. Thanks 👍 Bharat0078 (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No one owns anything on Wikipedia. If I wanted, I could have directly created the main space article long ago. Since, the article isn't main space worthy, I created the draft on 17 July, 10 days before the main space article was created.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into drafts until such time as actually notable. I also note that article creator @Bharat0078: has a history of creating non-notable articles and disruption, and would advise them to slow down with their editing and to seek guidance from experienced editors. GiantSnowman 08:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources are very weak, I could see this being kept, there are some sources on the web I can't read or understand, it's possible this can actually pass GNG. But as of right now, it fails. Govvy (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup. The sources are some local newspapers in Hindi. The club was only nominated for 2nd division league.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:PRESERVE, if additional sources are available then the article ought to be improved rather than deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NemesisAT: The club doesn't even pass GNG. Also, its directly copied from draft..  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because there is no clear consensus between merging with the draft or deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:47, 15 August 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 11:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Samsonov[edit]

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

historian, with two publications, neither significant, (in almost no libraries a./c worldcat)and a blog about Soviet tanks. This does not meet WP:PROF nor WP:GNG DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:49, 15 August 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 11:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudolife[edit]

Pseudolife (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 mere definition, for a term being used in a very idiosyncratic way, DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain to me, how is this original thought? I haven't invented anything. The term exists on its own, and you can check our Wiktionary page for more information about the term. Here is the link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudolife --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know of no evidence that this term has ever been used by biologists. There are legitimate arguments about whether viruses are alive, with distinguished people on both sides (Patrick Forterre, for example, says that they are alive; Predestinación López-García says that they are not : I think most people, including me, agree with her), but they don't use the made-up term pseudolife. Athel cb (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's really unfair that you accuse this being made-up term, when even Wiktionary has page for it. You can check it here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudolife --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than relying on my intuition I thought I should check on Web of Science if the term has ever appeared in a scientific paper. Yes, it has, just once, in a paper that is not in biology but in electrical engineering [Single Sampling Inspection Method of Smart Meter According to Reliable Life, Zhou, H; Chen, QF; (...); Zhu, XL, International Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance and Safety Engineering (QR2MSE) 2012], and as far I can tell from the rather weird abstract the meaning is unrelated to the definition in the wikiparticle: "This paper presents fast sampling inspection method based on the accelerated degradation test of the smart meters. This method uses the pseudo-life data obtained by the accelerated degradation test, then conducts distribution analysis, including distribution fitting and goodness-of-fit test to determine the final distribution of the pseudo-life data, and then choose sampling inspection method of reliability based on the distribution of information, and conduct the sampling inspection." I couldn't get very far into the paper itself without hitting a paywall, but it starts like this: "Electricity has its overwhelming power from the beginning it comes out, and now it has been all over the homes of ordinary people, our lives are closely related to it..." Athel cb (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is scientific article that talks about viruses being "pseudo living entities". Here is the link: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro2108-c1 --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the quote from the page: "We emphasize that although we might be able to call viruses 'pseudo living entities' or 'molecular parasites' we cannot deprive them of their status as living entities." --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No where does this article use the word pseudolife and there is nothing to suggest that the authors were setting out to introduce a new term. Even if they were, a publication from 12 years ago hardly makes it notable. Athel cb (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudo living = Pseudolife. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia reflects, it does not drive. We could have an article on "pseudolife" in the sense of viruses if the scientific community at large began referring to this class of beings or characteristics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 15 August 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 KDE Applications#Education. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanagram[edit]

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

Earlier AfD ended in a speedy delete and IMO nothing has changed since 2009. K4rolB (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. K4rolB (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a WP:BEFORE search came up with nothing of note, it seems to fail WP:GNG completely.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I too did a search, and could not either find any significant coverage in reliable sources. As we do not have articles on any of the developers, there is no meaningful redirect target, either.--AlexandraIDV 16:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, KDE Applications could be a good redirect. – K4rolB (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The individual application does not meet the WP:GNG for sure. But does the parent topic, KDE Education Project? If so, this could redirect there. If not, there's a slew of other articles that probably should be reviewed for potential deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't seem to meet GNG. Also, not sure there is really enough to be merged to KDE Education Project to be worthwhile. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:56, 21 August 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 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Nkonge Muwonge[edit]

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

Essentially promotional BLP of an unsuccessful candidate for election based on interviews, profiles and other promotional sources. A WP:BEFORE search brings up more of the same, some election-related material and nothing else in-depth. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: References (those that could be accessed) are WP:PRIMARY and, as per nom, self-referential. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Society Recordings[edit]

Society Recordings (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:COMPANY. Al Piantadosi apparently ran it. It placed an ad in the October 22, 1949, Billboard Disk Jockey Supplement.[23] April Stevens signed with the "vey [sic] small company" at the behest of her manager, Al Piantadosi.[24] That's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Essman[edit]

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

Autobiography that has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bios can be hard to judge the notability of, but there is no indication of notability here. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brodkast Channel 6 Batangas[edit]

Brodkast Channel 6 Batangas (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 does not appears to be notable. I cannot find it Google regarding this; only the different topics are shown, thus it fails, actually, WP:N/WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:35, 15 August 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. (non-admin closure) AnsrieJames9 (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Raval[edit]

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

As per article: Fails WP:N (biographies). ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage available. TheChronium 15:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The actress is adding more reliable sources. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Actress is not notable per WP:ACTORS. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She only gets any coverage because her parents were actors, she has done nothign of note and all we have is vapid gossip coverage. We maybe should have articles on her parents, but she is not notable. This is an example of the extreme presentism of Wikipedia, which causes 1989 to be the largest birth-year category, even though there are a whole slew of professions and routes to notability (academics, religious leaders, many politicians and there are more) which very rarely lead to someone being notable by age 32.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The individual in question has received extensive coverage in a number of reliable media sources, including CNN Philippines, The Manila Times, and The Philippine Daily Inquirer. Many of them have to do with her starring in Viva Films productions, not really gossip: [25], [26],[27], [28], [29]. I don't think subjective assessments of the figure's worth is really relevant to this discussion. I'm sure much coverage of Paris Hilton would similarly be criticized as "vapid gossip coverage" but that doesn't have anything to do with her notability, or the fact that she has received coverage that is NOT "vapid gossip coverage" (i.e. one doesn't cancel out the other). Moreover, if being the beneficiary of nepotism were a legitimate criterion for non-notability (and I can't find anything on any guideline that says so), half of Hollywood wouldn't be considered notable. Per WP:BIO, an actor is notable if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The individual in question has at least two lead roles in two Viva Films productions. They have also appeared in at least 6 different Viva Films productions, not to mention her appearances in ABS-CBN television series. I would also just like to remind: per WP:NOTE, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Therefore, however many references currently exist in the article in question is immaterial to questions of notability. Additionally, per WP: Multiple sources, "based on existing Wikipedia community norms, it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." I have provided 5 sources. Koikefan (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't see the difference in notability between Paris Hilton and AJ Raval then you probably have little to no understanding of Wikipedia's notability policies. It's not a matter of vapidness in the sources, it's a matter of significance and coverage in the sources. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pointing out that their basis for concluding someone as non-notable (existence of gossip coverage) is not a legitimate basis for making such a conclusion (if it is, please point me to the guideline) by using Paris Hilton as an example. I did not make a comparison between AJ Raval and Paris Hilton's notability, so please try to improve your reading comprehension before making sassy remarks at me. Their only bases for dismissing AJ Raval as non-notable is because she has "vapid gossip coverage," clearly ignoring the articles that do not meet that description (which I have linked to above), and that she has famous parents. Those are not legitimate bases for dismissing someone as non-notable. The articles I linked to give significant coverage to this individual. Koikefan (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles you linked to provide minimal trivial coverage. Several of them are about her role with Diego Loyzaga, which is not a significant role and is only brought up due to Diego Loyzaga. The other articles are about her famous parents. Neither case is valid as notability cannot be inherited. AJ Raval may be notable in the future after starring in more significant roles, but currently remains non-notable. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but we must have different definitions of trivial or minimal. At least three of the articles are entirely about her, bordering on profiles. Also, she is literally the lead of the movie, with Loyzaga as her co-star, so of course they're going to be talked about together. You have absolutely no basis for claiming that she is "only brought up" because of Loyzaga. On the contrary, they are talked about together because they are the two leads of the movie. They literally appear in the movie poster together as they are the two leads of the film. I would also like to know how you can conclude a lead role in a Viva Films production is "not a significant role." If a lead role is not a significant role, then what to you is a significant role? Viva Films is the 2nd or 3rd largest movie production company in the Philippines. None of the articles I linked to are about her famous parents, unless you think mentioning her famous parents makes an article about her famous parents. I would also suggest that you don't use strawmen here as I have never once argued that notability is inherited. That's completely dishonest. Koikefan (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a strawman and not dishonest-you clearly said someone was ignoring that Raval has famous parents, which would only be relevant if notability could be inherited. Anyways you're right I have little basis for concluding that Viva Films production is not a significant role, other than it is only one role, and all of the sources focus in on that one role. I'll agree it's not as clear cut as I may have original thought, but right now I still do not see them passing WP:GNG. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 07:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You misread my statement. My statement was (copy and pasting): "Their only bases for dismissing AJ Raval as non-notable is because she has "vapid gossip coverage," clearly ignoring the articles that do not meet that description (which I have linked to above), and that she has famous parents." I enumerated their bases (notice I said bases and not basis) as 1. vapid gossip coverage and 2. that she has famous parents. The ignore solely refers to the "articles that do not meet that description"; "ignore" did not refer to famous parents. To address your point about the focus on one role, I will link here a few more articles that discuss another lead role of hers in a separate movie called Taya (this first link is another extensive profile): [30], [31], [32], [33].Koikefan (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't misunderstand your statement if you're saying they dismissed Raval as non-notable for having famous parents. That is in fact an actual strawman argument, as only one person above mentioned Raval parent's and it was in reference to them having their own Wikipedia articles. Their statement is only an opinion on Raval's parents' articles, not on Raval's notability. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 09:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood my statement because you were suggesting I argued that her famous parents have any bearing on her notability, when I said no such thing. You went so far as to imply that I think notability is inherited. As for the other person, they claimed that AJ Raval only gets coverage because "her parents were actors." Since none of us here are mind-readers or are capable of divining why authors write their articles, that's tantamount to dismissing someone's notability because they have famous parents, since it suggests, without evidence, that the coverage is based on the fame of her parents. How exactly is she supposed to ever be notable if all coverage of her is immediately assumed to be because of her parents, which is what the other person assumed? Can anybody here furnish evidence proving that the Philippine Star, Inquirer, or CNN coverage was only due to the fact that AJ Raval has parents that are famous actors? Koikefan (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is the rationale for this conclusion? As stated prior, the individual has received media coverage from a number of reliable media sources. How can you then conclude she's not notable? Koikefan (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, but I hope whichever admin closes this discussion considers these sorts of votes to be votes without rationale. Merely saying someone is not notable enough, without explication, when at least 11 different reliable sources have been presented about her is quite something. May I remind: ""Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin." Koikefan (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources in the article seem reliable. Sources 1, 2 and 5 talk about her. Sources 5 to 7 talks about her role in certain movies. I also found some reliable sources about her and her career: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This article: [41], in combination with the articles I've linked to, now means that AJ Raval has been referred to in nearly a dozen different reliable media sources, covering 2 lead roles and 1 supporting role, in three different movies. This goes above and beyond the three sources that is standard for rebutting challenges to notability. WP: Multiple sources: "based on existing Wikipedia community norms, it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." Koikefan (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*:Keep Please keep this page because she is notable as an actress even though there aren't too many movies as the main role but she is still famous because in all her movies she is always the one to be noticed even if she is not the main star. and when it comes to being her influencer and being a youtuber, she is very noticeable. I always see the teenage girls who are my neighbors here in the computer shop watching Aj's vlog because the type they admire seems to want to imitate the beauty and sexiness of Aj. and at the tip, she's also very famous on tiktok, so I think she has a blue badge check on the tip. so maybe that's enough to be notable as an Actress and Influencer." Steezy Krazy (talk) 4:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC) strike sock vote-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Easy keep. This and this more than pass WP:GNG standards. Denying that these don't exist or don't pass WP:GNG needs a thorough explanation to convince why it does not. P.S. Dad Jeric Raval deserves a separate article for himself too. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NARTIST with sources presented by Koikefan and Astig, including the ones in the article. They're non-trivial and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:51, 21 August 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 11:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Balmori[edit]

Elena Balmori (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 Wikipedia:Notability (people) as per article. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles need reliable sources, especially biographies of living people. The only source here, IMDb, is not reliable. It is time for Wikipedia to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:50, 21 August 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 11:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ogenna Ekwubiri[edit]

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

BLP of a model who has won non notable titles, sourced to various promotional pieces. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I think this is one of the three times Nnadigoodluck has violated their topic ban on biographical articles thus far (I’m not so sure though) I do know MER-C blocked them for violating their Tban sometime in the past. If I’m not mistaken this was one of the articles DGG & I flagged as “possible spam” again I can’t really remember the details due to the fact they Nnadigoodluck “cleans up” his TP's manually and too often I might add. In any case there has been an extensive discussion on if or not the current parameters for accessing the notability standards for models are beneficial or counter productive, following the current parameters, this doesn’t seem to scale through. Furthermore sources used in the article largely fall under “churnalism” Having said I note at least two sources there seem to be accurate, however not enough. A WP:BASIC argument could have been made here but I see too many “mere announcements” for anything cogent to come out of that. FWIW, I’d initiate a site wide RFC on if the parameters for accessing models ought to be changed. Celestina007 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think there is any reasonable way to say that her awards are ones that imply notability . Celestina, is my impression right that the newspapers and magazines listed don't really count as major sources? DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rexxie[edit]

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

BLP of a music producer and DJ that does not appear to pass WP:ENT. It may be a GNG pass but many of the sources are interviews or look otherwise non reliable. The subject has won a couple of awards but I don’t think that’s enough to hang a bio on. Mccapra (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  – Per these sources [42][43][44][45][46] where he is discussed in detail. Source 5 is an interview but there's enough of the interviewers voice before the actual interview enough for SIGCOV. These sources describe him as being instrumental in the rise of Zanku Music which means he passes MUSICBIO#7. Soundcity MVP Awards is also a good marker of notability in music. Kind regards. Princess of Ara 12:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep  – there are several verifiable reliable sources that carefully showed and described the subject to has had significant roles in multiple notable contributions and productions, thus pass WP:ENT.Eddysocial (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Princess of Ara. Furthermore his music seems to have received coverage passing WP:GNG. -Xclusivzik (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seyi Brown[edit]

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

BLP of a comedian that does not pass WP:ENT. Mccapra (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:44, 15 August 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. Michig (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Tingting[edit]

Ai Tingting (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 news reporter, fails WP:BIO. No relevant results when searched on Google. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article completely fails to make any plausible claim of notability for this person. All we know is that she is a reporter but there are hundreds of thousands of reporters worldwide. Is every reporter notable and eligible for a Wikipedia biography? No. Only those who have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The current references are passing mentions, not significant coverage, and in a source that shows no indications of reliability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7, no indication or claim of importance; completely non-notable ROTM reporter. The source cited provides no coverage of this person, not to mention that it's obviously non-RS (WordPress blog site of some sort?). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe in fact, I like to create hundreds of new pages about different people from different webs, to include together in the Wikipedia. Maybe to connect together between Wikipedia and other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdaniel864 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for reasons given. David notMD (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The creating editor, Adamdaniel864, has a long history of creating articles that are subsequently draftified or AfD'd for no references, and of having articles Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no indication of her meeting WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO. Being a news reporter who does her job well is not in itself a notable feat. About the source daydaynews.cc, even if it should be a reliable source, it doesn't actually say anything about Ai Tingting, beyond the fact that she is a reporter. (I don't think it is reliable, but am not sure. I see it's been used in a bunch of articles, so it could be worth checking with Chinese speaking editors. It wouldn't change anything in terms of this discussion.) --bonadea contributions talk 12:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete No claim or indication of anything that would make him/her notable.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I did find some coverage of her (Sina), it is purely tabloid content about their appearance which is not enough to support an article about her. Jumpytoo Talk 21:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this isn't going to be speedied, then I'd say it's at least a prime candidate for WP:SNOWCLOSE. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Adamdaniel864 has been indef blocked after an ANI review, so he will no longer be contributing to this AfD. David notMD (talk) 13:16, 16 August 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. Daniel (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Jensen Jr.[edit]

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

Résumé-like biography of a small-town mayor, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. The strongest notability claim on offer here is that a piece of public infrastructure was named after him following his death, but that isn't an instant notability freebie in the absence of adequate sourcing (stuff gets named after former mayors all the time, everywhere), and the footnoting here is almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, user-generated genealogical content on FamilySearch or Find a Grave, and a university history essay that happens to mention his name a few times without being about him in any non-trivial sense. (One of the FamilySearch hits is actually a clipping of a newspaper obituary, but (a) that isn't enough coverage to get a smalltown mayor over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only real media hit he has, and (b) it fails to actually identify the newspaper in which it was originally published.) Further, the article was created by a single purpose account with no history of contributing to Wikipedia on any other topic, who's almost certainly a member of Christian Jensen's own family (thus violating our conflict of interest rules) as their username lines right up with the married surname of one of Jensen's daughters. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Christian Jensen from having to have a lot more real coverage about him in real media than this, and Wikipedia is not a free platform to memorialize your own ancestors. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems this entire article will come down to the veracity of the statement: "He was instrumental in establishing several of the leading agricultural organizations in Alberta of the early 20th century." A quick Google search returned little, although I'm presently not sure enough one way or the other to make a !vote just yet. Curbon7 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G4 and G11 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 11:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Genz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Q-Genz (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. I could not find a single independent reliable source (I only find lyrics websites; social media; streaming; ...): I wonder how this article survived so long in mainspace without that, given none of the previous revisions seems to have a sufficient source either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this is a second nomination, and since there's no indication that this band has gained any coverage despite apparently being in existence for a whole 13 years; and given such coverage is unlikely to appear now, I'd also suggest salting to prevent future recreation RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • RandomCanadian, a salting for a page with only 1 previous deletion is definitely an overreaction imo. Also, I noticed you added a CSD G4 tag after you made this nomination. Please be careful with double-dipping next time; I know it wasn't your intention, but it can be seen by some as a form of WP:ADMINSHOPPING. Curbon7 (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Curbon7 I somehow missed that there had been a previous AfD; and I only noticed when this page here had a (2nd nomination) in the title (which is why I specifically left a custom G4 request asking to check whether the re-created page was indeed the same as the deleted one while also mentioning the AfD). Anyway, all good, Athaenara suggests (in the deletion log) that it could also have been G11 so not too much fuss here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serteng[edit]

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

Fake Azerbaijani "village" sourced only to a geographic names database. No evidence of being at all populated, thus failing WP:GEOLAND. 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - here we find a mention of a village by this name in the Quba raion, with a population of 14. There is another mention of the village here. Whilst very small, and possibly not qualifying for GEOLAND, it's hardly fake. --Soman (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG, no evidence of legal recognition as required for a Geoland pass. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 18 August 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 11:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klement Tinaj[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Klement Tinaj (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 actor has become non-notable political dabbler; filled with fluff like what plays he was in in high school. Orange Mike | Talk 02:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very poor sourcing. Clearly a WP:PROMO piece created by the article’s subject. Certainly fails WP:NPOL as an obscure perennial candidate. KidAd • SPEAK 06:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. improved the article a bit. There were many bad and dead sources. But I also found some sources regarding his California governor run. Peter303x (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR as his IMDB page doesn't indicate notable roles and fails WP:POLITICIAN as a failed candidate. I think most coverage can be boiled down to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL as most failed candidates do not qualify for articles and niche coverage isn't exactly great for WP:GNG. — BriefEdits (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing here is horrible and clearly full of badly-disguised PR connected to the man himself. These articles in particular are poorly written and wildly exaggerate his participation in Furious 7, where he was a background extra at best, and are full of lavish praise that clearly comes from the horse's mouth. His "run" for CA governor is only mentions of him among all the other filler candidates running and is not genuine coverage. All in all, there's little here that's actually notable beyond the dressup. Nohomersryan (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 10:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited[edit]

Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (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 fails WP:GNG. No indication of notability. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 03:45, 15 August 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. czar 03:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Men's individual[edit]

Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Men's individual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Crystalballism. It is way too early to be creating articles for the 2022 Winter Olympics, when we are not even sure it will happen due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reason:[reply]

Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Women's individual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Men's relay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Women's relay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Mixed relay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Men's mass start (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Women's mass start (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Men's pursuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Women's pursuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Men's sprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biathlon at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Women's sprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like a waste of time to delete these and have to create them again later. True, the universe may no longer exist by that time, but for the moment they very probably will occur. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If these were for, say, the 2024 or 2026 Winter Olympics I would support a deletion, but this is an event that should be happening relatively soon. It doesn't do any harm to leave the categories intact for the moment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as the creator of the articles). These events will happen in about 5 months, which is soon (I agree with the above comment regarding the Olympics more in future). As of now, the main article doesn't even mention the possibility of cancelling or postponing the event. The sources are there, saying this is planned, so I see no problem here. --Tone 07:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above Nitesh003 (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:17, 15 August 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. czar 03:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beav-O-Rama, Arkansas[edit]

Beav-O-Rama, Arkansas (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 coordinates are off, but there is indeed a development and boat ramp with the unlikely name of "Beav-O-Rama Park" across the river to the East-Southeast. However, it doesn't appear to meet GEOLAND or GNG –dlthewave ☎ 02:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's not clear where exactly Beav-O-Rama was, but noe of the places possible looks like anything other than some sort of development. Mangoe (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly lacking in notability, the only hits I get from a search are real estate sites which will list any neighborhood. 23:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. czar 03:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Van Wickle Gates[edit]

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

One secondary source is a minor mention from an architectural overview of a whole city. Otherwise there is pretty much no independent coverage of the gates. Josefaught (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not every Brown landmark is notable, but the Van Wickle Gates are, just as much as Princeton's FitzRandolph Gate and Harvard's Johnston Gate. They are a historic, significant symbol of Brown University. - Kzirkel (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 16 August 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. czar 03:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brown University Alma Mater[edit]

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

Only primary sources. No independent coverage that shows notability. Josefaught (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More sources than any other Ivy League alma mater (except Old Nassau). Given the nature of the subject, "independent" will be limited to university affiliated (though often editorially independent) publications. Filetime (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the other Ivies have articles for their alma maters, and there are about thirty others in the w:Category:Alma_mater_songs. I don't see why Brown's wouldn't qualify. - Kzirkel (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per Filetime's argument. I would opt for a merge to the University's page, but the size of the latter is WP:TOOBIG. SBKSPP (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1: withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Who?[edit]

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

Despite my love for lead actor Leslie Nielson, this film fails WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites. Perhaps it was one of his lesser known roles? And the fact that it was part of 25 Days of Christmas on ABC Family, without a proper source, doesn't make it notable.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes [48] and a 3 star rating at Allmovie (a WP:RS) [49] DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you kidding? 3 star rating is from 1 reliable source. We need more then one for an article to be included.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And in order for Rotten Tomatoes to be considered a WP:RS we should have "Top Critic" reviews, not just 2 lousy critics who just give stars and nothing else.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So Ok, I added AllMovies, because as you said it's WP:RS. It still falls bellow our inclusion level. We need at least 3 reliable sources.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because the reviews are no longer available doesn't make them less viable. They are CRITIC reviews, NOT audience reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. If you really need to know what they original said, go dig up the original reviews. I stand by my KEEP...there are THREE reliable reviews (even if they aren't available online anymore) DonaldD23 talk to me 23:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Donaldd23: Stand by whatever you want. I checked the PopcornQ site. Google shows me a Popcorn Company, lol. We are down to one critical review which isn't enough to pass WP:NFILM.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, the review happened, just because it is no longer online does not discredit it. Roger Ebert is dead, does that mean all of his reviews no longer count? Rotten Tomatoes considers the PopcornQ review to be a reliable critic (even if the site no longer exists), and Wikipedia considers Rotten Tomatoes to be reliable. Therefore, we are back to 3 reliable source reviews. Your opinion does not override consensus. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Donaldd23: It actually does. We don't know to whom review belong. Was it a magazine? A website? A blog? Yes, Rotten Tomatoes does list blog entries sometimes, at least I stumbled on it once. That's why I use "Top Critics". What is PopcornQ? Do you know? I don't. If PopcornQ is a small time blog, that one day just disappeared - we can't use that. Also, our sources should be verifiable. That is, if we say that "PopcornQ gave a film 2.5 out of 5" we need to use PopcornQ, not Rotten Tomatoes. And, because we don't know what PopcornQ is, reliability becomes questionable. And no, this is not my opinion. This is consensus' opinion.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Donaldd23: As a matter of fact, I checked WP:RSP for Rotten Tomatoes. It states: "Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable".--Filmomusico (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Per Rotten Tomatoes [[50]], "PopcornQ is not a Tomatometer-approved publication. Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer® when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s): Brandon Judell" FYI, the reviewer for this film is Brandon Judell. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Donaldd23: If it's not approved by Rotten Tomatoes, then, my guess, we can't use it either. I will wait or seek a second opinion here. Rotten Tomatoes was known to put blogs as critical reviews, and no, I am not talking about The New York Times blogs (these we can use without any rejection by the consensus). Still, even if we know the author, that doesn't make the source more or less credible. Brandon Judell might be approved by Tomatometer, but it doesn't mean that Wikipedia will approve him. BTW, I see nothing mentioned of The Austin Chronicle and The Village Voice at WP:RSP.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not every source will be listed at WP:RSP. The first line of the page says "This is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus". Clearly those 2 you mentioned have never been questioned by anyone who has a firm grasp on the understanding of "third party, independent coverage". If you doubt those sources, feel free to begin a discussion for them at WP:RFC. But, as WP:RSP says, "For a source to be added to this list (WP:RSP), editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past". So, even if you start a discussion for either of those 2, neither will be added to WP:RSP unless at least TWO discussions have taken place. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the 2 Rotten Tomato reviews (by Christopher Null and Brandon Judell - who, like Null, is Tomatometer®-approved), just from simple Googling there is a decent summary/review in Variety, and another in Den of Geek by Tomatometer-approved Aliya Whiteley, plus a detailed synopsis at The Paley Center for Media. I know Google has its limitations, but I'm willing to bet that if I searched for this in LexisNexis or Gale Cengage at my local library, and/or did a deep dive in film & television periodicals, I'd find multiple additional reviews and coverage, even if brief. Not every film is Citizen Kane, but not every encyclopedia article need to be War and Peace length to be complete and neutral. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per found reviews above, indicates that it meets the threshold. matt91486 (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Added Den of Geek and Variety reviews. After Animalparty! suggested those, I am withdrawing my nomination. I don't know why I was unable to find those.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:31, 15 August 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School of Life (2005 film)[edit]

School of Life (2005 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)

Despite my love for lead actor Ryan Reynolds, this film fails WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites. Perhaps it was one of his lesser known roles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmomusico (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes [51] DonaldD23 talk to me 22:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, just like with Santa Who?, we can't keep the article based on 2 sources, one of which, (Common Sense Media), is not considered to be a WP:RS.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really need to read the guidelines better, because Common Sense Media IS a reliable source WP:RSP. Check it out. You opinion on CSM does not override multiple discussions which concluded that CSM IS a reliable source. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Donaldd23: CSM is used much less then Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, Slant, The Austin Chronicle and San Francisco Chronicle combined. I seen it used only on one article so far. How about you will give me a discussion where it says that CSM is reliable?--Filmomusico (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you click on the link I put above? Do that, find Common Sense Media, and then read the section about it. There are THREE discussions about CSM, most recently in 2020. Do I really have to do the work for you? And, the number of times YOU have seen it used is irrelevant, as you haven't been to every film page because it is listed at MANY. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Donaldd23: Ok. Clicked on it, read it. Concerned "As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed". Which leads me to believe that it's not as reliable as it seems.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Filmomusico: I'm confused. The full quote you're using says "There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed." Doesn't this mean that a film page review is exactly how we should use it? BuySomeApples (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @BuySomeApples: And the second sentence states that As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed. Which means, we shouldn't take their words for granted, or use them as a WP:RS.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Filmomusico: It's saying that you should use them for entertainment reviews (movies and stuff) BUT that you should attribute controversial statements to them (so say like, "according to CSM" that way people know where the info is coming from). If you want, we can make sure to attribute them properly when that source gets added to the article. Does that work? BuySomeApples (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @BuySomeApples: My problem with CSM is that it uses one-sentence reviews, such as here. I can't call '80s pulp novel gets creepy with evil adults, incest. as a review. A review to me is more broad then one tiny sentence, if you understand what I mean by that. --Filmomusico (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @Filmomusico: Oh I see what the problem is! The info in the review is spread out in different sections, which makes it hard at a glance. That sentence at the top isn't the whole review (it's a summary I guess). There's an overview section and then other sections (like "What's The Story?" "Is It Any Good?" and "Talk To Your Kids About..."). It's a weird layout imo but I think it's meant to make it easier for parents. Judgy parents from the look of it. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • @BuySomeApples: Yes, and that's why no matter how you attribute, it still looks like as if somebody said something, aka blog. I don't know how consensus came to a decision that it is reliable (I should look into it further (Perhaps, either I am missing something, or they didn't look at the source close enough, or both)). Either way, imo I would use CSM same way as we use IMDb. That's where it should be. Our sources need to be neutral, not biased. With that said, I need to add that even though Wikipedia is an advocacy group of some kind, we, first of all, building an encyclopedia, and spreading CSM will be counter intuitive to our goals as a project, if you understand what I am saying. --Filmomusico (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Right @Filmomusico:, I think part of the problem is that notability doesn't mean that the source has to be in only "unbiased" sources. What matters is how we use them. It's kind of the nature of reviews to be biased. Sometimes even famous critics are wrong about movies (like anyone who panned the original Star Wars!). We're not handing down critics' opinions like the voice of God, but we can say that critics noticed the movie (and that makes it notable). CSM might be biased, but it's a major source that uses legitimate editorial processes for reviews. This means that the movie made a significant impact etc, and that the review can be trusted as being from a well-known outlet. I guess it's ultimately a matter of opinion though and I get where you're coming from with it. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                            • @BuySomeApples: Yeah, it might be a legit source, but we as an encyclopedia don't need film ratings in our film articles. It seems that CSM, unlike other sites, is a Parental Guidance site, which literally says if that film is ok to watch for say 13-year-olds. If I would want to check out film rating before going to a movie, I will go to CSM, not Wikipedia. If I will want to read something about the film (besides the rating), I will choose Wikipedia, and every other reader probably will be of the same opinion.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                                • @Filmomusico: I totally get what you're saying. Technically though WP:Manual of Style/Film does say that including film reviews and aggregators is encouraged, and CSM counts as that. Wikipedia isn't a source in itself, it's a collection of information from other places (including CSM sometimes). I think we're way off topic by now, because the point is that CSM is considered reliable for reviews by Wikipedia and that means it counts towards this film's notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, your opinion does not override the consensus that it is a Reliable Site and is listed as such. Disagree all you want, but a consensus is a consensus. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A malformed header was fixed in this AfD. The nominator also did not sign their post. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Donaldd23 -- meets review threshold. One source being referenced less often than other sources has no bearing on whether or not this subject is notable, and as is pointed out, CSM is considered relevant for this. Suggesting that it has only been cited once and the Austin Chronicle is cited more so we can't use it is a sort of bizarre argument. matt91486 (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quick note here: The comments about bias and so on with sites typically means that it should be avoided for statements of fact or controversial statements but can be used for things like reviews. So for example, you can use CSM for a film review but you shouldn't use it to back up information about say, depression in childhood, a historical event, or a school shooting (news, politics, health/medicine, and so on). Reviews are usually just the reviewer's opinion about the film itself and tend not to include anything that would be seen as controversial. Now it is possible for a site to be seen as completely unusable, but to accomplish this the outlet has to be known for major levels of misinformation like the Daily Mail. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:NFP, however, I would be willing to change my viewpoint if an expert on the topic adds more sources or recreates the article later and can provide more sources. One would figure that something attached to Ryan Reynolds would have more out there that can be found. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like the sources are reliable according to consensus. I respect that the nominator disagrees but that's not a good enough reason to delete the page. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BuySomeApples: Looking at the sources that @ReaderofthePack: provided, I am in a position to remove the nomination. Good job guys and gals, and happy editing! :)--Filmomusico (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see the nomination is being withdrawn, I agree just looking at article in its current state, the film appears notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:51, 23 August 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.  JGHowes  talk 13:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colorsport VIII[edit]

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

Doesn't meet any aspect of WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft:Granada Electronics. My preliminary research suggests that while this is a run-of-the-mill product, the manufacturer, Granada Electronics, is a notable company. Granted, this is probably more for the company's failed effort to import Spanish-made Cabbage Patch dolls to the U.S., which was stopped by a lawsuit from the manufacturer of the U.S.-branded product, but this could still provide a seed for an article on the company. BD2412 T 19:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: See Donald S. Chisum, Understanding Intellectual Property Law (1992), p. 510: "[I]n Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Granada Electronics, Inc., the court upheld a finding of infringement where a defendant imported “Cabbage Patch” dolls that bore a lawful trademark (licensed from plaintiff) but which were manufactured abroad under a license prohibiting their sale in the United States". BD2412 T 05:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 15 August 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. czar 03:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ignatius Borissow[edit]

Christian Ignatius Borissow (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 are not convincing of notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – seems to fail WP:BASIC/the GNG. My searches aren't finding any coverage that goes beyond trivial mentions, although I'm glad to reevaluate if better sourcing can be found. (If there's anything, it'll probably be under the name "C. I. Borissow", which seems to be more commonly used.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think he passes WP:GNG, even if only by a small margin. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- He does not strike me as obviously notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd argue for a WP:AUTHOR pass if the reprints of his books were due to publishers taking an explicit interest in them, which would indicate their historical significance. However, they appear to be your run-of-the-mill print-on-demand copies of public-domain books. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's right, XOR'easter. Our article on Kessinger Publishing says explicitly that it's "an American print on demand publishing company", while our article on Nabu Press reports that "they see themselves less as publishers than as a software company". My guess would be that both the reprints and this article are the handiwork of an adoring descendant of Borissow. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything there that goes beyond single-sentence trivial mentions? If there is, I'm not seeing it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no WP:SIGCOV. – DarkGlow • 10:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a little reluctant to say so, because the article seems so out-of-the-way that it's hard to see harm in keeping it around, but I just haven't been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources, as the saying goes. If the reprints of his books were due to actual interest, then we could make a case for wiki-notability. However, they seem to be more on the "we'll make a print-on-demand copy of anything in the public domain" side of the publishing spectrum instead. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 16 August 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. Michig (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Diaz-Latorre[edit]

Xavier Diaz-Latorre (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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking. First thing I found is this bio from a notable institute where he seems to be teaching. Looks like our article has the same text, a typical beginner's mistake. Second I found is this short bio from a notable music series where he seems to have performed. Third thing I found is recordings. Fourth thing I found is he has been teaching masterclasses. Fifth thing I found is a review. I have no more time right now but he seems notable enough, - it's just soft instruments that he plays. The article should be trimmed and rephrased, and sourced better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 15 August 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 Clarabridge. ✗plicit 00:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Engagor[edit]

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

Apparently promotional article about an acquired company. No evidence of notability under WP:CORP, WP:GNG or any other guideline. A WP:BEFORE on "Engagor" or "Clarabridge Engage" turns up only press releases and churnalism; no sign of WP:CORPDEPTH. PROD removed with claim that a yellow-rated source not usable for notability (TechCrunch) is "generally reliable" - but it needs actual coverage in solid and non-questionable RSes for CORPDEPTH. David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 15 August 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_August_15&oldid=1041946084"