Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 18 August 20 >

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 redirect to University of Edinburgh. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contaminated Land Assessment and Remediation Research Centre[edit]

Contaminated Land Assessment and Remediation Research Centre (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 seem to have WP:SIGCOV. Alternately, could simply be redirected to University of Edinburgh. PepperBeast (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to UoE; a search for sources for this entity, as well as for its successor SETN, revealed nothing. It should be noted that I was unable to identify any articles about the "significant industry protests" related to its closure - articles that would be expected to exist. As such, sources may be out there that I was simply unable to identify. BilledMammal (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as ATD, per nom. I also searched and found no significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 05:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled X Japan album[edit]

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

Deceptively lengthy article about an album that may not ever be released. The fact that it has no title and no confirmed release date make this an automatic violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Most of the article is actually a general history of the band during the 13+ years that they were supposedly working on the album, and factoids on aborted recording sessions and other mishaps can be described at the band's article. Sources indicate that the band has been recording throughout the period, but nobody has any confirmation on when or even IF such an album will ever be released. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article shows that there have been several officially announced release dates for the album, but that they have been missed. The fact that they've been missed, and any speculation that it may never be released, are not reasons to delete. This is evident by the roughly 120 articles in Category:Unreleased albums (which includes other untitled albums) and the very existence of said category. Your summary that "Most of the article is actually a general history of the band during the 13+ years that they were supposedly working on the album", not only doesn't make sense since background on the making of albums is expected, but is also a large exaggeration. It has details about its recording, themes behind the songwriting, and details on the several songs that have already been released from said album, which is confirmed to have been completed i.e. "it exists." Thus the article is "well documented", passing #1 at WP:CRYSTAL. So really your argument is solely that the whole album doesn't currently have a release date or a title, which doesn't hold up with Category:Unreleased albums. Xfansd (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Xfansd (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Just because the category has albums in it, that does not mean that none of them could be recommended for deletion, nor do any of them support each other's existence. The quantity is deceptive because the category is based on metadata behind articles and not their quality or current status. A whole bunch of the entries in the category have been redirected to the artist due to poor notability (e.g. Inner Heat, 14 (Charli XCX album), Who's for Tennis?, Venom (Chamillionaire album), etc.), and some are repeats of each other (e.g. Unreleased third studio album (Charli XCX), XCX World). Also, saying that this X Japan album should stay because there are articles on other unreleased albums falls afoul of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I concede that the X Japan album has a lot of sources but I believe they are too vague on the album's future reality. That is worth arguing about, in terms of notability, if anyone else chimes in. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that articles in Category:Unreleased albums do not transfer any notability over to Untitled X Japan album and was definitely not implying that they are all quality articles. I mentioned it because your whole nomination was based on the album not having been released. Which sources are too vague? Any "future reality," be it one where the album is never released or one where it is released in a form vastly different from what the article currently says, is irrelevant. We have reliable sources reporting on the making of and the material set to be included on their "new"/"sixth" studio album, making an article about that album notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. If the album is released and some of the songs originally reported to be on it by those sources are not included, those original reports will still be included in any future article. You can't just casually claim all 41 sources are "too vague" and therefore the article should be deleted for failing notability. Xfansd (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are working in a text-only medium so nuances are falling through the cracks for both of us. I'll just try to wrap up my own stance with this: "future reality" = confirmed release date, confirmed title, confirmed track list. I will not fight any community consensus on such matters, because I don't have to look at that article ever again. Just giving my impressions on WP policy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:55, 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 14:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nossaman[edit]

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

At best, only suitably sourced by Law360 (lots of quotes/mentions, but couldn't find anything else reliable with sigcov) - and it's not clear how reliable/independent they are.

It's also significantly promotional, and may make it over the CSD line. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if notable I suggest we delete per WP:TNT to get rid of all the issues. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotional. Deleting per WP:TNT as suggested seems best option. Equine-man (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I tried to remove the promotional tone from the page. I found some references from books and other historical materials. SO, I believe that the firm is old/notable and not a direct delete. Surely passes WP:GNG JK.Kite (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • GNG is not the appropriate guideline. For organizations like this it is WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 20 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 and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete History of article. Original editor joined wiki purely to create this page, plus add references in other pages to legitimise the page. Equine-man (talk) 20:59, 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 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European Capitals and Cities of Sport Federation[edit]

European Capitals and Cities of Sport Federation (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 evidence of any real-world relevance or notability for this organization. There is no proper sourcing in the article, and what Google reveals is just organizational and primary stuff. There's a few hits along the lines of "City X was European Sports Capitol" or whatever (and this is the best one), but that is it: no discussion of the organization that I can find anywhere. Note: I removed a listing of places from the article; you can find it in the history, with its thousand flags. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not believe this is an organisation/federation. If it is, there is not notability online for it whatsoever.
LukeWWF (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Francis Burton[edit]

William Francis Burton (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 that this artist meets the criteria at WP:NARTIST or WP:SIGCOV 4meter4 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he is in one collection, which is a significant thing. My hunch is that he is probably notable; we have just not yet found the sources to show he is. Yesterday I was about to AfD a very similar article on a marine painter, seeing it in this state. By the time I had investigated him, he turned out to be very notable. This article, on William Francis Burton, strikes me as a situation where two decent sources will put it over the top. --- Possibly ☎ 03:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How times (and tastes) have changed. In 1969, the Observer reported that he was Britain's most popular painter, yielding the top spot in a poll by the Fine Art Trade Guild to "a Barcelona painter called Palmero". That must have been Alfredo Palmero de Gregorio, for whom there is a museum, but no Wikipedia article. Let's not forget that notability is not temporary. If he was notable in 1969, we can have an article about him. Vexations (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in looking at the sources added by Possibly, I am persuaded that this is a weak keep. The sourcing is still a bit thin for my liking, but I do agree with Vexations that notability is not temporary. As such, I am withdrawing the nom.4meter4 (talk) 14:35, 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston and District Football League[edit]

Kingston and District Football League (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 general consensus is that all leagues within the top 11 levels of the English football league system are notable enough for their own article. This league operates at level 14 and below and is comparable to the recently deleted Halifax and District Association Football League and Guildford and Woking Alliance League.

Google News and Google Books coverage is largely in passing and from sources that are not independent from the organisation and its teams. Although there are some relevant hits in British newspapers for Kingston and District League and Kingston and District Football League, the first few pages all appear to be just simple results listings and brief roundups, often only taking up a very small fraction of the page of the newspaper, all of which are hyperlocal ones like West Surrey Times and Surrey Advertiser, indicating that the topic is not notable enough for a global encyclopaedia, which doesn't wish to show any unnecessary bias. WP:INDISCRIMINATE also applies. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:31, 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 23:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Gudiel[edit]

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

With no significant coverage found in Spanish sources for "Patricia Gudiel" or Patxi Gudiel or Pachi Gudiel, it's hard to see any way in which this could be expanded significantly beyond the one-sentence BLP that it currently is. Match report coverage like this and minor Blogspot coverage is insufficient for WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:40, 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. Some !votes have been discounted as unrelated to policy (as RL0919 alluded to) but there are still sufficiently many fact-based comments that relate to GNG (implicitly) or NBAND for this to have achieved consensus to be kept. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IXFORM[edit]

IXFORM (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 group. Worked only in one film. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV DMySon (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Other stuff exists arguments, not very convincing. Please cite policies or guidelines to justify this group's inclusion on Wikipedia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 12:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article currently has five sources. Two of them are about the TV show that the group was on, so they don't add to the group's notability. The other three sources describe the group's creation. Thus, the question is: are these sources reliable, and do they qualify as significant coverage? I'm going to give this article the benefit of the doubt and say that, at the very least, these sources are good enough to establish notability. Mlb96 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per RL0919, this could do with some more, arguably better, policy-oriented contributions either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it's worth, three more sources have been added to the article. They're all in Chinese, so I can't assess them for depth of coverage, but they come from what seem to be respectable news outlets. Mlb96 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like it meets WP:NBAND Idunnox3 (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the newly added Chinese sources. /Julle (talk) 23:53, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) AnsrieJames9 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Communications Foundation[edit]

Jesuit Communications Foundation (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 The Banner talk 07:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not even have a seperate article of the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about JesCom, JMM and their activities: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second source does not even mention the organisation, two mentions of the same movie by the same department (headquarters and a local office), related sources and passing mentions. Sorry, I am not convinced. The Banner talk 08:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Banner, it did mention Jesuit Music Minstry (as I indicated), which has its own section in the article. So, that would still count no matter what. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, this discussion is about "Jesuit Communications Foundation", not about "Jesuit Music Minstry". Something that is just a passing mention, by the way. The Banner talk 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented above. JesCom is an independent institution registered under the Philippine SEC [10] --{ PMGOMEZ } 11:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First off, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and not vanilla GNG. The reliability of a source is only one small element of the requirements for sources to establish notability - the others are WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. ORGIND requires "Independent Content" in order to count towards establishing notability, references must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That last bit is important. Looking at the sources put forward by Astig above:
    • Inquirer reference is about a "musical tribute" to be given by this organization and another. The article contains a standard description (found on the website and even in this article) and interview/quotation from Fr. Nono Alfonso, a senior exec with the topic organization. No Independent Content. Fails ORGIND.
    • GMA News reference doesn't even mention the organization, fails CORPDEPTH
    • Another Inquirer reference also relies entirely on information provided by people connected with the topic organizations and is written by an individual from the topic organization, PRIMARY source, no Independent Content, also fails ORGIND
    • Jesuit Conference of East Asia reference is a blog. Fails as a reliable source. Even leaving that aside, it was written by a person with the topic organization, therefore PRIMARY and also fails ORGIND.
    • Dept of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines reference is about the launch of the movie Ignacio de Loyola produced by the topic organization. There is no information about the topic organization though, fails CORPDEPTH
    • Vatican News reference is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH. And that's leaving aside the fact that the Vatican News is hardly an independent publisher.
    • CRUX reference relies entirely on information provided by an executive, Rev Emmanuel Alfonso, no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
    • Embassy of the Philippines, Madrid Spain reference is all about the movie, mention in passing of the topic company as producers, fails CORPDEPTH
    • Adobo Magazine] reference is also about the same movie with quotes from the head of the topic organization, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
Not a single reference comes close to meeting the requirements for establishing notability as per NCORP nor would they even meet the less-strict interpretations of GNG. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 16:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to give the opportunity to rebut HighKing if desired, whose contributions I find (currently) the most persuasive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have long been of the opinion that an article does not meet WP:HEY until all the suggested citations are added to the article. Ping me if you can fix this issue. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Hernández (footballer)[edit]

Esther Hernández (footballer) (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 part of my attempt to address the significant number of one-sentence BLP stubs on female Spanish footballers, I have tried to locate and add sources to many articles recently and listed some for deletion when a source search was not successful. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be even one of those borderline cases like Andere Leguina or Raquel Pinel. I have tried a number of searches, including using her nickname and in conjunction with the two clubs that she played for. With such a brief career, it doesn't look like she accumulated enough coverage to meet the bare minimum of WP:GNG. I found some trivial mentions in Marca match reports like this but you can't build a substantial article from stuff like that. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 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) 19:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Zimmerman (bishop)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joseph Zimmerman (bishop) (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 presents an abysmal failure of GNG. The two sources are a blog style database with directory style information about bishops, and another blog style listing of bishops by diocese. Netiehr provide enough information to qualify as indepth coverage, and they certainly are not reliable, and their indepdence of the subject is also questionable. It shows in how sub-standard this article is. We do not have any indication of Zimmerman's nationality. He may be American or Canadian, but could also be German, Swiss or Austrian. One source indicates that he was a priest of a missionary order, a group who much more often than diocesan priests serve as bishops in areas other than where they are from. My search for additional sources turned up no substantive coverage. We clearly cannot justify having this article with so little sourcing, and my search was not able to come up with anything else. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All bishops are notable. Sources from Madagascar in the 1960s and 1970s probably exist but are unlikely to be online. [:de:Joseph_Zimmermann_(Geistlicher,_1923) The corresponding German article] includes Birmenstorf as his place of birth, but lists only http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bzim.html as a reference. Even though the article is a stub, it is still useful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not keep articles on vague unspecific claims that reliable sources exist. We actually have to find and produce relaible sources to justify keeping articles. Rubbish articles sources to rubbish non-reliable blog sources are not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Every article should be assessed on its own merits. Most bishops will pass GNG but this doesn't mean that we should automatically presume that every single bishop will pass GNG even without any evidence. That would be absurd. It reminds me of the circular reasoning often found surrounding secondary schools and professional footballers who often used to get a free pass on GNG just by simply being able to prove that they existed at some point although consensus has recently leaned slightly more towards GNG over other guidelines on a wider number of topics. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we even had a source that was the diocesan controled paper actually giving a full article on the life and ministry of Zimmerman I might be inclined to overlook the technical failure of passing GNG and keep it, and if we had non-diocesan controlled Catholic focused media giving indepth coverage of Zimmerman I would clearly vote to keep, although I am sure some eitors would be hesitant to even call that indepdent. However here we literrally just have blogs that are in directory style and lack any actual prose about the life of Zimmerman. What we know about him you more have to guess, or is unsourced, than is sourced. So evidently he was born in Switzerland, joined a missionary order, and was bishop in Madagascar. We have no indication of if he was a priest in Switzerland before being bishop, or in Madagascar, or both, or both and other places, or just other places, maybe other places on the African continent, like Mozambique and Tanzania, or maybe far flung like Nigerian and Ivory Coast, or maybe elsewhere in Europe, or maybe he was somewhere else where languages similar to Malagasy are spoken (like Indonesia or the Phillipines among many other countries) before he was sent to Madagascar, however all of that is idle speculation that I am trhrowing out with only the knowledge that the Catholic Church is an interantional Church that in the 20th-century as well as the 21st-century has significant operations in the vast majority of the world, and that there are longstanding shortages of priests from some areas and they are supplied from elsewhere, and that at least until the 1980s the main source of priests was European countries, and they went from those to all corners of the world. The balance has been readjustied some of late, so that in the US there is a reliance on foriegn priests no longer in the main from Europe, and not as much from Latin America as the Catholic memership is, but heavily from the Philippines, Vietnam and Nigeria, and maybe to a lesser extent from a few other countries on the African contient. However there are lots of people who go against any extablished grain, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the general flow of leadership is still to this day in the main American leaders being deployed abroad, although there are attempts to limit how much of the leadership in any local is done by Americans abroad, yet Taniel Wakolo was a Fijian serving as mission president in the US, and Thierry Mutombo, who we need an article on but I am not convinced that the Church News, Deseret News and Ensign information on him I can find plus Jeffrey Bradshaw's presentation to the FairMormon conference would be enough to pass GNG requirements (they would be far more than I can find on Zimmerman), and any coverage in addition. So for example I can find [11] which is more than I have been able to find on Zimmerman. The problem is that I know the information there is outdated. In the interim Mutombo served for a time as mission president in Baltimore, Maryland (a positions that we have generally not considered a level of notability) he is now a general authority seventy (a position that structurally is closer to being a Catholic Cardinal than a Catholic bishop, but the analogies are complex and so equivalancy is hard to prove). We also have this coverage [12] that is only super incidentally about Mutumbo. I have a suspicion that at some point I will be able to build an article on Mutumbo, at 43 he is the youngest current General Authority Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the sourcing on him is not yet substantial enough to justify an article, but it is way more than we have on Zimmerman. See I can produce more mentions of Mutumbo like this [13] I can even find this article in French on Mutumbo, although it is a published article on not just the Church, but I believe the Africa Central Area where he serves as second counselor [14]. We can also find clearly independent news mention of Mutumbo's call, but I doubt it passes the indepth requirements, see for example here [15]. Oh, and here [16] near the bottom you can find a published version of the courtship story of Thierry Mutombo. This [17] Church News is the most substantial coverage of Mutombo, although lacking some of the deeply personal touches of Bradshaw's presentation. It is far, far more than we have on Zimmerman, but as I said, I am not convinced it is enough to create an article. We have basically nothing on Zimmerman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some people will tell you that a stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is like a Catholic diocese, which caused at least someone somewhere to argue that Mitt Romney having been a stake president made him like having been a Catholic bishop. This is however not a very good analogy for a lot of reasons, so I will not trott out the fact that Mutumbo was a stake president. People who have thought about the matter in a broader context argue that stakes are actually more like multi-site Megachurches, and the stake president is like the executive senior pastor of a megachurch, except most megachurches have more members than most stakes. There are Catholic parishes with more members than any stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I would instead argue that overall an Area President in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is roughly equivalent to a diocesan bishop, although since all Area Presidents are also General Authrity Seventies, I would argue that their equivalance is a little bit more like archbishops who also happen to be Cardinals. Mutumbo has not as of yet been an area presdient, he is a counselor in an Area Presidency. Do not even make me try to find an analogy to the counselor system. Someone is going to claim "counselors to area presidencies would be sort of like auxiliary bishops", and I would say "yes, as long as you emphasize the sort of like, and do not read to much into the equivalance issues".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Keep. This is tough, but a Diocesan bishop generally meets notablility Delete, as after reviewing, I see that was not a guideline. In light of new guidelines and research, I have once more reversed my position and believe we should keep this article. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a clearly discrminatory standard. We do not accept as default notable people who are stucturally much higher in other religions. There is no agreed upon notability guideline for religious leaders that trumps the requirements of GNG, and GNG is clearly not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misread that page and have corrected my vote and comment. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrrho the Skeptic: Would you consider giving this a second look in light of WP:BISHOPS and the substantial expansion work undertaken by User:Genericusername57 and User:Eastmain? Cbl62 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and the info. I have changed my vote back to keep above. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG with additional sourcing added to the article and per guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide. Zimmerman was a diocesan bishop of the Roman Catholic church, holding that position for 28 years. The article has been substantially expanded and sourced since the nomination was made. Based on the additional sourcing, and Zimmerman's long tenure as a diocesan bishop, this seems like a clear "Keep" to me. Cbl62 (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also notable per WP:BISHOPS. Cbl62 (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That project guidance needs to be rejected. Individual projects do not get to establish such standards, and in this case it is clearly being used to institute uneven coverage of religious minorities as opposed to a major religion, in some cases in ways that ignore what is actually the majority religion in a particular location, so we have the absurdity of an article on the Catholic Bishop of Utah who has virtually nil societal impact but not on the Area President of the Utah Area of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has very large societal impact. Also considering how long this article languished as a super meaningless stub, and how many Catholic bishops articles still remain such, declaring all Catholic bishops notable has the actual impact of creating lots of short meaningless articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your extensive comments above regarding the comparative notability of Mormon church officials (e.g., Thierry Mutombo) don't seem to have any bearing whatsoever on this article, as AfD does not exist to make points about other topics. See WP:POINTy. Moreover, your mischaracterization of this article as "a super meaningless stub" ignores the substantial expansion work undertaken by @Genericusername57: and @Eastmain:. At the time of the nomination, the article was a very short stub, but thanks to the diligent efforts of these two editors, this article now passes muster. Cbl62 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop engaging in hate speech. Referring to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by that deprecated term that you use is seen as very insulting and rude. I ask that you cease and desist from engaging in such hate speech immediately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our main article on the LDS church notes that it is informally known as "the Mormon Church". Do you have any sourcing to support your novel assertion that referring to the church in this manner is "hate speech"? If not, please recant this assertion. Also, would you consider responding to the substance of my comments? Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to respond to hate speech, and trying to tell someone who has informed you that what they are doing is hate speech by telling them they are wrong is just plain wrong. President Russell M. Nelson's speech given in General Conference of October 2018 clearly outlines why members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not appreciate being referred to by incorrect names, and other speeches by him have clearly outlined specifically why the nickname you insist on doubling down in using is incorrect. A more recent study has shown there is a clear connection between negative editorial content in news articles and using this name. If a group has asked that a name be stopped using, and you insist on using it spitefully in direct opposition to their request to stop using that name, that fits the very definition of hate speech. There is no substance to a comment that opens with such hate speech.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness. Your argument boils down as follows: 1) JPL has unilaterally decided that the term "Mormon church" is "hate speech" (though JPL has not cited a single source where the LDS church has made such an assertion), 2) Cbl62 quoted the main article on the LDS church which also uses the term (and JPL has not complained about use of the term there or in our articles on Mormon missionary, the Mormon Trail, Mormon fundamentalism, Mormon cosmology, Mormon pioneers, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir), 3) Cbl62 is thereby doubling down (and doing so "spitefully") on "hate speech", and 4) therefore, JPL need not address the merits of this AfD. Brilliant. Simply brilliant! Cbl62 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Its name has been changed. You are showing severe ignorance on the subject by insisting on doubling down in using a term that has been clearly depricated. The fact that you cite something that has had its name deliberately and publicly changed shows that you are doubling down on your course of rudeness and disrespect. This is clearly the methods and processes of one who engages in hate speech. I have infact complained about the incorrect use of the term in the horribly named article on missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also consider that a clear example of hate speech.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last linked, actually goes to the article on Tabernacle Choir. And if the hate mongering editor had bothered to actually research things instead of attacking others with blanket statements with no proff, he would see I was a major force in getting the article renamed, although I wanted to rename it correctly to Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BISHOPS. StAnselm (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Whatever the objections to this article as it was when nominated, it is now in a satisfactory state to be kept, even if some of the links are to other WPs. The whole discussion on LDS has noting to do with the topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:SIGCOV has been demonstrated. Frankly given some of the nominator's comments above, this and a similar AfD do not seem like good-faith nominations, more a case of WP:POINT. There are plenty of places outside Wikipedia to grind your axe. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is an unfair attack. I did a reasonable search for sources and came up with absolutely nothing when I nominated this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Molding Messengers[edit]

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

completely and utterly non-notable company, no meaningful or in-depth coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any coverage that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH, doesn't even pass WP:GNG, which is a much lower bar for inclusion Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No better sourcing found. Two different experienced editors had tried to draftify this article because it was clearly not ready for mainspace, but the article author moved it back each time, with their only apparent attempt as discussion being a AfC Help Desk request here. This is at best a bad case of WP:IDHT and at worst a possible WP:UPE. --Finngall talk 18:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per rationale by Praxidicae. i do not see anything in WP:SIRS met. @Finngall, you are quite apt about the WP:IDHT. Hypothetically speaking it does seem to work in the favor of editors who may be engaging in less than ethical practices, cross reference with this entry at ANI. Celestina007 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 17:24, 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 keep. Not enough participants for snow to fall, but a keep consensus has been reached with policy-based reasoning. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redmine[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Redmine (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 sourced mostly with content from associated subjects. I found https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/redmine as the only reliable source that discusses it. As a blog, https://plan.io/blog/redmine-guide/, does not meet WP:RS. The rest I found were either primary, affiliated or database entries. In other words, it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so fails WP:GNG. Pinging participants from the last AfD who showed some activity in the past year @Drmies:, @Gahs: and @Johnuniq:. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems clear. Simple Google (with mis-hits) is millions of hits, hundreds of books, many WP mentions/links. I do wish the article was updated and had more prose - about it and the field, it’s company and history - but notability seems clear. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on policy. These mentions are not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. They're often affiliated with the product, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well then why are those Find sources links the top section of this and all AfD posts? This seems an easy case just by simple look at that. Google gives 4 million hits, and filtering out hits on trivial content and other things named redmine ... is looking like a lot of content about the product and organization. Hundreds of books, again count those that do matter and I think this one is easy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • To help you find reliable sources. They do not simply point to them. WP:GNG give some details on what constitutes a good source for general notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the PCMag review, there is the Cloudwards review, which I also consider reliable and independent in this space. There are several books devoted to Redmine, of which Mastering Redmine, in its second edition, has a first chapter with some general information good for a description of the software. I think these are sufficient to meet WP:GNG notability thresholds. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned by Mark viking, there are several books that provide WP:SIGCOV including Redmine Plugin Extension and Development, Redmine cookbook, and Redmine a complete guide. The essay WP:NSOFT presumes notability if It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. These sources and the ones linked above fit these criteria and should also count towards GNG as significant, reliable, independent coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been more than two weeks and with three keep opinions I suggest a WP:SNOW close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Stepanova[edit]

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

Questionable notability of biographical article per WP:BIO - no significant information to be found here to denote notability as most information is brief and does not explain themselves clearly. GUtt01 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:07, 5 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 12:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - articles like this are sufficient, and there are other non-English sources that are similar. The deletion rationale needs to be better here because the article itself lists the sort of coverage she has received and being a special guests on any one of those television shows would likely be considered more than "trivial". St★lwart111 03:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAILYMAIL is not a reliable source. --Darth Mike(talk) 14:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but we don't need to rely on the reliability of the source itself, it is simply confirmation of a non-controversial fact; that she appeared on television. In doing so, she received coverage. As I said, the article itself lists the non-trivial coverage she has received from multiple reliable sources (which need not be print sources). St★lwart111 23:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The television appearances aren't sufficient? St★lwart111 23:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, no. Numerous people are on TV, all the time. Most aren't notable. --Darth Mike(talk) 19:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many television appearances aren't coverage of the person, that's true, but these are appearances where she has been invited as a guest and the subject receiving coverage is her and her talents / skills. They aren't a matter of her appearing on television incidentally, in relation to something else. St★lwart111 02:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Probably just scrapes into WP:GNG due to a few mentions, although in dubious sources such as Daily Mail and Radio Free Europe (eyebrows extremely raised) but they seem like such junk articles or churnalism (possibly placed coverage to promote America's Got Talent?). Not sure how this will ever go beyond a tiny stub. Also can't really see how she meets WP:BIO. Leaning towards delete but not sure. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - have started a discussion here about this and similar subjects. St★lwart111 05:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not seeing any real notability beyond clickbait type churnalism.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete getting off the fence on this one. Per my above comment, I think this falls on the NN side of WP:GNG given the quality of the sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:22, 25 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 procedural keep; the nomination wasn't completed or transcluded properly and included no rationale, so I am non-administrator closing it. Editors should feel free to re-nominate it. St★lwart111 01:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan at the 2022 Commonwealth Games[edit]

Pakistan at the 2022 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination; AFD was not started or transcluded properly. Pinging Meatsgains for a rationale. St★lwart111 03:21, 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 redirect to Directorate of Town and Country Planning#Tiruchirapalli LPA. There is agreement that we should not have this article; alternatives to deletion are suggested and nobody argues for keeping it. This is resolved by a redirect to Directorate of Town and Country Planning#Tiruchirapalli LPA, which seems a commonsensical outcome. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiruchirappalli Local Planning Authority[edit]

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

While it exists, it's a local planning authority. Gets the types of mentions you might expect of an organization like this, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalag 17 (band)[edit]

Stalag 17 (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not meet WP:NBAND; have been in CAT:NN for 11 years so bringing it to AfD. – DarkGlow • 13:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no sources for 10 years. I can't see anything significant to support the subject. ww2censor (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not meet WP:NBAND and has zero sourcing, reading more like a music magazine article as a result.TH1980 (talk) 00:57, 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 keep. The coverage of the independent sources can be combined to meet WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ager[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rob Ager (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 evidence of notability presented, person primarily mentioned only in passing in articles, one that is about the person is an interview, so not a secondary source. A search failed to find anything particularly noteworthy, and looks to have failed WP:NBIO. Nominating this since a notability tag has been repeated removed without explanation or improvement to the sourcing, therefore seeking wider community opinion on this. Hzh (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He is a notable person. Per WP:NBIO, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Major publications like the NYT and Esquire have discussed him, his theories, and anaylses. The New York Film Academy deemed him notable enough for not one, but two interviews. In one interview they describe him as "one of the first internet-based movie critics and [having] also helped pioneer the video movie critique". Also pinging Silver seren, who previously discussed the notability. ~ HAL333 15:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm confused on how the existing sources don't establish notability. There are reliable sources talking specifically with and about Ager's work, which by the way seems to be used around the world in film theory classes. His work is covered in a variety of news, from The Irish Times to Wired. And just a ton of books, from American Cosmic to The Screen Is Red to Esoteric Hollywood to Conspiracies Uncovered to The Suspense of Horror and the Horror of Suspense to Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo and the Hermeneutic Spiral. I could go on a lot longer if you want. SilverserenC 20:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what Silver seren said and presented. Peter303x (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm unsure about this. Notability for YouTubers (and other people mostly known for what they do online) is always a bit tricky to assess. Ager would certainly pass WP:NENTERTAINER criterion 2: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, but that has since been deprecated (I learned upon looking it up for this AfD). His videos/essays/theories/analyses have been cited a fair number of times as demonstrated above, but I'm not convinced that he meets either WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:NAUTHOR on account of this (I don't know that I would consider a chemist or journalist notable based on this level of coverage of their work). It might be better to cover what Ager says about specific pieces of media in the corresponding media articles (e.g. Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining (film)#Spatial layout of the Overlook Hotel, as noted in the previous AfD nomination) in WP:DUE proportion rather than having a biographical article where such content would (at least in my mind) seem a bit out of place. I would be interested in what the people who participated in the previous AfD back in 2015 think. @Silent Key, Ianmacm, Ormr2014, and Shrillpicc100: Care to weigh in? TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm also unsure about this. What is being proposed is not really a biography, more of an online résumé. Needs more depth.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what Silver seren presented. I'm pretty sure he passes based on 1-2 criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Koikefan (talk) 05:14, 25 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Alexander Campbell[edit]

Geoffrey Alexander Campbell (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 an unelected candidate he fails WP:NPOL and I can't see anything in WP:BEFORE in any other context to indicate that he passes WP:GNG. Ingratis (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless he passes WP:GNG for some other accomplishment. This is probably someone else with the same name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Politician who does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete defeated politicians are almost never notable, nothing suggests that Campbell is one of the very rare exceptions to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win; the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But there's no other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons being made here, and no discernible evidence that his candidacy would pass the ten year test as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Coming third in two parliamentary elections is not enough to justify an article. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 25 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 List of anime companies#Australia. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Visual[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Siren Visual (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 consensus at last AfD (12 years ago) and has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Has published allegedly-notable titles, but I couldn't see that overall it meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG - available sources are not strong. Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I would have gone for a merge and redirect to something like Anime in Australia, but there is no such article. I think this is important for the Australian context, but yes, it is as struggle to find enough to support the usual standard for notability. Aoziwe (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Keep looking at their page in the ANN encyclopedia (not a reliable source but it lists news articles about them), there do appear to be a few that may pass WP:CORPDEPTH, like this one or this one. Link20XX (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Update: Found more sources below. Link20XX (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking notability. The suggested sources above don't appear to be good sources, either. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you actually read them? The former of those is all about the company and no matter how you spin WP:CORPDEPTH, I would say it counts. Additionally, I found this in The Fandom Post (reliable per WP:ANIME/ORS) that not only is all about the company but also adds on some commentary about the acquisition and the company's history, which is one of the examples of non-trivial coverage. Oh and this from ScreenAnarchy (also reliable) also provides some commentary on Siren's title acquisitions. Link20XX (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read them. See my comments below. None meet NCORP. HighKing++ 10:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to List of anime companies#Australia as per WP:ATD. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria.
  • This from AnimeNewsNetwork is based entirely on a company announcement. First sentence confirms it. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Next from AnimeNewsNetwork is also based on a company press release. Also confirmed in the first sentence of the article. Most of the article discusses the titles that are about to be released and there is no in-depth information about the company. Also fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This from The Fandom Post is arguably not from a reliable source, looks more like a blog-type website with a number of contributors and plugs getting supported by Patreon. Leaving that aside, the "article" is reporting on "an update from another local distributor of cult films" that the topic company was acquired by them. So .. that would mean the "announcement" that the very short article is based on was potentially from the new owners (if the content was ever verified). This article fails WP:RS as we don't consider rumours and unverified statements as meeting the criteria for establishing notability.
  • This from Screen Anarchy is based entirely on an announcement on the topic company's website and facebook. No "Independent Content" and no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
I have been unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fandom Post is considered a reliable source for a few reasons (discussion), as well as Chris Beveridge being interviewed by Anime News Network (link), and his website has also been covered by them (link), in addition, he has been a guest of honor at Anime Boston (link). The Anime News Network article is also NOT a press release. Press releases on Anime News Network look like (this), and that one is clearly not like the press release I linked (it is also indicated in the url). In addition, the screenanarchy article has multiple paragraphs about the company after the announcement. If you ask me, you are setting the inclusion bar far too high. Link20XX (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I "left aside" my doubts on the reliability of Fandom Post (and I would argue that the "discussion" you pointed to resolves nothing) and explained why that source failed anyway. Based on your response, I recommend to pay particular attention to the requirements of "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND and pay particular attention to the wording used in my !vote. For example, I did not say that the Anime News Network article *is* a press release, I said that is was *entirely based* on a press release and that it contains no in-depth information on the topic company. Similarly, the Screen Anarchy reference is *based* on an announcement (and this is stated in the first sentence) and the rest of the article has zero information *on the company* which is the topic of this article. The inclusion bar is tough, on purpose and for good reasons. I do not believe my reading and interpretation is incorrect - read our guidelines. For example, WP:SNG specifically references the stricter requirements for companies/organizations. WP:SIRS specifically states what the Primary Criteria are and also says:
  • "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability."
I'm happy to look at any new references and if multiple references that meet both ORGIND and NCORP can be found, I'll change my !vote. HighKing++ 10:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article from The Fandom Post is not based on a rumor at all, and it provides a bit of commentary on the company and its history, thus it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The screenanarchy article also does just this after the announcement. I did some more looking and found this, this, and this. While the latter two are WP:INTERVIEWS, they do add commentary about the company. If these sources do not meet your high standards, would a possible ATD be redirecting it to List of anime companies#Australia. Link20XX (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect as you suggest. I've changed my !vote above to reflect this alternative. HighKing++ 15:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the sources I found are sufficient, particularly the refs from The Fandom Post (commentary on history), ScreenAnarchy (multiple paragraphs after the announcement), and the third of those 3 especially (3 paragraphs all on the company) is more than sufficient for notability. Link20XX (talk) 09:23, 25 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 nomination's complaint that the topic is not notable has been disproved by respectable scholarly examples. The complaint of ambiguity is not accepted as a reason to delete. Further discussion does not seem needed to reinforce these points. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 19:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social viewing[edit]

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

Ambiguous term, not a notable concept. Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 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 redirect to Two Dark Birds. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Koester[edit]

Steve Koester (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 WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Two Dark Birds, the band in which he finally achieved some minor notability after several local bands that received no significant media coverage. Note that much of this article is a repeat of the text from the Two Dark Birds article anyway. Since he formed that group, his early history can be discussed briefly at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect since he's only notable for being in the band Two Dark Birds, this doesn't warrant its own page. If he ever becomes known for solo music or involvement in other notable bands, then a page for him can be made. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:00, 25 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 deleted as nom... . -- Longhair\talk 12:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early Doors Football Podcast[edit]

Early Doors Football Podcast (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 about a 2 day old podcast that has aired just 1 episode to date, written by the host of the podcast. The article appears to bloat itself with more content about the host of the podcast than the actual podcast itself. -- Longhair\talk 11:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete not notable and promotional article. I think this is pretty self explanatory from reading the nomination. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:57, 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) — Bilorv (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milt's Stop & Eat[edit]

Milt's Stop & Eat (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:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. Some don't even mention the restaurant in the body of the article and most are ads or standard business listings or mere mentions-in-passing and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 11:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 11:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the following source assessment table:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
LA Times Yes Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (themselves, they went there). Yes WP:LATIMES Yes While not primarily about Milt's, the article contains three paragraphs about Milt's, including verifying information for the menu section, founding date, and location. ✔ Yes
NatGeo Yes Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (themselves, they went there). Yes WP:RS/PS#NatGeo Yes Contains just about all the coverage you can for a small restaurant. Explains what it is, where it is, how old it is, and what it serves. ✔ Yes
Chicago Tribune Yes Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (themselves, they went there). Yes There is a consensus that the Chicago Tribune is generally reliable. Yes Goes into detail about all aspects of the restaurant. ✔ Yes
Salt Lake Tribune Yes Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (themselves, they went there). Yes There is a consensus that the Salt Lake Tribune is generally reliable. Yes Contains just about all the coverage you can for a small restaurant. Explains what it is, where it is, how old it is, and what it serves. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 11:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response What utter nonsense. Take for example the NatGeo reference which FormalDude says "Contains just about all the coverage you can for a small restaurant". The article says exactly the following: "After riding, dusty spandex-clad bikers head to Milt’s Stop & Eat, a beloved 1954 diner that sells local beef and buffalo burgers and milkshakes whirled with handmade ice cream." This is not "significant coverage" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH which says Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. The other 4 references are equally poor. I realise FormalDude is the creator of the article but the source assessment table is just plain wrong and deliberately misleading. HighKing++ 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not going to be engaging with HighKing anymore. Editors can come to their own conclusions about whether a sentence that describes the location, age, menu, and and type of restaurant is an "overview, description, commentary, discussion." I think it clearly is. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equally I think editors can come to their own conclusions about whether a sentence is "deep and significant coverage". Or more like "trivial coverage" such as the examples found in CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 20:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whilst I don't typically prepare elaborate source assessment table during AFC reviews, I go through the each reference presented during the submission request. Yes, many references are by the way kind, but overall impression from the references is that the diner gets recommended as a stop for trails/visits in various independent and not local websites. Thus, I felt that it was sufficient for mainspace. P.S. This is probably one of the first AfDs on the drafts/articles I have reviewed. Whatever the outcome of this AfD, I will accept and improve my reviewing. – robertsky (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With the sources given by FormalDude, plus the New York Times, Runners World, and a bunch of other reviews: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], I would say there's enough in-depth sources to pass WP:PRODUCTREV and NCORP in general. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment . None of those references are "reviews", they are recommendations at best and therefore do not meet the criteria for establishing notability as per PRODUCTDEV. Has anybody actually reviewed this place in detail like a real restaurant review? HighKing++ 13:42, 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chatty Café Scheme[edit]

Chatty Café Scheme (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 article with insufficient references. Consensus has always been that MBE andOBE are not intrinsically notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the further references in the article now (only the Queen's Birthday was listed at the time that the request for deletion was made). The initiative's relevance derives IMHO from the national attention, the awards, and the implementation abroad including overseas. --Chris Howard (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Borderline WP:TOOSOON but maybe just about now? Passing mentions in academic sources: [24], [25], [26], no SIGCOV there but some in media. Still on the fence here, but this is not as bad as it could be (well, that's why we are discussing this and not speedying it, I guess). PS. Ping me if SIGCOV sources are presented or criticized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As main author of the article, I have further re-worked it adding information as to the organisation (registered as a community interest company in the UK), and I think I have finished the re-working at this point. Concerning relevance in terms of WP:NONPROFIT, I would note:
  • international scope (UK and Australia at least, with registered organizations there),
  • media coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization – the question of significant coverage is indeed borderline, the three most interesting possibly being:
Lammy, David (May 4, 2020). "The New Tribalism". Fabian Society. Retrieved 12 August 2021.
Thurnell-Read, Thomas (2021). "Open Arms: The Role of Pubs in Tackling Loneliness" (PDF). Retrieved 12 August 2021.
Green, Miranda (November 8, 2018). "Chatty cafés try to ease Britain's loneliness epidemic". Financial Times, ft.com. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
  • as additional consideration, factors that have contributed to widespread attention (support by notable politicians, Points of Light, Queen's Birthday Honors).
--Chris Howard (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response You say the sources are "independent of the organization" but they also need to be "intellectually independent". See WP:NCORP and especially the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections. HighKing++ 21:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite enough independent references. Rathfelder (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either mentions-in-passing or short articles based on an interview and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The Points of Light reference contains no in-depth information on the *organization*, fails CORPDEPTH. The NationalWorld reference also fails CORPDEPTH as it is just a mention-in-passing. *Each* reference needs to pass *both* WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 15:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough here for NCORP and GNG. The Financial Times article already mentioned is in depth and directly on the topic [27], and so is this article in The Telegraph. I've also found on ProQuest a number of local papers running short stories. Plus this book has a paragraph on it – not much by itself, but more than a trivial passing mention. Some local authorities for instance Dacorum have information pages on Chatty Cafes in their area and an award from the Prime Minister and a page on the PM's website isn't nothing. SpinningSpark 00:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the scattered pieces of coverage barely gets it over the line for WP:NORG in my book. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Achit Ikht Hydrometallurgical Plant[edit]

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

Poorly referenced promotional article. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 01:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 01:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 01:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 01:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Purely promotional throughout the article. JIP | Talk 00:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. An article reading as promotional is a reason to re-write the article, not delete it. Searching in Mongolian brings up additional sources. NemesisAT (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if additional sources that go towards establishing notability exist, then I've not found them. NemesisAT, could you post the sources you've found here so we can have a look? As far as I can tell this is your average metal processing plant that has received the type of run-of-the-mill coverage such installations always receive. (As an aside, I removed a fair bit of copyvio from the article just now - if this AfD closes as keep it'll need revdel.) firefly ( t · c )
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not convinced that WP:SOURCESEXIST based on WP:BEFORE. Even searching the Mongolian name (Ачит Ихт Гидрометаллургийн Үйлдвэр) doesn't come up with many sources, and unless another editor proves otherwise, this seems to fail WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the arguments made above. References fails WP:NCORP criteria and I'm unconvinced WP:SOURCESEXIST. HighKing++ 20:59, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katalina[edit]

Katalina (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 reference is a Billboard Hot 100 chart from 1996. It seems the claim to notability is that her song peaked at #86 but in my opinion that’s way too low. Hot 100 notability typically starts at Top 40. Either way there is no general notability. Trillfendi (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. WP:MUSICBIO states that an artist is notable if they have "had a single or album on any country's national music chart," and WP:GOODCHARTS cites the Billboard Hot 100. #86 on the Hot 100 almost certainly means a higher ranking on a genre-specific chart, which would would also qualify as a "national music chart," per WP:USCHARTS. However, the article obviously needs more sources. If it turns out that the Billboard chart is the ONLY reliable source, I might support deletion, but the Hot 100 placement implies that other sources exist, though they might be a little hard to find since it's a 25-year-old song. Niftysquirrel (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only other source that exists is a defunct regional alternative weekly newspaper from 11 years ago; even if she had continued her career it doesn’t offer anything beyond some trivia. Trillfendi (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Trillfendi, can you support your statement that there is only one other source that exists? That seems like an awfully bold claim considering this is from the very earliest days of the internet, and very little print material from this era has been digitized. I also disagree with the statement "Hot 100 notability typically starts at Top 40." I must have missed this discussion. If that's personal perspective that's fine. I would modify that to "unquestioned notability starts at Top 40", but per WP:MUSICBIO #2 this topic has a certain amount of presumed notability. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26: a throrough googling shows failure of sustained notability. Trillfendi (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheijiashaojun: Are people down here not understanding that when I said "defunct regional alternative weekly newspaper from 11 years ago" that doesn’t offer anything beyond trivia, this is the one I was referring to? (OC Weekly went out of business in 2019. It’s generous to even include it in the conversation of coverage—as the only option.) If this is all you can find or muster up that’s exactly the problem here. Trillfendi (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Trillfendi: Please be civil. No, I didn't know that's what you were talking about, because you weren't particularly clear. Sources don't cease to be sources when they go out of business. I also gave another source. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Billboard calling her a "teen diva." https://books.google.com.au/books?id=nAkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA8&dq=katalina+%22thump+records%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2kuuyuLLyAhUbMN4KHdSTCWYQ6AEwAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=katalina%20%22thump%20records%22&f=false Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - topic is notable as the artist appears on the Billboard Hot 100. There are myriads of music researchers, musicologists, and collectors for whom this achievement has great significance, and will seek to find further information on the topic because it will be listed in Pop Chart Alminacs going forward. Frankly the vast majority of the article should be removed because it fails WP:V. However, when that is removed more than a dictionary definition (i.e. "Katalina was a pop singer from the 1990s") will be left, and any information is better than none. I would be fine with merging the content elsewhere per WP:PRESERVE, but a decent target is not coming to mind. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:30, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Marks[edit]

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

Bruce Marks was a state legislator that served for less than a year 20 years ago and has lost every other election he's run for. Marks was using this article for lengthy self-promotion since at least 2011, when he was doing it with an actual account, last contributing to it in June 2021. His private legal career is not of relevance, even if he did briefly file lawsuits in support of the former President of the United States. TL;DR: Fails basic WP:GNG and basic WP:V. Should never have been an article. KingForPA (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: You seem to have misread WP:NPOL. This subject easily passes that criterion as he was a state senator. Curbon7 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A further point for the nominator: please do not remove wikilinks to this subject from other articles. Curbon7 (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being a state senator for less than a term without significant media coverage merely meets the secondary criterion of NPOL. It does not, on its own, establish notability. Unless it can be demonstrated that he's had significant coverage outside of being loosely connected to the former President, he still fails to meet NPOL. To quote: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Thanks! KingForPA (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • KingForPA, You are completely disregarding criteria 1. "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.". It doesn't matter how long he served as a state legislator for, he could've served for a single day and he would still pass this criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please see note 14: This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. This is not a case where the primary criterion is satisfied. Thanks! KingForPA (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • KingForPA, In certain cases, like with WP:NFOOTY, consensus has dictated that barely passing that criteria is considered a fail. However, the community consensus regarding WP:NPOL is that a subject that passes it is ipso facto notable. See this recent AfD from a few days ago as an example: [28]. Curbon7 (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, no, I wasn't saying it barely passed, I was saying it didn't pass at all. If Marks counts as notable, then Wikipedians have a hell of a lot of work to do, seeing as numerous current members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly don't have an article. Maintaining this single article that consists entirely of self-promotion and content copied-and-pasted from a small number of sources, including several that fail verification, because a group of 4 people (including yourself) interpret NPOL as declaring state legislators automatically notable, seems like a cut and dry case of WP:BURO, unless more independent, verifiable sources can be located reasonably. KingForPA (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have lots of articles on elected officials who didn't serve a full term, because they died or resigned. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NPOL was a Pennsylvania State Senator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep held a seat in a parliament; that's enough to pass NPOL. Nothing to stop a concerned editor from cleaning up the peacockery. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW keep – NPOL is interpreted to afford automatic notability for state senators such as Marks. And regardless, he has received significant media coverage: see [29], [30], [31], [32], etc. This is why NPOL exists: just because you don't see the sourcing right off the bat doesn't mean it isn't there. (Any issues with COIs or due weight can be dealt with through the ordinary processes; deletion is not cleanup.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. I entirely agree that the article has a history of conflict-of-interest/promotional editing, but that in of itself is not a reason to delete if the subject is otherwise notable - which as a former US State Senator this person is. firefly ( t · c ) 10:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear pass of WP:NPOL as a member of the Pennsylvania Senate. --Enos733 (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our rules for state legislators do not require the person to have completed any specific minimum number of terms to become notable enough for an article; if he's served in the legislature at all, then he's notable, because state legislators are one of those fields where it's extremely important, verging on mission critical, for us to be a complete and comprehensive reference for all of them. If there are COI problems here, they can be dealt through the normal editing process. And yes, one of the reasons we have SNGs like WP:NPOL in the first place, instead of just having WP:GNG alone, is precisely because there can be, and regularly is, a significant difference between the body of sourcing that exists and the subset of sourcing that Wikipedians have actually found and used (and that's especially true when a subject served in the 1990s and thus his sourcing might have to be retrieved from archived media coverage instead of just sitting out on the Google.) Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I disagree with KingForPA's criteria for deletion, they bring up an important facet of this situation. If Marks has been using this for self-promotion, or it has become the target of those with an outside COI, it should probably be under some sort of page protection (or at the very least tagged with a POV warning). However, this is not the venue for that. Bkissin (talk) 15:01, 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 delete. ✗plicit 09:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Conway (recording engineer)[edit]

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

Worked with a lot of stars, but fails WP:GNG. Article read like an ad, and that because the only significant source is an interview of him. Mottezen (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete recording engineers need much better sourcing to show notability. I do not care if you were the recording engineer for Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson and Prince, we need substantial reliable source coverage to show a person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kerf loss[edit]

Kerf loss (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:NOTDIC dictionary definition rsjaffetalk 04:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, duplicates content in Kerf, which redirects to Saw#Terminology rsjaffetalk 21:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:26, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koushik Das[edit]

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

Previously marked it for Speedy and deleted. And re-created by same user. Doubt on COI. Advert and Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor journalist and author of an non-notable book. The page can be re-created if/when he becomes notable, but he's not there yet. RomanSpa (talk) 09:51, 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. ✗plicit 03:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yogendra Puranik[edit]

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

Hardly goes beyond WP:GNG. Not sure a city council member of a city district is notable enough to warrant is own article, considering none of the other members do. The article is filled with WP:OR, and it's an obvious WP:COI situation going on with >90% of the article edited by one user named "Yogi3677", Yogi being the nickname of this politician himself, itself added by him without any source. See their contributions. He's literally editing using Wikipedia to write his own biography. Yuorvee (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A bit of procedural business first: it's certainly bordering dishonest by the nominator to state that the entire thing is the subject's autobiography; the article was originally created by Pharaoh of the Wizards, and Basil the Bat Lord cleaned up many of the self-inserts that the subject put in. The nominator suggests that "over 90% of the article" is self-edited; a 2 second search disproves that suggestion. And of course, while 52% authorship is still pretty bad as far as WP:COI goes, it's not necessarily a WP:TNT-worthy amount. The COI authorship will also go down considerably when all of the uncited bits are removed.
Now on regards of notability, I actually have to agree with the nomiantor with their statement of "Hardly goes beyond WP:GNG." Yeah ... GNG is all that's needed. Subject obviously fails WP:NPOL, but passes WP:GNG; "first Indian elected in Japan" is a solid claim, and there is considerable sourcing both in the Japanese Wikipedia article as well as in currently uncited news articles in both English and Japanese to prove that the subject passes WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 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) 04:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Keep a Secret? (song)[edit]

Can You Keep a Secret? (song) (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, failed to find reliable sources, doesn't meet notability guidelines under WP:MUSIC Gageills (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gageills (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gageills (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Gageills (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That this was a number one hit on the Japanese charts (indeed the number one hit of 2001 in Japan) should indicate to anyone that it has almost certainly received WP:Sigcov in multiple, reliable, independent sources, and looking at the corresponding Japanese article I see exactly this, including an article in Mainichi Shimbun and this (which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG). The state of referencing in the article does not matter, per WP:NEXIST what matters is whether it is possible to find reliable sources giving significant coverage, and it is. FOARP (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM #2, a song that charted at #1 for the whole year is near guaranteed to meet GNG (proof for charting claim: Inc, Nielsen Business Media (2001-12-29). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)) Jumpytoo Talk 06:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpytoo - Good catch, added that ref to the article. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 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 delete. There's a strong argument against redirecting that has not been addressed. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silverbrook Gardens, Delaware[edit]

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

Small neighborhood on the edge of Elsmere, no sign that this is a distinct or notable community. –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect > Elsmere, Delaware per Wikipedia:Geoland (If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it) and Wikipedia:ATD-R.Djflem (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Town articles should not even mention such generic subdivisions, so a redirect would not be appropriate, especially without minimal substantive coverage warranting inclusion. Do we have encyclopedic "information on the informal place" beyond existence as yet another surburban housing development? Reywas92Talk 04:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elsmere, Delaware; USGS topographic maps from TopoView show nothing of note there in 1906, 1948, 1967, or 1993; there doesn't seem to be any whiff of "Silverbrook Gardens" apart from a random GNIS entry at this location. I'll change to "keep" if anyone finds sources that show notability for this location. jp×g 21:26, 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 keep. ✗plicit 03:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

40 Years: A Charlie Brown Christmas[edit]

40 Years: A Charlie Brown Christmas (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 enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM, aside from the ubiquitous AllMusic listing (similar to a film being listed on imdb.com), there is the listing in discogs, and a review from a non-reliable source (those reviews are provided by members). Onel5969 TT me 00:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 00:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article has three critical sources and is linked to numerous other categories. All About Jazz is considered a significant source for jazz. Subject matter is based on one of the top selling holiday albums of all time, making it quite significant—compared to, say The Jethro Tull Christmas Album, Jazz Mission to Moscow, Suite for Pops, Penny Lane & Time, Our Mann Flute, et al. Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk)
  • Keep - We've been through the AllMusic thing plenty of times; see their entry on this list and the three linked discussions. They are sloppy with metadata like genre and album length, but their reviews written by staff members have been deemed reliable for our purposes again and again. And this album got one of those, not the mere "ubiquitous" entry as said dismissively by the nominator. All About Jazz is highly respected as well, as said by the person above. (Also note that the album was covered in a pro article at Jazz Times [33] but its quality is unknown because the site requires a subscription). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has plenty of reliable reviews and I can't see any reason to delete it. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:15, 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He Has Nothing But Kung Fu[edit]

He Has Nothing But Kung Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was able to find anything on my WP:BEFORE to support notability. The article has been tagged for not citing any sources for 5 years. Kolma8 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect to Lau Kar-wing, the film's director. Although that page is also not in good shape as far as references go. The director seems notable however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to Keep per Cunard. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, either works. This on it's own does not seem to pass WP:NFILM. There is only one review that I could find, from Far East Films.There doesn't seem to be any other coverage outside of this one review. This also seems to be an WP:ALLPLOT article.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have included 2 reviews and 1 reference in English language. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While WP:BEFORE was fruitless, WP:AFTER has yielded solid sources thanks to Cunard (talk · contribs). Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cunard found a lot of sources for this. Once they get added to the page this should be a shoe-in! BuySomeApples (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Canard's work. Good job there. Prior to that, there were two reviews, not sure how "nationally renowned" they were, but that and some other things I am not aware of out there can probably bring this article eventual notability with some work. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:06, 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. ✗plicit 14:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

João Zeferino[edit]

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

Technically fails WP:MMA notability guidelines by having only 2 fights in top tier promotions. Also fails WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 19:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 19:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 19:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Doesn't meet MMA notability guidelines or have the coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 00:19, 25 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 to Great Debates (international relations). Consensus to merge content as per nomination, supported by !votes. Article should then point to merge target as a section redirect. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-paradigm debate in international relations theory[edit]

Inter-paradigm debate in international relations theory (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 pointless stub fork of Great Debates (international relations). There is no justification for keeping a single article on what is essentially one paragraph in the main article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I would have just done a bold merge myself, seems obvious it doesn't need a separate article for a paragraph. Reywas92Talk 01:41, 12 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, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neydson da Silva[edit]

Neydson da Silva (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 played 1 minute of professional football. The player has now dropped to the Norwegian fourth tier, so him still being an active footballer is not relevant, cf. many previous discussions. Geschichte (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is 24 years passes WP:FOOTY and is actively playing has played last month in July 2021and is pursuing a career at a lower division and as a goalkeeper has a career at least over a decade if he had retired or been injured it was different but the subject is actively playing see little point deleting it. There is coverage in the Norwegian language 1 ,2 3 ,4 appears to behind a paywall hence cannot see it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SNGs including WP:FOOTY ,WP:NBASKETBALL ,WP:NCRIC exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not pass GNG and is very far from it. Geschichte (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about former Molde youth footballer who made a single appearance in a fully-pro league. There is no online Norwegian-language coverage other than transfer announcements and match reports (no SIGCOV), so it appears to be a comprehensive failure of WP:GNG. Accordingly, the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL isn't valid. Jogurney (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Pharaoh of the Wizards. Multiple sources available, passes WP:NFOOTY. NemesisAT (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are small local newspapers that in these four cases write about trivial occurences. Far below GNG bar. Geschichte (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG does not exclude local coverage. NemesisAT (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We generally don't think of transfer announcements as anything but routine coverage. The articles linked above are far below the threshold of WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is coverage in ESPN ,Digisport ,Goal amongst others and other foreign language sources. There are atleast 10 articles about the subject right from 2015 to date. The subject passes WP:NFOOTY and disagree with your claim this is a comprehensive GNG failure , the subject was a teamate of Erling Haaland .Have added references. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those articles appear to be superficial coverage of Neydson. The articles are about Haaland, and the author has interviewed Neydson for comments about Haaland. Sorry that's not SIGCOV of Neydson. Jogurney (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we need more than routine coverage like transfer announcements, contract renewals etc. to establish GNG. I completely agree with Jogurney that quotes from the player in relation to another player like Haaland do not establish notability for Neydson as such reporting does not demonstrate significant coverage of Neydson himself Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep passes NFOOTY and scrapes by GNG in my opinion.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I again iterate that his claimed NFOOTBALL pass is made up by one - 1 - minute of play. Geschichte (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one minute of professional football, in the complete absence of any GNG-compliant sources, does not make someone notable. The idea is patently absurd. It's also in violation of NSPORTS, which clearly states in the FAQ that articles must pass GNG even if they pass the SNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 27 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 to Dassault Systèmes. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virtools[edit]

Virtools (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 WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 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. SpinningSpark 19:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrebleu[edit]

Sacrebleu (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:NOT#DICT 8ya (talk • contribs) 13:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreed, Delete, this article is clearly a (valid) dictionary entry, not an encyclopaedia article. Elemimele (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, though I prefer to write as two words with an accent: Sacré bleu. Athel cb (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - common parlance and foreign language exclamations that have become English idioms (of a sort) are often the subject of coverage in reliable sources, as is the case here and here, and ancillary explanatory mentions like this, this, and this. That the article is in need of work to make it less a dictionary definition and more an encyclopedic article is a fixable problem. St★lwart111 05:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 2nd link isn't really notable coverage though. The google books links don't work here (unless you wanted to just link the books without any passage), but from what you said they don't seem to be significant coverage. 8ya (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why so? It's a whole paragraph specifically about the term, in an article that uses the term in the title. The books aren't significant coverage, but taken together they are coverage in multiple, reliable sources and probably get to the level of significant combined. We wouldn't rely on those alone for significant coverage, but in this case we don't have to. St★lwart111 23:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it being in the title makes it more notable, and in the article it self all the coverage it gets is saying that it's not used anymore and a sentence about its etymology. I found out that google books has a search function, and those are definitely not significant coverage. The first one is just using the term, the second one is just saying what it means for the patent name, the third one is a 8 word sentence stating the dieu -> bleu. 8ya (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I called them "ancillary explanatory mentions" and then said, "The books aren't significant coverage". We agree there, I think. But as I said, the other significant coverage is enough for me anyway. St★lwart111 23:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we just disagree and the significance then ^^
Also for what it's worth none of these mentions have much more than a dictionary entry given. 8ya (talk • contribs) 00:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; there are reliable sources given in the article for the existence and use of this phrase. It's hard to figure out what the deletion rationale is supposed to be here. jp×g 02:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these fulfills WP:WORDISSUBJECT though 8ya (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one (and all the others I could find/saw) falls under WP:WORDISSUBJECT though, no? 8ya (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge e.g. to minced oath. The sources on the specific expression sacrebleu are extremely thin, a majority of the article is about other words of the same nature. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article gets 393 pageviews a day on average. Current weakness of the article is unfortunate, but the topic is the subject of secondary analysis, not just etymology, but usage. Abductive (reasoning) 06:46, 29 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 14:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eno On The Trck[edit]

Eno On The Trck (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:NMUSICOTHER. One of the refs doesn't work. Two are more like press releases, and the others are all Twitter. Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete doesn't appear to be have significant enough coverage of him to be notable (a lot of the refs seem to be verifying his interaction with certain projects, but not documenting him more thoroughly), though I can't verify for certain due to foreign-language sources. Biographical information in the current article is very poorly sourced, which doesn't give me particular confidence of the subject's notability. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing coming up other than SoundCloud, Genius, Spotify and other unacceptable sources. Notability is not achieved by being associated with a few notable people loosely, he needs to be notable in his own right and there's simply no evidence that he is Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_August_19&oldid=1042249518"