Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 21	August 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Webster (orator)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because this person was not notable in any way at all. He had no career, was not known to the general public and did nothing of any note. In other words, he doesn't pass the notability test.Sardaka (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD has been formalized per Wikipedia:Help_desk#John_Webster_(orator). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article indicate that he passes WP:GNG, which is the minimum standard for notability. Looks fine to me. --Jayron 32 16:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Sardaka, you cite "the notability test". Which notability test would that be? -- Hoary (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A comment in the article's talk page implies that the nominator knew the subject of the article and didn't like him. That is not a valid reason for deletion. I'd never heard of this guy, but he has the coverage in RS that he needs for an article here. Being "known to the general public" (how would you determine that anyway?) is not the test we apply. Chuntuk (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the comment consists of three quasi-sentences, of which the first is "Probably wouldn't pass the notability test if anyone cared to apply it, if they had nothing better to do." Again, Sardaka cites "the notability test" -- but of course as it was on 9 November 2015. Well, here we have WP:Notability (people) of that time. Item 1 within its nutshellized version: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Between 2015 and now, "he or she has" has become "they have", but it's otherwise unchanged. Having no career, not being known to the general public, and doing nothing of any note are perhaps criteria of Sardaka's invention. -- Hoary (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's plenty of reliable sources (and I'm not surprised, this sounds like a wacky dude!) BuySomeApples (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Orotundity is not a reason to delete, but the article was and I think still is somewhat windy. I've streamlined it a little; others are welcome to correct or continue my work. -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources are given asserting that the person is notable. Thus, the nominator's reasons for deleting the article do not hold water. Gaff (talk) 15:27, 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Marine Group[edit]

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

~~There is no significant coverage to have a wikipedia article. Could not find any useful sources.~~ Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the recent improvements made on the article, I wish to withdraw my nomination. Im with the opinion that the article now satisfies GNG criteria. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete (that is deletion should be treated as a WP:PROD deletion). Except for possibly the second citation from Times of India (which could be a press release, it's hard to tell), I don't see any significant coverage of this company. The statements made in the article are credible assertions of significance, which protect it from speedy deletion, but it seems that a company of this size and reach is likely notable should have more coverage. So I'd say, soft-delete it for now, allowing it to be restored later if further sources are found. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good effort, but those references aren't any good. All but two are trivial mentions, and of those two that aren't, one is about another company and the other one, which actually has decent coverage, has no byline at all, suggesting it's a press release. WP:CORPDEPTH is required. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did a Google news search and found many many more news. I have added a few more sentences and citations. The company is notable.Webmaster862 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Webmaster862: see, that's the problem. Those sources have no bylines either, suggesting press releases or fed to the publication by the company, and the new one from hellenicshippingnews says at the bottom "Source: Synergy Group". Yes, there is coverage, but not independent coverage. And the book citation? Come on. That doesn't even mention the company, it just has the keywords "synergy" and "group". ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete : As per nominator. Iamfarzan (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep as per WP:HEY. Iamfarzan (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have removed advertisment like portions from the article and added some reliable sources. I think they are giving enough significant coverage, if not alone then combined together. Alphaonekannan (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had made the wish to withdraw this nomination at the top. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:26, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand Dragon[edit]

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

Promotional effort that is one of the series of articles on artist/architect Mario Kleff by a blocked COI/UPE editor. There is no indication that the subject of the article meets our notability criteria for WP:GNG. The article is supported by one citation which seems to be a press release in a trade journal, not a particularly reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it is probably an advert. It states it was built for Mario Kleff in 2010. It is just another custom bike. I don't think it is necessarily notable. scope_creep^Talk 23:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article by a blocked WP:UPE for a one-off modified motorcycle, supported by a single non-independent reference. So there's a few issues here... Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the single source doesn't mention the name "Thailand Dragon". Vexations (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator Idunnox3 (talk) 22:58, 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 merge to KL-ONE. – bradv^🍁 02:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krypton (programming language)[edit]

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

Non-notable programming language. All primary search results return either a variation of this page or pages that originated from this. Article has not grown in the near 20 years since it was created. I can't find anything that would determine notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into KL-ONE. Krypton is a derivative of KL-ONE (reading the linked reference) so a brief mention there would preserve the knowledge. rsjaffe talk 22:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe: I am uncertain if it is a derivative or simply a language that used principles from KL-ONE. The ref part you may be referring to says "KRYPTON developed mainly out of work on KL-ONE"; assuming it's an actual derivative, whilst not wholly unlikely, isn't necessarily obvious. The prose of this article is 1 sentence just stating that it is/was a language, so I am unsure what knowledge is preserved. If I thought a merge would benefit, I'd have done that instead of an AfD. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading the article, it looks like the Tbox is a KL-One derivative but the Abox is not. However, the article is not at all clear about the relationships, so I kind of agree with you. I'm going to alter my recommendation to merge with Ontology language where it would fit in the list in Ontology_language#Traditional_syntax_ontology_languages. rsjaffe talk 18:51, 26 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) 23:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into KL-ONE as suggested above.--Bduke (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Sufficient knowledge exists to be included in wikipedia, but they are not significant enough to warrant a standalone article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but change target from my original suggestion. After looking at documentation again, its relationship with KL-ONE is less certain, but it certainly is an Ontology language and would suitably be an entry in the list Ontology_language#Traditional_syntax_ontology_languages with the reference as a footnote. So merge into Ontology language. rsjaffe talk 18:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KL-ONE. Per page 17 of this journal work, page 2 of this journal article and page 7 of this one, Krypton is a hybrid successor of KL-ONE with an Abox and Tbox component. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, topic is best covered within KL-ONE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narayana Verlag[edit]

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

The subject does not meet the notability requirements for organizations and companies WP:NCORP, because there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this publisher. It has two sources: The about page of the subject is not independent, and the article in the Badische Zeitung is an interview with the owners of the company, who make unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of homeopathy. It is therefor not a reliable source. Additionally, it is part of a small cluster of related subjects that are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedic article; Draft:Homeopathy for Acutes and Emergencies and Draft:Radhey Shyam Pareek that have similar problems. Homeopathy for Acutes and Emergencies has been rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Radhey Shyam Pareek has been declined twice because it does not show significant coverage of the subject. Vexations (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor sourcing. scope_creep^Talk 23:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hard to find information and sources on account of being a publisher and most sources being in German. The only reasonable source I found was this one, which has a paragraph about the publisher. Passing mention in questionable source here. A few other passing mentions. Otherwise, doesn't meet WP:GNG although I will update my vote if sources are identified by folks more knowledgeable about German media. Suriname0 (talk) 05:00, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Venezia[edit]

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, Ticket:2021082210006274. Barely notable (at best) footballer of no particular importance. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the ticket is about, I don't seem to be able to access it. The article easily passes WP:NFOOTY, Venezia has made 41 appearances in the fully professional Serie C. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon the ticket is only available only to admins? If is indeed about a complaint from the subject as Jéské Couriano indicates, I wouldn't be surprised. There has been an editor I suspect of being the subject or a representative who has gone to great lengths in trying to shape the article: Tim.1944.Au and their sockpuppets. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and am going off of what a helpee from #wikipedia-en-help has asked after; said helpee claims to be the subject, naturally, and demanded we delete the page because we refused to accept the primary sources they were offering for the purposes of updating the article. They've also stated the article is incorrect, but when pressed just throw sources at us instead of actually explaining what's amiss. Since they were told to contact the VRT in -en-help the last time they came around, I'd imagine the ticket is genuine, but the end goal is, as far as I can tell, basically them dictating the content. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I suspect the complaining from the subject is because they want to dictate the content. They can either provide third-party reliable sources for their claims or disengage. Article passes WP:NFOOTY as the player has played in a fully-pro league, so the notability concerns are at best misguided. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete based off of the research and investigation of the users below. This also explains why the subject has been so damned insistent on trying to cite Tuttocalciatori. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 14:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete assuming the OTRS ticket is valid (and I trust the nom that it is), I guess WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies here. Although he probably does pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's more to this than initially meets the eye.

The Tuttocalciatori source says he made numerous Serie C1/C2 appearances for Gela Calcio, but that club's website, readily accessible via archive.org for the relevant time period, doesn't list him in their squad: this link is for February 2007, but plenty of other dates exist;

It also helpfully lists all goalscorers in their division: this link is for 2007/08, and doesn't include his name; according to Tuttocalciatori, he scored 3;

Tuttocalciatori list 26 appearances in 2011/12 C2 for Valenzana: Soccerway gives him 2 squad inclusions as an unused substitute;

Tuttocalciatori also give him several seasons as a regular with Miami FC: Soccerway doesn't list him in that team's squad: select seasons via dropdown.

This was raised at the previous AfD, but not convincingly enough. It's a pity, because in my naivety I thought Tuttocalciatori was moderately reliable, but in this case it looks like they've been scammed. We don't have to be. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The claim in the article is that Venezia played for Miami United FC, a semi-professional club in the National Premier Soccer League; *not* Miami FC, who are a professional club playing at the time in the North American Soccer League. While this doesn't change the notability claims, it also shouldn't impact the potential for this to be a scam article. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment re Miami FC is relevant to the (un)reliability of the Tuttocalciatori source on which the subject's claim to a WP:NFOOTY pass solely rests. That source lists both Miami United (one season) and Miami FC (five seasons). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a second source to validate that Venezia played for Gela (just the unreliable tuttocalciatori.it). Thus, it appears the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and I can't find any SIGCOV to demonstrate it might satisfy WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per excellent research by Struway above - and in the absence of any professional appearances and significant coverage, he is not notable. Giant Snowman 14:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The same person who claimed to be the subject yesterday came back to -en-help and demanded we delete the article immediately. When I brought up the analysis above, they insisted that Tuttocalciatori "provide[s ]real statistics or almost real" (emphasis added). If this page is deleted, it needs to be ECP salted so that any future attempts go through the drafting process, considering the apparent socking that's happened here and the subject's pushing of this obviously useless source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 17:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage for the player. Also support ECP salting per above due to persistent sockpuppetry Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 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. czar 02:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special Herbs: The Box Set Vol. 0–9[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-Wikipedia tone, non-notable, doesn't deserve an article of its own. Peter Ormond 💬 19:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MF Doom discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Aside from AllMusic and Prefix, I found a couple of reliable sources which talk about the compilation: [1] and [2]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Superastig: I wasn't able to spot them when I did a WP:BEFORE. Now I'm convinced enough with those sources. SBKSPP (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources mentioned by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:24, 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 redirect to Bury the Hatchet (album). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copycat (The Cranberries song)[edit]

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

Non-notable promotional single released only in Spain. As per WP:NMUSIC, notability is not inherited from the band. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bury the Hatchet (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:31, 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 redirect to If I Left the Zoo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hand (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song that doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NSONG. Question mark over general notability for over 10 years. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why was this taken to AfD? This could have easily been a PROD that I would have supported. Did not chart. Not a likely search term, but even if it were, there's dab for that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to If I Left the Zoo. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. There are lots of songs which are named hands and this song is an exception. Maybe this is the only song with that kind of title. SBKSPP (talk) 02:31, 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 redirect to Institute for Adult Learning. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ong Tze Ch'in[edit]

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

Not sure whether this Singaporean Brigadier general is notable enough for inclusion or not. Seems a bit tenuous in retrospect (I created the original stub). Uhooep (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Generals are always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain please provide the policy that states that. Mztourist (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. Singapore generals are dime a dozen. Notability of many of these generals are gained either as Chief of Army/Air Force/Navy, or when they have gained reputation in their non-military offices. 2. WP:NSOLDIER has been deprecated by WP:BIO, thus the statement that 'generals are always notable' cannot be assertively true on wikipedia. 3. WP:SIGCOV not met. IAL and mindef sources are primary, and do not denote the notability of the subject. Malay Mail source is about LKY's death, not the subject. Even the RS article about his appointment to IAL (and appointments of other civil servants) lacks sigcov. P.S. I don't mind a redirect to other pages such as Institute for Adult Learning like what it was seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Yi-Jin, if it is warranted. – robertsky (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Institute for Adult Learning per Robertsky. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Christie (journalist)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect the difficulty in finding online sources is down to Christie's prominence coming in the 70s and 80s. She was a senior news journalist in BBC Scotland and a regular presence on current affairs programmes, particularly Reporting Scotland on which she was an almost daily presence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...so Keep. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I realise that the article could do with improvement, but she was a leading TV journalist in Scotland for several years. PatGallacher (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's just an example of her TV journalism: [3] PatGallacher (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Have we got any reason to think the above described coverage wasn't enough to make her notable then? If she was then, she is now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would agree about the fact that sources are limited (in part because of a general lack of online sources about Scottish broadcast news pre-1990s), but as noted she was a significant figure in Scottish television news for many years. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 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/no consensus. I think there's a clear consensus to delete Anja Reinke, but no consensus for Gary Bric, which probably should not have been bundled into this AfD in the first place. Accordingly, I am going to close this AfD and recommend that the nom (if they still want to argue for deletion) starts a new discussion for Bric that clearly links to this one, and pings the participants to advise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anja Reinke[edit]

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

Local politician fails WP:NPOL. Mayors of Burbank are elected by their city council colleagues, not the local electorate. KidAd • SPEAK 18:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because the mayor is similarly non-notable:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gary Bric, who is probably more notable as a restaurant owner (according to the references supplied) than as a municipal politician. Undecided about Anja Reinke Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wrong. Per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable.. He is the owner of a roadside diner. Give me a break. KidAd • SPEAK 21:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fail to see how the Burbank's system of choosing mayors is relevant. WP:NPOL doesn't distinguish between direct elections, indirect elections, appointments, games of chance, or armed coups. If the holders of the position are notable, then it doesn't matter how they got there. The more relevant section is WP:POLOUTCOMES which says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD." I'm not sure if Burbank qualifies given that it is, in my view, a satellite of Los Angeles. pburka (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The selection of mayor can be important for a couple of reasons. First, an independently elected mayor must reach out to their entire constituency to gain election. This brings more notability and visibility to the position and second, a strong mayor usually has independent authority to enact or implement policies and set the direction for the jurisdiction. In both cases, this means it is more likely that the subject will get independent coverage and that the coverage provides sufficient information about the policies and projects they spearheaded while in office. --Enos733 (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability test for mayors is not just the size of the city per se — merely asserting that a city is "regionally significant" (outdated language that should actually be removed from POLOUTCOMES, because how we gauge mayoral notability has significantly evolved since that was written) is not in and of itself an exemption from the article actually having to pass WP:NPOL #2 on properly sourced evidence of the mayor's significance. The notability test for a mayor is not passed just by minimally verifying that he or she exists, or by the old "mayors are inherently notable if the city meets or exceeds 50K in population" test that we abandoned several years ago: it's passed by showing a substantial volume and depth of coverage demonstrating his or her political impact: specific things he or she did, specific projects he or she spearheaded, specific effects he or she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. And while it's true that NPOL doesn't explicitly state a distinction between directly elected executive vs. rotational, council-selected or ceremonial mayors per se, it is profoundly unlikely (though I won't say completely impossible) that the required notability standard can ever actually be attained by a non-executive non-elected mayor, precisely because that type of mayor just chairs the meetings and doesn't control the agenda. There's just no automatic presumption of notability for mayors regardless of whether they were directly elected or appointed from within council, and neither of these articles is meeting the standard they would need to meet. And no, owning a local restaurant isn't a notability freebie either, in the absence of much broader coverage in that context than just a couple of community hyperlocals. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anja Reinke; the WP:NPOL test for Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage includes in footnote 8 A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, and none of the criteria, including WP:GNG, appear to be supported for this article. Weak Keep for Gary Bric, because by these same standards, the 2014 LAEater coverage of him as a political figure and restaurant owner, the 2009 Burbank Leader/LA Times coverage of him becoming mayor, and this 2009 Q & A with leading questions about his role as mayor that add secondary context, as well as the 2018 coverage of the restaurant closure owned by "former Burbank council member and mayor Gary Bric" support some WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a small smattering of campaign coverage in the local media is not sufficient to get a mayor (or candidate for mayor) over WP:GNG all by itself — every candidate for mayor of everywhere can always show some of that, because covering local mayoral elections is a core part of local media's job, so the mayoral notability test requires a lot more than that: such as extralocal coverage demonstrating a much wider nationalized profile, and/or the ability to write and source genuinely substantial content about specific things he actually accomplished in the job. And by the same token, local restaurant owners don't automatically clear the bar just because a small smattering of local coverage exists either, for very similar reasons: they still require more than just a couple of hits of verification that they exist as local restaurateurs. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Both subjects fail WP:NPOL and Bric fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. The LA Eater review only contains two sentences that add to our understanding of Bric - that he served as mayor and that he owned the restaurant since 1993. This is far from significant coverage of the subject and I don't think the reviews would pass WP:NORG. --Enos733 (talk) 15:56, 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 keep. WP:SNOW keep. There is overwhelming consensus that the subject of this article passes WP:NPROF. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Frese[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence the subject meets NPROF or GNG; subjective claims of citations and h-index are meaningless. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What about objective claims of citations and h-index? I'll add metrics on him compared to his coauthors shortly, but while this is a high-citation field, I'm certain his h-index of 63 puts him well above the average of other researchers, as do his 17000+ total citations and multiple papers with over 500 citations. JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the Scopus metrics for all 111 of his coauthors with 20+ papers: Total citations: average: 4470, median: 2767, Frese: 17343. Total papers: avg: 75, med: 49, F: 168. h-index: avg: 26, med: 21, F: 63. Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 702, med: 661, F: 1489. 2nd: avg: 425, med: 372, F: 802. 3rd: avg: 324, med: 257, F: 774. 4th: avg: 253, med: 197, F: 749. 5th: avg: 205, med: 160, F: 737. He's around 4 standard deviations above the average... JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. per GS citations and h-index. Clearly meets WP:NPROF#1 so the justification of the AfD is flawed. Yes, "subjective claims of citations and h-index are meaningless" but please do a WP:BEFORE and the minimum amount of research would have shown this to be an extremely highly cited researcher. --hroest 19:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Stunning pass of WP:Prof. This bizarre nomination deserves a WP:Trout. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. We often use 1000 citations as the bar for notability for an academic. This person has 61 times as many. The nom might consider to withdraw this nomination. The article needs work, not an AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Randykitty, FYI 1000 is waaaay too low for most fields, and especially in psych -- the median for Frese's coauthors (which include techs, grad students, postdocs, and assistant profs, all of whom are extremely rarely found NPROF-notable) is 2767 citations on Scopus (which excludes around 1/3 to 1/2 the citations GS captures). JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - I completely agree, nevertheless, this is the current practice. Personally I feel that our standards for academics (and academic journals) are much too lax. Consensus is different though. Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randykitty (talk • contribs)
    - I don't think it is current practice. These discussions typically look at the h-index first. The only times I can recall a citation count over 1,000 being treated as meaningful is when there were more than 1,000 citations to individual papers, which is a bigger accomplishment than 1,000 citations spread out over a whole career. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google profile with h-index of 111 and multiple papers with more than 1,000 citations passes NPROF C1.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a little confused by how citations can be subjective. This seems very notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman, it's snowing... --Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Randykitty: And? NPROF C1 provides no numerical guidance on what "highly cited" means, so all the keep !voters are really !voting ILIKEIT and believe me, I'm taking down names. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, yes, do take down my name. An h-index of 111, even in GScholar which inflates citation rates, is something only very few researchers attain. Articles cited >1000 times are extremely rare, too. If that doesn't meet WP:NPROF#C1 I don't now what does. --Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please take my name too. Of course WP:PROF#C1 doesn't give numerical guidance, because the numbers are very different according to the field of study. All that means is that we have to take care in deciding whether any particular subject passes, not that we should ignore the guideline altogether. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what, in your opinion, would meet C1? Having five times the standard deviation of average citations in a subfield instead of just four? An h-index three times higher than the median rather than 2.9 times? JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take down my name. I have taken down yours[4], which looks like heading for a topic ban due to inability to edit in consensus with other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
"Providing numerical guidance" wouldn't actually make WP:PROF#C1 any more "objective"; it would just draw a "subjective" line that multiple editors agreed upon. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. C1 may require some subjective interpretation, but in that sense it is no different than GNG, which requires subjective interpretation of whether sources are "multiple", "independent", and "in-depth". The nominator's suggestion that subjectivity invalidates that criterion is ridiculous, unworkable, and tendentious. But setting all that aside, #C3 is not anywhere near as subjective as C1 or GNG, and is clearly satisfied in this case by membership in the Leopoldina. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Plenty of citations for WP:NPROF C1, even in a high citation field, and membership in the German National Academy of Science is a clear and unambiguous pass of WP:NPROF C3. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:48, 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 Yankees HOPE Week#2021. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Goldman[edit]

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

dePRODded citing GNG, but BLP1E expicitly says, " Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" She was a low profile individual prior to being selected as an honorary bat girl, and there is no indication of lasting notability. While a redirect to HOPE Week wouldn't be amiss, the Yankees honor multiple people each year, and there's no indication she stands out. Star Mississippi 17:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG. A feel good story that fails BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as I said in the prod seems to be a perfect case of WP:BIO1E. Outside this incident, no in-depth coverage to show notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Yankees HOPE Week#2021 per WP:ATD. pburka (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 23:30, 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. Consensus here is that NAUTHOR is barely passed. Weak keep is still keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silvester Brito[edit]

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

He exists, but I couldn't see the level of significance or coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support deletion. The main mentions of him are on Wikipedia mirror sites. There are no articles about him. Yuchitown (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found and added to the article five reviews of three of his books, so there's a case for WP:AUTHOR. However, three of them are in the same journal as each other, so they're not as independent as they might be. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. per David Eppstein, fails WP:NPROF but should be enough for WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 17:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, passes NAUTHOR, albeit barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All the keep supports are expressed weakly and without conviction. Some more input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 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. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Jamar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG TheChronium 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, subject has been nominated for a major award several times passes #8WP:MUSICBIO. -Xclusivzik (talk) 14:40, 22 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)} 17:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, aside subject passing criteria 8 of WP:MUSIC for several nominations at the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards & 3Music Awards, subject is also featured on different notable newspapers and magazines including The Ghanaian Times, ModernGhana, Daily Graphic, News Ghana, Yen, TooXclusive, Joy FM, GhanaWeb and more. See here . The article just need expansion since it is a stub. Richloveburner (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Richloveburner. It looks like this easily meets gng. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:53, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Ebrahim Amerian[edit]

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

Previously speedy deleted article on a producer who does not appear to meet any criteria under WP:CREATIVE, the award is not enough for WP:ANYBIO and the coverage falls short on WP:GNG. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE search in Persian. Will likely be WP:G5 eligible; SPI significantly backlogged so will take a while to get to the case that has only just been logged today.

Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment - no evidence of GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.sourehcinema.com/People/People.aspx?Id=139803050000			Database page	✘ No
https://www.javanonline.ir/fa/news/979248/%D8%A2%DB%8C%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%B3%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%AA%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%87-%DA%A9%D9%86%D9%86%D8%AF%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%DB%B1%DB%B2-%D8%AA%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%87-%DA%A9%D9%86%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87			Mentioned once in passing	✘ No
https://www.cinemapress.ir/tag/%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D9%85+%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C+%D8%AA%DA%AF%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B3		?	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.salamcinama.ir/movie/YmEN/%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%AA			Database page	✘ No
https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1398/10/28/2184216/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%B2-%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D9%85-%DA%A9%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C			Mentioned twice in passing	✘ No
https://www.isna.ir/news/99080100448/%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D9%85-%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B1%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%84-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA			One quote from him not enough for WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
https://www.mehrnews.com/news/4776957/%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B1%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%84-%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%DA%A9%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%B8%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%AF%D9%87%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D9%85-%DA%A9%D9%88%D8%AF%DA%A9-%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%85			Just regurgitating a quote from him, no depth or analysis	✘ No
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fa&u=https://www.salamcinama.ir/news/6183/%25D9%2585%25D8%25B9%25D8%25B1%25D9%2581%25DB%258C-%25DA%25A9%25D8%25A7%25D9%2585%25D9%2584-%25D9%2581%25DB%258C%25D9%2584%25D9%2585-%25DA%25A9%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B1%25DA%25AF%25D8%25B1-%25D8%25B3%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AF%25D9%2587-%25D9%2586%25DB%258C%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B2%25D9%2585%25D9%2586%25D8%25AF%25DB%258C%25D9%2585-%25D8%25B3%25D9%2588%25D8%25AF%25D8%25A7%25DB%258C-%25D8%25B3%25DB%258C%25D9%2585%25D8%25B1%25D8%25BA-%25D8%25B3%25DB%258C-%25D9%2588-%25D9%25BE%25D9%2586%25D8%25AC%25D9%2585%25DB%258C%25D9%2586-%25D8%25AC%25D8%25B4%25D9%2586%25D9%2588%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B1%25D9%2587-%25D9%2581%25DB%258C%25D9%2584%25D9%2585-%25D9%2581%25D8%25AC%25D8%25B1&prev=search&pto=aue		?	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.khabaronline.ir/news/617814/%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%85-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B9%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%85%DB%8C-%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%85-%DA%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1%DB%8C			Brief quote from him	✘ No
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fa&u=https://www.salamcinama.ir/news/69134/%25D9%2586%25D8%25AE%25D8%25B3%25D8%25AA%25DB%258C%25D9%2586-%25D8%25A2%25D8%25A6%25DB%258C%25D9%2586-%25D8%25B3%25D9%25BE%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B3-%25D8%25AA%25D9%2587%25DB%258C%25D9%2587-%25DA%25A9%25D9%2586%25D9%2586%25D8%25AF%25DA%25AF%25D8%25A7%25D9%2586-%25D8%25B3%25DB%258C%25D9%2586%25D9%2585%25D8%25A7%25DB%258C-%25D8%25A7%25DB%258C%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A7%25D9%2586&prev=search&pto=aue	Duplicate of ref #2		Mentioned once in passing	✘ No
http://www.pana.ir/News/833833	Content is from Amerian		An open letter from him copied and pasted onto a news site	✘ No
https://www.isna.ir/news/98110603915/%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA%DA%A9%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%85%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%81%D8%B1-%D9%88-%D9%BE%DA%98%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C			Again just a couple of quotes, no actual analysis	✘ No
https://www.cinemapress.ir/news/113338/%D8%AA%DA%AF%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%BE%D9%86%D8%AC%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%AF			Routine press announcement with no biographical coverage	✘ No
https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1398/09/03/2145352/%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%85-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C-%DA%A9%D9%88%D8%AF%DA%A9-%D8%AC%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA			More recycling of the same brief quotes featured in many of the above sources. Again no analysis or actual secondary coverage about Amerian himself.	✘ No
https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%85_%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86		Wikipedia is not a valid reference		✘ No
https://www.filimo.com/crew/%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%85-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86		Iranian version of IMDb		✘ No
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}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, as a native speaker, I checked the sources myself and second what spiderone has found Mardetanha (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the brilliant source assessment table by nom. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mardetanha's seconding re: Persian sourcing. Hoping the SPI finds some sleepers too as the re-creation needs to stop. Star Mississippi 15:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TomStar81 (Talk) 16:27, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khushi Mukherjee[edit]

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

This was rejected at WP:AFC by Hatchens as non notable, and then moved by the eponymous creating editor to main space a few minutes later. It has already been draftified once, thus redraftification by me (or others) would be move warring

Fails WP:NACTOR Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While not directly relevant to the actual nomination, the image in the article is subject to a Wikimedia Commons deletion process because of questionable copyright/permission issues Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom - there's an obvious COI here and I haven't seen in any draft the depth of coverage for notability. Given their persistence with the draft, this is obviously where this article would have ended up at some point. Ravensfire (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Revensfire. Bapinghosh (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NACTOR compliance issue raised in initial AfC review has not been sufficiently addressed in current article, notwithstanding the dubious nature of the transition to mainspace. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Khushi Mukherjee. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The sources listed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Khushi Mukherjee by the author who is also the subject may pass notability. I'm having trouble evaluating how reliable they are though. Possibly someone familiar with Bollywood reporting and media should look more closely at them. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoshuaZ: Majority of them are sponsored/paid news. They fail WP:NACTOR. That is the reason they are trying to bypass WP:AFC evaluation 2402:3A80:6DE:87AB:C908:B3C5:E35E:6EDD (talk) 14:31, 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.

Author requested A7 Deletion. Shinplax (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.Zaid (vlogger)[edit]

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

Fails minimum criteria. No indication of WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Bapinghosh (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Bapinghosh (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Mundi (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas P. Richardson[edit]

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

Mayors don't automatically meet WP:NPOL, this is for a city of 90,000. Some coverage but little. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other mayors of Lynn have also Wiki pages. Pointly (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here to suggest he passes WP:NPOL. Lynn Massachusetts isn't big enough to give its politicians automatic notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the time this was first created in 2009, our notability rule was that mayors were "inherently" notable if the city they were mayor of had ever cracked 50K in population. That's why other mayors of Lynn also have Wikipedia articles: because Lynn passes the 50K bar, the rule used to be that every mayor Lynn had ever had was automatically notable enough to keep an article regardless of how much or how little work anybody was actually inclined to put into it. That standard was deprecated several years ago, however: mayors are no longer "inherently" notable regardless of the city's size, but instead you must demonstrate their notability by actually writing and sourcing a substantive article that dives deeply into their political impact. Specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. In 2021, a mayor of a place much smaller than 50K can be kept if a genuinely substantial article can be written (see e.g. Marie Curtis), and a mayor of a place much larger than 50K can be deleted if it essentially just says "Thomas P. Richardson was a mayor who existed, the end." If our other articles about other mayors of Lynn are also this inadequate, then they should also be listed for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 13:09, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Robinson (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 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 redirect to President of Pakistan. Plausible search term. History remains undeleted if anyone wants to pick through, source, and merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acting President of Pakistan[edit]

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

Acting Presidents unsourced. Really doesn't merit a stand-alone article, where majority of them have a tenure of one or two days. Could be merged to President of Pakistan and List of presidents of Pakistan. Peter Ormond 💬 14:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or merge. Temporary acting presidents should just be included (with appropriate marking for their acting status) in the list of presidents itself, and do not need their own separate standalone list. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Not sufficient information on the page to warrant a standalone article.—AMomen88 (talk) 00:18, 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. Closed early because the result here is a foregone conclusion and the article also meets multiple speedy deletion criteria. I'll also salt the title. – Joe (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2[edit]

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

It's a hoax. It's previously been declined repeatedly at AFC and CSDed but the creator persists in moving to mainspace directly and requesting undeletion when deleted, so I'm hoping we can get a salting of the title and stronger consensus to refer to in future if further action needs to be taken. Additionally, that it's a hoax may not be apparent to any non-science-minded editors, but see here for XOR'easter's very patient explanation. — Bilorv (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake and an ambiguity in the nomination statement have been corrected; check the page history if interested. — Bilorv (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sources don't actually support the article text. While this strictly speaking doesn't impact deletion, if the article creator is reading this, I would recommend they look into dimensional analysis to see why this doesn't work. It's cavalier with whether c is representing a dimensioned quantity (as it is in $E=mc^{2}$ ) or a dimensionless number, hence the error. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-evidently unphysical nonsense, entirely unsupported by sources. The article's author acknowledged on the draft article's talk page two weeks ago that "It's an original research. You can delete it" (Admin-only link to deleted talk page.) I don't know why the page's creator has decided to WP:REFUND the page and repost it essentially unmodified (aside from adding silly claims about teleportation and time travel), but they should stop wasting other editors' time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, particularly when they make no mathematical sense. I explained how the "references" don't support the text in my earlier comment. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that speedy deletion criterion A11 applies, since there is no credible claim to significance here. And we can throw on G3 as well: whether or not it's a calculated hoax or the work of a true believer, it's blatant misinformation. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per nom and Vahurzpu. Whether this is a calculated hoax or just the product of a clueless crank, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought—particularly not nonsensical fringe theories with neither any grounding in the basic principles of physics and mathematics nor any relevant following outside of their author. Perhaps the author might find better luck publishing at Vixra. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a hoax, then wouldn't G3 apply? This should be speedily deleted. Mlb96 (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, G3 and A11 both apply, but I tried to outline in the nomination statement that I'm trying to get consensus also to salt. It's already been CSD'd and the creator requested undeletion. I'd like to avoid an infinite cycle of that. — Bilorv (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly not a hoax.If you read the article clearly you will by the way might comprehend.It's based on part of a very rare manuscript.(talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehedihasn (talk • contribs)
Delete and salt as nonsense. Dimensional analysis proves that immediately. From a "very rare manuscript"? No, thanks. We prefer ours well-done. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3 and/or A11, and then salt. Obvious pseudoscience is obvious. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete obvious nonsense. the disruptive behaviour from Mehedihasn, who is solely here to push his nonsense should result in an indef block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially given trying to remove the AfD notice just now. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mehidihasn has requested speedy deletion per WP:G7 (If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author). As mentioned above, he's agreed to deletion and then asked to bring it back before, so we should still salt the page to forestall any further attempts at take-backsies. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Bondioni[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. An unsourced article about a cavalry officer with no notable awards or merits. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. Like something from a family history website. Mccapra (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find any clear references to any Marquis of Niardo, other than clones of this article. I also note that there's nothing in the Italian-language Wikipedia, which I'd expect for any historically-significant noble family. There's no obvious notability here, and if this turned out to be a hoax I wouldn't be entirely surprised. RomanSpa (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without any citations hard to tell if its someone notable. Peter303x (talk) 21:12, 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 23:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empire-building[edit]

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

This is not some prominent stand-alone subjects. If there is anything of note here, it can be added to the Empire or Imperialism article. Currently, there's not a single source for anything in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete. I'll admit there might be a whole literature (or two, in history and sociology), but currently this article is just a very complicated way of describing a couple of unrelated and very simple concepts. It's currently an essay, sort of stuck half way between a dictionary and a disambiguation page, but lacks the clarity of a dictionary and doesn't point anywhere useful as a disambiguation. Elemimele (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I suspect someone has tried to create an article about the Western workplace politics idiom associated with consolidating power in professional contexts. Misunderstanding the subject, others have tacked-on all manner of things associated with historical imperialism and empire, though they have very little to do with the subject. It might be possible to develop a well-sourced article about the workplace politics phenomenon, but this isn't it. I'd suggest a redirect to workplace politics until then. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:TNT, article is in remarkably poor shape. If there is a notable topic here (which I'm not convinced of), it can be recreated -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:43, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General Tullius (Skyrim)[edit]

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

Duplicate of General Tullius, which is already up for deletion. If that is deleted, this should be as well. If not, one of the two should redirect to the other. - Sumanuil (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Sumanuil (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. - Sumanuil (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't this be CSD'd under CSD A10? WP:SNOWBALL may apply here. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 05:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- It could, I guess. Just wanted to be careful. - Sumanuil (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire page all the way down to the categories is a copy-paste from the Fandom wiki page. I don't know if that counts as G12 or not; if it does then speedy G12, if it doesn't then just normal delete for non-notable video game character, per WP:NVG. Curbon7 (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: it does not, because Fandom has a compatible license. Let me quickly fix the licensing issue -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 13:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close since this has been redirected now, which seems good enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that we already have General Tullius as a redirect, there's no benefit to keeping this as a redirect given the title is a very unlikely search term. --Michig (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relisting, as the page was tagged for less than a day before being redirected out of process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable character, unlikely search term. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 13:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, clearly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is not enough significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources to justify this character having a separate article. I would recommend a deletion rather than a redirect as General Tullius already exists so I do not find General Tullius (Skyrim) particularly helpful for readers. If they were typing this out in the search bar, they would already be getting the other redirect anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 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 redirect to Directorate of Town and Country Planning#Salem LPA. – bradv^🍁 02:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Local Planning Authority[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement by a wikihound who has been asked to stop, but can't seem to help themselves. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The references are all either dead links, duplicate links to the same government website, or to otherwise questionable at best sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to give the creator and other editors a chance to improve the article and demonstrate notability, per the request of User:Ram Dhaneesh. The Times of India sources recently added appear to be acceptable references to me. I also worry we may be biased towards deletion as most editors on EN Wikipedia do not live in India. Weak Keep for now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was patrolling User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. Please at least ping me if you're throwing accusations around. Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NemesisAT, not an accusation, simple statement of fact. You've had no interest in this particular article until I prodded it. This happens frequently, and I've asked you to stop. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already said I found this article via a bot-generated log. If using these is against the rules, why are they generated? Again, I don't think I'm doing anything against Wikipedia rules, so please stop suggesting that I am. Thank you. NemesisAT (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- NemesisAT, the tool that you use to wikihound me is irrelevant. Again, please stop. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  If, by "wikihound" you mean "happen to edit a page that you edited previously" then no, I don't think that's a fair request. Sorry. NemesisAT (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  NemesisAT, no I mean wikihound. And what's not "fair" is wikihounding. Again, please stop. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I will continue to edit Wikipedia. If I happen to edit a page that you edited in the past then sorry, but you'll have to live with it. You are after all a new page patroller so naturally edit a very large amount of pages. Now let's leave this and please stop making vague accusations without even pinging me. NemesisAT (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  NemesisAT, if you continue to Wikihound me. I will be forced to take further action. Which I really don't want to do. Would much prefer you simply desist. No one has to live with wikihounding. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I will continue exactly as I am now because there is nothing wrong with patrolling new redirects, PRODs, and deletion discussions. This is not wikihounding. Stop with the threats please. NemesisAT (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about government planning authority, so please get back from deletion request or please Can you guys give me a one more week to improve the articles quality Ram Dhaneesh (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about deletion request, for your kind information User:Eastmain provided some more reliable sources other than the same government website, I think that is enough for the article. Thank you. This article may help many of visitors to Know about Salem Local Planning Authority. So please get back from the deletion request. Thank you. Ram Dhaneesh (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Information, I improved the article by providing more reliable sources, even I think for the government organization related Articles, Sources from the respective organization are enough, that's why I cited the sources only from the government website, but now the article is fully cited with reliable sources like from Times of India, Dinakaran, Dinamani, etc ., Hope This article will remain. In my view, Wikipedia is here for providing a good and reliable datas of particulars to visitors that gathering from many of sources, so please I request you to get back from deletion request, this article may help many of visitors to know about Salem Local Planning Authority. Thank you! Ram Dhaneesh (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. The Tamil Nadu state in India has alone more than 10 cities and each cities have numerous directorates. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning for Tamil Nadu might be notable but their branches for each cities are clearly not notable and at the most they belong as a subheading. Ram Dhaneesh, please go through WP:N before creating articles. If possible, other such articles created by the user like Madurai Local Planning Authority, Tiruchirappalli Local Planning Authority, should also be deleted along with this AfD for the same reason.SUN EYE 1 14:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Local planning authority#India. Insufficient independent sourcing to demonstrate notability for a standalone article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this article and not merge in Local planning authority#India per Timtempleton. Because the particular article about local planning authorities in UK, if want redirect, please give me a chance to create Article Directorate of Town and Country Planning as per User:Suneye1. Thank you! Dhaneesh 💙 Ram 16:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ram Dhaneesh, you can create it and redirect this name to it later.- SUN EYE 1 07:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECTED. Salem Local Planning Authority is redirected to Directorate of Town and Country Planning#Salem LPA, Thank you Dhaneesh 💙 Ram 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's pique at having a PROD declined is not a valid reason for deletion, and there's really no substantive discussion here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Salem Local Planning Authority is a planning agency for the city, so it may useful for visitors, no valid reason for deletion. I2karankiran (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You may want to see WP:ITSUSEFUL. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Directorate of Town and Country Planning#Salem LPA, its parent orgnaization. It's unclear whether this topic meets GNG, regardless the target article already duplicates the content present here and this topic can easily be covered there (per WP:NOPAGE). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiruchirappalli Local Planning Authority resulted in a similar outcome. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Directorate of Town and Country Planning#Salem LPA, as per others. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Yinka-Banjo[edit]

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

BLP of a teenager who was briefly famous for excellent exam results and being offered lots of scholarships but isn’t otherwise notable. I think WP:BLP1E applies. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – PRODded this in the past, didn't realise it was dePRODded. Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Princess of Ara 07:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If I recall correctly, when it was dePRODed it was argued that the exam results (2020) and the scholarships (2021) are two events. This isn't shown in the page's references, which are all about the scholarships. Google News turns up references from before the scholarships (May 2021), like https://www.legit.ng/1395101-nigerian-genius-straight-as-waec-papers-passes-intl-exams.html from Legit.ng. So I don't think WP:BLP1E applies, although the page certainly needs expansion. Arzg (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – poorly sourced and needs improvement.Eddysocial (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Definitely think it should be deleted because teenager isn't the first person famous for exam results. Stuti Khandwala of India was equally as famous.^[1] Also, subject's exam results are not exclusive to them.^[2] ^[3] ^[4] Does not meet Wikipedia biography standards. Geronimo98672 (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GenWATT Solar Energy Solutions (Philippines)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Current sources are all primary, from their website, facebook pages or youtube channels. I couldn't see any other good sources on google. Pahunkat (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the original author wanted to voice his opposition to removal at the article's talk page - [5]. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Adriem915 The sources have now secondary sources, a link from the official Department of Trade and Industry Business Name portal. Please don't remove the article. Added new newspaper on the sources. Hope that you did not delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriem915 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company, likely a connected editor. ST47 (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Adriem915 It is a notable company, Did you know that the founder and some members of its board is a active government employee or retired government employee. I am not connected to the company, I am the maker of the page. It is a solar energy company, provides solar energy system in the philippines. It is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriem915 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Adriem915 It is a company in the philippines. Please don't delete the article. Please. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriem915 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Random User: Aside from a solar company. They provide energy news. On their official website. So I will add it. It is a notable company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.83.101.168 (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: Adriem915 @ST47 What are you saying? I am not a connected editor and it is a notable company, to know if it is a notable company make sure to have some wikipedia editors living in the philippines, like me. So I know if it is a notable company. @Pahunkat What are you saying that you can't find good sources on google, I can find a lot of them, don't believe me? I will say them all: Official Page, Youtube, Facebook, DTI Permit. That are good sources, especially the DTI Permit. DTI is actually Department of Trade and Industry.

Department of Trade and Industry is an example of trivial coverage. It's just a listing on a government website saying the company exists. That doesn't help with notability. The company's website, youtube and facebook pages are all examples of WP:PRIMARY coverage - they are generated by the company themselves. That doesn't help with notability either. Pahunkat (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriem915 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Random User: Is Department of Trade and Industry's portal useless and only for trivial purposes? Of course not, it can be a source of information as Primary in category. Do you know that genwatt india is having a counterpart in the philippines, it is the article that Adriem915 created, he pushes a lot of time creating it and you will just delete it, is it possible to move it either to draft instead of deleting it. Because Adriem915, put a lot of time to the article. Can yoy just move it to draft not to delete it or much better for me to retain it into the mainspace. I know you are wanting to deleting the page, if you decided to delete it, instead move the page to draft space. Because Adriem915 uses his mind and energy to create the page. Please If possible at least to retain the article or move it to draft. That is my suggestion. I know all of you, except me and Adriem915 wanted to delete/remove the page. Hope that you atleast move it to draft or better retain it. Also Adriem915, provided a quality source on here..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.83.101.168 (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE Java Hurricane 07:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

User talk: Adriem915 124.83.101.168 is right, I spend a lot of time, creating the article, If possible move it to draft or retain it. I also make a backup of the code of the article, in case something happens. If it is deleted, I am thinking of getting this article in again on wikipedia since I backupped the code. Actually, I am so sad because my hardwork will be removed, I am trying to improve it. I will be too sad and might depressed if the article has been removed. Hope that you did not make me depressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriem915 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, also possibly a candidate for A7 and G11. I cannot see any claim of significance, and the stub reads more like an advert Java Hurricane 04:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands with no references, a candidate for speedy. Certainly fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Per WP:G11. Article easily fails WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and no reliable sources found, completely fails WP:NCORP. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 11:21, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I.E.S. Gerardo Molina[edit]

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

Although most schools are kept (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), they need to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. I don't think this does. Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when I cleaned it up I was still unsure on notability. I assumed secondary schools still were often just said to be notable, but was unable to find sourcing to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 18:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless a suitable redirect target. Not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv^🍁 02:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle (2021 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film that does not meet the requirements of NFILM / GNG. All the coverage is WP:ROUTINE-press releases. Could not find any review in WP:BEFORE, both English and Telugu. Ab207 (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources. Articles like this do not appear to be press releases, and should count towards establishing notability. NemesisAT (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, one such source is not sufficient. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources needed per GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source of Times of India confirms that the principle photography has been completed. Another source [6] says that the official teaser has been released. It passes WP:NFF. Imfarhad7 (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Completion of filming is not a criteria to meet NFF; the production itself being notable per the notability guidelines is, which does not appear to be the case here. Teaser or trailer being released is WP:ROUTINE coverage and it does not meet the standard of WP:NFSOURCES. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are indeed routine and run of the mill; and I can't quite find anything else either. The film has long been released, so this indicates it isn't a case of WP:TOOSOON. It just didn't attract any significant coverage. Too bad, we're an encyclopedia, not an unselective directory. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Die anderen Bands[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this one more time since there might be sources in German; if anyone can weigh in on that, it would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussed at length in the book Dropping out of Socialism: The Creation of Alternative Spheres in the Soviet Bloc. @SilverTiger12 and Boleyn:. SpinningSpark 10:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also a brief, but more than trivial, description in Beyond No Future: Cultures of German Punk
This magazine article
plus a lot of stuff in German I'm having trouble assessing the significance of. SpinningSpark 10:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as well as the sources given by User:Spinningspark above, there are also substantial German publications on this specific subject; I've added all to the article. Ingratis (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Federated States of Gapla[edit]

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

Micronation that does seem to have received any secondary coverage, all coverage in the article and found in a search is from primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fiction-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching Newspapers.com and GBooks for Gapla and Wyatt Baek return nothing. As this locale has no secondary coverage or WP:RS coverage whatsoever, it is not notable. In addition, it is not legally recognized. So, WP:GEOLAND are not met nor is WP:GNG. In addition the page was created by User:Seungri400, and their user page at one time stated "The Official Wikipedia Account of Wyatt Seungri Baek." Thus, they have a WP:COI. I'll update their talk page shortly. Cxbrx (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that I have a conflict of interest, however, I believe I wrote the article neutrally. Gapla has sources from the Flag and Anthem Guy and the Grand Unified Micronational, which the latter is a well-known micronational organization that has several notable members including Austenasia, with Westarctica attending its summits. We are also notable within the micronational community, being accepted into a prestigious organization and having a video by a popular creator. In addition, I have found several micronations on Wikipedia of similar notability and reliability of sources. Seungri400 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seungri400, thanks for acknowledging your WP:COI, please see your talk page for suggested further actions. None of the sources the article currently cites are WP:RS sources. The majority of the references are to the webpage for the subject and do not by any means indicate notability. A YouTube video is not a reliable source, nor does it indicate notability see WP:NOYT. A self-published book is not a reliable source, nor does it indicate notability. please indicate here or on Talk:Federated States of Gapla if there are any WP:RS sources. Also, please let me know about other micronation articles that have similar notability and reliability. I completely agree that articles like Sealand are notable as they have lots of coverage in various WP:RS sources. To warrant an article a micronation needs to be notable, see WP:GNG. Cxbrx (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree that none of the sources here are sufficiently reliable to contribute toward meeting the WP:GNG: they seem to be self-published and/or too closely linked to the subject. Since my searches find no other coverage, it seems the subject is non-notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With rare exceptions, most micronations are non-notable. There is nothing in this article that suggests that the real world has taken notice of Gapla or, specifically, that Gapla meets the general notability guideline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no evidence that any WP:RS have found this micronation to be noteworthy enough to even substantially mention. Hog Farm _Talk 04:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:RS Idunnox3 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panther Forest, Arkansas[edit]

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

BEFORE search did not return any evidence of a community. Panther Forest doesn't appear on maps aside from the deadlinked highway map in the article. News coverage consists almost entirely of levee breaks in 1892, 1912 and 1922; the only exception is the burning of a cotton gin at "Panther Forest Plantation". –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I turned up a passing mention to the plantation, several referring to the levee, and a single statement that Panther Forest was "a point on the lower river". Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 04:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: USGS topo maps show that there isn't much going on here. It's right on the edge of a quadrangle, so I have to look at two different ones to find out what's going on, but basically: in 1936-1939 there was nothing, in 1970-1976 there was nothing, in 1986 there was nothing... Google's satellite imagery shows that there's basically a single street of houses going along the eastern shore of Connerly Bayou at the location of those coordinates, surrounded by farmland. If there exists no coverage of the location in archives, I think it's time to stick a fork in it. jp×g 22:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uh, it is a forest? Actually, it is probably a levee, I found no evidence that anyone lived, died or drove a Chevy to there (sorry). The 1953 Greenwood, MS 1:250K 1966 edition shows north of the coords of this article a "Panther Forest Crevasse" in blue italics with the text "Connerly" nearby. The font used is a font used for natural features, not towns. Panther Forest Crevasse is a separate GNIS entry. "Panther Forest" appears at that location until the 1986 edition. Panther Forest first appears at the location of this article in 2014 Macon Lake 1:24k, which corresponds with the GNIS entry date of "09-Oct-2012". Panther Forest does not appear in the 2011 version of Macon Lake 1:24k. There are a number of 1912 newspapers.com articles that mention Panther Forest Crevasse, I've just linked to one: [7]. The article also mentions "Panther Forest", but does not indicate that there was a community there. I found lots of articles about a levee at Panther Forest, but nothing about people living there. GBooks has some references to the Panther Forest levee, such as [8]. The 1981 Arkansas Place Names mentions "Panther Forest Crevasse (1892-1912)". Hog Farm did better than I did, I did not see the passing reference to a plantation until I search GBooks for "Panther Forest Plantation" and found a 1935 reference There was another reference that refers to Panther Forest Plantation, but it was written to a politician in Louisiana, so it might be somewhere different. As there is no legal recognition of Panther Forest as being a community and the coverage of Panther Forest as a community is non-existent, so WP:GEOLAND is not met. If someone wants to write an article about Panther Forest Crevasse, then maybe it would pass WP:GNG and this article could redirect there. However Panther Forest Crevasse seems to be WP:RUNOFTHEMILL to me. Cxbrx (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like that pretty much settles it. jp×g 03:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Idunnox3 (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terry J. Charlton Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User. Other than the non RS Peery geneaolgy website all the other sources are passing mentions or generic Tuskegee Airmen filler. Despite comments from myself and others, the User who created this page is apparently unwilling to accepted WP:NOTINHERITED that just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members, this is Easy Company all over again. Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the eleven references in the entry now, there is no significant coverage of this individual himself. Some of the references are to primary sources or genealogy resources with only passing mentions. There are a couple of newspaper or magazine articles, but they discuss Charlton's relatives, not Charlton. A couple of others are simply directories of the Tuskegee Airmen, and another is a page with a Tuskegee Airmen class photo (all passing mentions). In a search for other references, I found a couple of Google Books hits that list him in Class SE-42-J, but I don't see anything other than these passing mentions. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly another fine person who served their country but cant see anything in the article that make them noteworthy enough to stand out among his peers for a mention or a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need another Easy Company. Intothat darkness 17:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply being a member of a well known military unit does not equal notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTGENEALOGY and to some extent WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Topic subject seems not to have accomplished anything further than achieving Tuskegee Airmen Pilot status. (For which I, as an American, am grateful). Tellingly, very little of the article is about the topic proper. I do not see sources upon which a proper encyclopedic article could be built, although that may be possible in the future as further research is conducted into the lives of these heroes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:04, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad del Caribe (Mexico)[edit]

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

~~Google shows no major coverage of this institute. Tube·of·Light 05:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)~~ NOTE: Can someone please close this ASAP? I just now found that WP:UNIN allows this article to exist. Tube·of·Light 05:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tube·of·Light 05:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tube·of·Light 05:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Tube·of·Light 05:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, come on this is a public university, there is coverage.TotallyAbrupt (talk) 06:24, 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) 17:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naraka: Bladepoint[edit]

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

Naraka Bladepoint

Game that does not satisfy game notability or software notability. Has one reference, which appears to be an independent review, but is in an audience-supported webmag. An article should speak for itself. This article has empty Development and Release sections and is not a useful stub.

Moving this article to draft space would be in order, except that there is already a draft in draft space, which has been declined both as reading promotionally and as duplicating this article. Neither the draft nor the article is ready for article space. The draft has tone issues and does not establish notability. The article does not establish notability and does not have enough information for a stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Draft:Naraka: Bladepoint reads a bit promotional (possible G11 tag?), but I think this should have been moved to Draft: Naraka: Bladepoint 2 (indicating a 2nd draft) before coming to AfD regardless. WP:BEFORE brings tons and tons of non-trivial coverage of the game: Tom's Guide that's referenced in the article right now, GameSpot [9], NME [10], PC Gamer [11], PCGamesN [12], Jeuxvideo.com [13], Rock Paper Shotgun [14], Multiplayer.it [15], IGN Italy [16], 4Gamer.net [17], Edge (magazine) [18], Shack News [19]. The game easily meets WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per WP:NEXIST. A convenient litmus test to determine whether a game is subject to enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG is whether they have a Metacritic score, which requires a minimum of four reviews for each relevant platform. At the time of writing, it has ten reviews, five of which are from undisputedly reliable sources according to WP:VG/RS. Article content does not determine the notability of the subject. Haleth (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough references. GamedevExpert^{(Talk to GamedevExpert)} 5:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per Haleth. Kou Dou 22:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A plethora of sources exists and is easily found via WP:VG/SE. The article needs to be rewritten and expanded, not deleted. IceWelder [✉] 14:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are easily enough sources. This article needs expansion, not deletion.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:04, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivangi Sharma[edit]

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

References do not show the notability of the subject fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. DJRSD (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject has played minor roles and there is no indication of WP:GNG. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is meeting WP:NACTOR. Bapinghosh (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't qualify WP:NACTOR. Sources are either not independent, or not reliable. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of playing "significant roles" to meet NACTOR. Also lacks coverage for GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 04:34, 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 keep. ✗plicit 08:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanka Das[edit]

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

I can't see this biography of an actor passes WP:NACTOR WP:GNG DJRSD (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easy GNG pass, e.g. the cited profile in Vogue. pburka (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC/WP:GNG - the article has been revised and expanded, and the in-depth as well as WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources is now more clear than when the article was nominated; per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been on a fence on this one. There is some problem or the other in almost all the sources. Something seems to be independent but not significant and sometimes, a source is significant but not independent. The only source that I think shines here is Gay Star News. Vogue is very interviewish. Could contribute to WP:BASIC. Beccaynr, sorry to add this to your work, but which all sources are you considering for WP:BASIC. Do we have at least 5-7? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am happy to further explain my thoughts, Nomadicghumakkad:

the 2018 Gay Star News article [20] is a feature article written by a staff member, and offers significant, in-depth coverage.
the 2019 Vogue India article [21], is a feature, and from my view, includes substantial career and biographical information in addition to quotes, including that her performance on Dance Deewane "went viral", and charting her biography from childhood through her work as a model and drag queen.
The Vogue feature is also part of what Vogue India describes as an "iconic" issue [22], and she is on one of the online covers that received attention from Rediff.com in 2019 [23] and mention in a 2020 Paper magazine article [24]. So I also consider the feature to be further support for her WP:BASIC notability as a model and drag queen, because sources found the cover "worthy of notice" - while the coverage is not substantial, it is more than trival.
the 2017 Hindustan Times article [25] is about the beginning of her career as a drag queen, and provides some background context and biographical information in addition to the interview quotes, and it helped develop the Career section of her article.
the 2019 IANS [26] and RepublicWorld [27] articles are more than interviews about her role in Ye Hai #Mandi, with some independent context.
the 2021 Autostraddle review of Bombay Begums includes a highlight of her role [28]; The Indian Express referred to her role as a "star" in 2020 [29] but RepublicWorld seems to more accurately describe her role as "supporting" in 2021 [30].
there are also very brief mentions about her role in the 2020 song with Nikhita Gandhi in press-release-ish articles [31], [32].

Overall, I consider GSN and Vogue to be the strongest sources supporting WP:GNG, followed by the Hindustan Times, with WP:BASIC further supported by the constellation of other sources taking notice of her and her career. Beccaynr (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meeting WP:GNG. Bapinghosh (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 17:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a mountain of sources found by Beccaynr, more than enough for gng. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:38, 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. ✗plicit 08:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Laxmi Janta High School, Madhwapur[edit]

Sri Laxmi Janta High School, Madhwapur (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sri Laxmi Janta High School (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
जनता माध्यमिक विद्यालय (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the "in-depth" requirement needs to be eliminated for schools in India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What we think, as sensible as it might may be at times, is not relevant as long as it's not included in the policies and agreed upon. The number of schools India has, I think the rules should be better structured. But like I said, irrelevant till it becomes a policy. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Schools, anywhere, are not normally notable, as I see nothing that makes this school notable. --Bduke (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, fails WP:GNG. Eastmain's point is well-taken, and for years that was actually a valid argument on AfD (as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), however, after an RFC a year or two ago, that is no longer the case. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 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. ✗plicit 08:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Bondioni[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. An Italian officer who died in World War I. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. It seems the creator had a thing for the Bondioni family and other pages created should probably also be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. Zawed (talk) 09:31, 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) 17:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Strong (athlete)[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, does not meet general notability criteria, WP:SPORTSBASIC or WP:NOLY. Sportygeek (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paralympic athletes usually don't get very much coverage, but she would be kept as a medalist. Since the Paralympics is a short time away, draftify. Geschichte (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: -redacted- Sportygeek (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that isn't a reason for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - no, it’s not. Not meeting notability criteria is a reason for deletion, though, and the athlete does not appear to meet notability criteria. Sportygeek (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I'm merely pointing out that there was no reason to add that comment. Your nomination on the grounds of non-notability was a sufficient reason to put forward. Deus et lex (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I also see there is "Brunswick West athlete Maria Strong has sights set on Tokyo " from heraldsun 11 Aug 2018, and [33] with two already in the article, so we have one broadcaster and three newspaper stories about her. This means that the topic already has a WP:GNG qualification. Even if the WP:NATHLETE is unmet, the standard criteria allow inclusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - since when are Leader Community Newspapers, the actual source of the 2018 article, a RS? The other sources cited are a team announcement, an IPC profile (primary source), and a results list (primary source). There is passing mention of the athlete in some online event reporting, but they do not even have a Paralympics Australia athlete profile. Sportygeek (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Victoria's Disability Sport and Recreation's Masters Sports Person of the Year. Furius (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not a particularly notable award (indeed, the athlete nominated themself for it, on the basis of beating two other people at 2018 Aus champs). Sportygeek (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Outsports lists her as an openly LGBTQ paralympian which is relevant to LGBT athletes in the Olympic and Paralympic Games^[5] -TenorTwelve (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.dnaindia.com/education/photo-gallery-surat-stuti-khandwala-cracks-neet-jipmer-aiims-and-jee-takes-up-90-scholarship-offer-at-mit-2763873/stuti-scored-988-in-class-12-cbse-board-exams-2763876
^ https://www.ghbase.com/cecil-tetteh-kumah-mfantsipim-school-student-adjudged-the-overall-best-student-in-the-2020-wassce/
^ http://saharareporters.com/2019/07/29/stephany-ugboaja-16-emerges-best-waec-candidate
^ https://www.thestar.com.my/metro/metro-news/2021/06/09/global-honours-for-malaysian-teen
^ https://www.outsports.com/2021/8/16/22623849/lgbtq-paralympics-out-athletes-tokyo

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject will pass WP:NOLY when they compete at the Paralympics in the next few days. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the subject is very likely to pass WP:NOLY shortly, and it would seem to be very bureaucratic to delete the article right before they meet NOLY.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:03, 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. Sandstein 19:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NeuroVista[edit]

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

Promotional article created by SPA for a dead company. A single RS; the rest of the references are press releases, blogs and primary sources. PROD removed claiming this WP:REFBOMB must surely constitute good sourcing; but we need more than a single source for WP:CORPDEPTH, and to show that this failed startup was ever actually notable. David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to a lack of sufficient sources per WP:RS. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 01:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC) (If you reply to to me directly, please use a ping {{U|FormalDude}} to notify me.)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A 2019 article by one of the co-founders gives a more detailed history of this venture and confirms its eventual acquisition by Cyberonics, on which we have no article, which itself now appears to be part of LivaNova. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The suggestion in the nomination that this is a WP:SPA article seems misplaced: the article creator has been active on other topics before and since. That aside, however, I agree that the article is not demonstrating notability. It describing a start-up, supported by announcement and listing references, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The article that I linked above shows that the company's history can provide a good case study, but that is a primary source. In itself, this fails WP:NCORP and I think the subsequent sequence of purchases into LivaNova is too much of a stretch for a merge and redirect to there. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company itself seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH, but I could find multiple RS to meet WP:GNG for the trial run by NeuroVista. I would suggest that this article should support that topic. Sources: 1 2 (pdf) 3 Suriname0 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Passing mention of NeuroVista, no mention of NeuroVista, no mention of NeuroVista, some info on the trial. The last source is actually the source with the most mentions of NeuroVista that I've seen, though the only CORPDEPTH is that it ran a trial, did some science and shut down - I'm not convinced that that article and this one (in the present text) are enough to swing an article on - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard, what I'm suggesting is that one could write a productive article on the NeuroVista trial, which has received sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. (Just do a google scholar search for "NeuroVista"!) For the record, the "Nature News Feature" does discuss NeuroVista and its funding rounds, it's just that the linked PDF (for bypassing the paywall) uses embedded images so a text search will be ineffective. Anyway, I think it's clear this version of the article will be deleted (so it goes with CORPs): my comment is for posterity, to make it easier for someone to write a notable article on NeuroVista and its trial in the future. Suriname0 (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maithra Raghu[edit]

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

Delete:

Hello!

I think that this article should be deleted for the following reasons: 1. The subject here is a research scientist at Google Brain. There are several thousands of research scientists (2241 researchers to be precise, please see https://research.google/people/) at Google and that itself doesn't warrant a wikipedia article to someone. This is not a prestigious position. 2. Most of the research scientists at Google and anyone who has a PhD typically has a number of papers and have at least a couple of news articles each if not more. That is also not a reason to provide a wikipedia article to someone. 3. I am familiar with the broad area of deep neural networks. While this subject has done some research, she does not stand out in anyway. 4. Another fishy aspect is that the spouse (Arun Chaganty, please see https://maithraraghu.com/assets/files/thesis_final.pdf) of this subject has started and written the article. 5. The only aspect that stands out to any degree about this applicant is Forbes 30 Under 30. Note that Forbes 30 Under 30 List comprises of 600 people each year. So, it is not as selective as well. I am not sure that alone is enough to call this subject a notable person. (the other honor STAT wunderkind is not even well recognized).

Given the above reasons, I propose the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliciaBennot (talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi!

I am a deep learning engineer/researcher myself. I was requested by one of the editors to take a look at the subject of this article. I have been working in deep learning for several years now and I am very much familiar with this individual's research. I agree that this person hasn't done any notable work and/or does not hold or never held any prestigious positions. Her main USP seems to be writing papers with well known individuals. But, that does not really qualify anyone as a notable person who deserves a wiki entry. I know several PhD students who have made more impactful contributions than this individual but again it's not possible to have a wiki page for every PhD in the world. As an ardent wiki user, I would like to see individuals who really stand out as notable people on wikipedia, and this individual doesn't fit the bill at this time.

I also find it very inappropriate that people close to her (OP says spouse?) are writing her wiki article. If everybody started doing this, every individual who works at Google Brain or who holds a PhD will have a wikipedia article and I don't think the bar for a wiki article is that low. OP already commented about Forbes 30 Under 30 and STAT Wunderkind. Other award listed "Rising Stars" is not really an award. It indicates participation in a workshop. No woman in a PhD program in engineering has ever been turned down from attending that workshop. This article made me wonder if I should write my own wikipedia page because I can list more awards and talk about more research and I am at a more senior position, but no I won't do that. I don't think that's the point of a wiki article. It is NOT YOUR PERSONAL WEBPAGE. Only people of reasonable public interest, with a ton of super impactful achievements, and/or in prestigious positions should be included here. Not every person in a big tech company deserves a spot. I am sorry to be blunt but someone needs to tell the subject of this article and her personal connections this very clearly.

I am sure she has a great career ahead of her and she will do more things in the future. But, at this point in time, I support the deletion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeplearner99 (talk • contribs) .

Comment: — Deeplearner99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Longhair\^talk 05:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her thesis was published in 2020, and I'm not convinced passes WP:NPROF or WP:GNG (though there is a bit of coverage). I think it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been trimmed quite a lot by the nominator, and I also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AliciaBennot. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete this is a borderline case, on the one hand this subject is very early in her career but her GS is reasonably impressive even in a high citation field: 7 papers with 100+ citations of which 4 are first author papers. This is clearly not just a researcher who "writes papers with famous people" as the nominator alleges. On the other hand, the long-term impact of this research is clearly not established and there is an argument that this is simply TOOSOON. Note: this is a field where a paper can garner 25k citations per year and we do not have articles about many of these authors in the ML field. --hroest 18:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very recent grad is exceptionally unlikely to have made an independent name for herself sufficient to meet NPROF, so while she has an excellent start it is far TOOSOON for a standalone article on her. I tallied all her Scopus citations and manually added in all the doi-indexed citations to her arXiv preprints. I then looked at the Scopus metrics of all her coauthors (35; Scopus coauthors plus the ones from arXiv submissions, and including undergrads with one paper), and even though I didn't add any of her coauthors' arXiv citations to their metrics (which would roughly double them) she was still well below the median. Total citations: average: 12674, median: 1639, Raghu: 804 (435 from Scopus). Total papers: avg: 61, med: 34, R: 26 (Sc: 13). h-index: avg: 25, med: 16, R: 13 (Sc: 7). Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 3451, med: 386, R: 131. 2nd: avg: 1709, med: 245, R: 124. 3rd: avg: 908, med: 172, R: 100. 4th: avg: 694, med: 154, R: 80. 5th: avg: 630, med: 109, R: 62. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources present are not reliable and the information is inadequate, fails notability too.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion page was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the article itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 22:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Thomas Utley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE showed zero significant coverage of the actor, mostly being mentions about his early Days of Our Lives role CiphriusKane (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 01:55, 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. One of the "keep" voters proved that the artist has received enough coverage to meet WP:NACTOR. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Lisbo[edit]

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

Article about a young actor who does not seem to have landed any notable roles. All references have been merely mentions of the subject nothing which discusses the subject in any sort of depth signifigant coverage or they are produced by a connected subject. Fails WP:NACTOR. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How are we defining notable roles here? It seems as though any actor who's young and non-American is automatically dismissed as non-notable. But I am voting keep because
- He has appeared as a supporting cast in Make It with You one of the most popular teleseryes in the Philippines in 2020
- He appeared as one of the main male roles in Four Sisters Before the Wedding, a prominent film from Star Cinema (the country's largest film studio), and which received a theatrical release
- He appeared as one of the lead roles in The Four Bad Boys and Me, the first digital project of the aforementioned largest film studio of the country
- He appeared as one of the main roles in He's Into Her, arguably the most popular TV series in the Philippines this year and
- He appeared in a prominent supporting role in Maalaala Mo Kaya, a popular drama anthology series/the longest-running drama anthology series in the world.
- WP:NACTOR includes "other productions." Lisbo has appeared on It's Showtime as well as a digital concert organized by ABS-CBN for He's Into Her, which became, according to the Manila Bulletin, "the most attended event on the site, exceeding the seating capacity of traditional performance venues like the Araneta Coliseum and Mall of Asia Arena."
Those sound pretty notable to me and easily meet the standard outlined by WP:NACTOR, namely that an actor is notable if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." As for your assertion that the references in the articles only make mere mention of him, that's not true at all. These are the media sources that discuss him extensively, and which are cited in the same article (these are separate from the half a dozen other reliable media sources that mention him in a non-trivial fashion):
- A profile in The Daily Tribune
- A profile from Metro.Style magazine
- A separate feature in Metro.Style magazine
- Coverage in The Philippine Daily Inquirer.
A profile or a magazine feature is not a "mere mention." Moreover, per WP: Multiple sources, "based on existing Wikipedia community norms, it seems that challenges to notability are successfully rebuffed when there are three good in-depth references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." I am listing the references here [34], [35], [36] (in Tagalog), [37], [38]. Koikefan (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did look through these and I will tell you why I rejected them as helping to establish notability. 1,2, and 4 are a promotional interview and generally not counted towards notability as these are paid engagements by the agencies. 3 is a press release by his agency which does not to help establish notability. 5 is the mere mention of his name but then goes on to explain his characters basic premise in the show it does not discuss the actor. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some evidence that profiles by independent news outlets are paid engagements. 3 is not a press release. The 5th reference does discuss the actor, in fact it contains quotes from him. Koikefan (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Koikefan: The 5th reference only contains quotes from the actor, which does not help demonstrate notability. Your goal should be to find independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the actor. GoingBatty (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I have provided 5 sources, which I believe (even if you ignore 1-2 of them) suffices for the requirements. I have already quoted WP: Multiple sources, which states that typically 3 references will suffice to rebuff challenges to a figure's notability. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that claims that certain news articles or writings are "paid engagements" should be buttressed by actual evidence rather than baseless assertions. I think I have also sufficiently explained why the actor's roles are significant and notable above. I'll leave it to other voters to determine whether they want to deviate from the common standard and see more than 3 references for proof of the actor's notability. Koikefan (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Koikefan. Because that actor is known for Randall Echavez. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – AnsrieJames9 is the creator of and primary contributor to the article being debated. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Koikefan's sourcing efforts, and He's Into Her link. Salpynx (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Koikefan. GaliziaCorazao (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC) - Struck vote of now blocked sockpuppet McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Koikefan. MaccWiki (talk)
Keep Meets WP:NARTIST with sources presented and analyzed by Koikefan. They're non-trivial and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:21, 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 redirect to America's Got Talent (season 16)#Sethward. A redirect can serve many purposes, not just because there is significant coverage of it's subject in the linked article. The arguments that this subject's notability is almost entirely the result of one event, are convincing, and the redirect target therefore seems appropriate. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sethward[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, particularly WP:ENT, because the coverage given for notability is weak: the article mentions three appearances on AGT, and two for an ABC show, with very few references. This article was a recent creation, possibly because the person was considered by the article's creator to have need of an article for making a successful audition on AGT, after two failed attempts. The article was placed under a PROD, which was disputed on grounds that the existing (three) references provided sufficant coverage, despite the information given being minute, raising the issue of notability based on what has been provided. GUtt01 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of meeting WP:ENT. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to America's Got Talent (season 16)#Sethward (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject is mentioned as a participant in America's Got Talent (season 16) in a table in the "Season overview" section. All of the reliable source coverage about the subject is about his appearances on America's Got Talent. There is insufficient biographical coverage about other aspects of his life for him to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I support a redirect so that readers searching for his name are directed to the show he appeared on. I support preserving the history so that the redirect can be undone if he becomes notable in the future.
Cunard (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and ENT, redirect seems impractical because the subject is affiliated with three AGT seasons and two years of The Gong Show. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this search, the only place in Wikipedia mainspace where Sethward is mentioned is at America's Got Talent (season 16). He is not mentioned in any other article. Here is a source:
1. "'AGT' judges mind-boggled over how they let 'confusing' act through to the live shows". Yahoo! Entertainment. 2021-08-10. Archived from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
  The article notes: "Season 16 isn't Sethward's first time on AGT. The novelty act first made his debut during Season 13, and came back for Season 14, during which he fell off the stage and exposed himself. But season 16 is the first time Sethward made it to the live shows, which had the judges utterly perplexed."
Since the America's Got Talent season articles list only contestants who "made it to the live shows" (the quarterfinals), Sethward is not being mentioned in America's Got Talent (season 13) and America's Got Talent (season 14).
The Gong Show does not have a list of episodes or seasons, so there is no place to mention Sethward as it would it would be undue weight to mention him in The Gong Show article.
The only plausible place to mention Sethward, and thus the only plausible place to redirect this article to, is America's Got Talent (season 16)#Sethward (once an anchor is added).
Cunard (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cunard. I initially declined the PROD as I felt the referencing was good enough that a proper deletion discussion should take place first. I support Cunard's vote to redirect as an WP:ATD. Sources from this article could be added to the target article. NemesisAT (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't support a redirect on the grounds that interest in him is only while the 16th season of AGT is active. Even then, there is hardly much mention of this person in the article, except his participation (denoted in the relevant article's table). A redirect only serves a purpose, I would think, if there was some coverage on the person in the associated article, however brief. GUtt01 (talk) 12:51, 30 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity (2000 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES; I found little to no coverage about this film. The Film Creator (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No sources? Within seconds found 3 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes [39] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:12, 8 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) 22:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reviewing the Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, two are trivial, and while the third is not, it is also self-published. It is possible that this falls under the "expert" exemption to self-published sources, but I was unable to verify this. In any case, one source is insufficient to maintain the article. BilledMammal (talk) 22:15, 20 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) 00:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Washington, Julie E. (2000-06-10). "Movie Shoot in Cleveland Means Lights, Action, Dollars". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
  The article notes: ""Proximity" is the first major production shoots to come here since the $4 million-budget "Telling Lies in America," written by former Clevelander Joe Eszterhas, was shot in 1996. Scheduled to be aired on HBO next year, "Proximity" stars Lowe, James Coburn ("Affliction"), and Ter- rence "T.C." Carson ("Living Single"). ... Scott Ziehl directs this $5 million film. ... Seeing their home region on film will be fun for residents, but "Proximity's" Northeast Ohio connections will have a more material effect than that on the area: national film audiences will know they're seeing Lowe scrambling through the streets of Cleveland ..."
  Additional sources:
  1. Washington, Julie (2000-06-10). "The Credits". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
    The article notes: "Here is a partial list of the people in front of and behind the cameras shooting "Proximity," including some of the Clevelanders involved."
  3. "Here's Your Chance to Be In Pictures: Lowe Movie to Be Shot Locally". The Plain Dealer. 2000-05-11. Archived from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
    The article notes: "Who says you have to drive all the way to Hollywood for your big movie break? Next month, a new thriller starring Rob Lowe is filming in Cleveland, and you could be in it."
2. Washington, Julie E. (2001-04-14). "Film gives Cleveland reason to take a bow". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
  The review notes: "The action-thriller, directed by Scott Ziehl, is a mildly enjoyable romp if you can ignore the mediocre dialog and some implausibility. Lowe looks as if he's having an out-of-body experience - his body walking through "Proximity" but his mind still on the set of the television show he stars in, "The West Wing.""
3. Phantom of the Movies (2001-07-19). "Toned down, trimmed back Silver tells compelling story in 'Proximity' - Host of comedies rolling into aisles of video stores of rental locations". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
  The review notes: "Under director Scott Ziehl's supervision, producer Silver and crew bring in their entertaining chase flick at a trim 86 minutes and yield strong performances from Mr. Lowe, veteran character actor Banks and seasoned vet Coburn. "Proximity" incorporates too many coincidences, contrivances and logic lapses to reach the top genre level. But for viewers in the mood for solid, earnest action fare that zips along in a breathless straight line, getting next to "Proximity" rates as a pretty fair idea."
4. Additional sources that provide less significant coverage:
  1. "Coburn, Lowe in Darker Take On Fugitive". Sun-Sentinel. Reuters. 2000-06-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
    The brief article notes: "Proximity, to be directed by Scott Ziehl (Broken Vessels), is a darker take on The Fugitive in which a prisoner (Lowe) must break out of jail in order to dodge a hit placed on him."
  2. Harris, Dana; Lyons, Charles (2000-04-26). "Coburn picks 'Proximity'". Daily Variety. Vol. 267, no. 38. ISSN 0011-5509. Archived from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30 – via EBSCO Information Services.
    The article notes: "Academy Award winner James Coburn has signed to star opposite Rob Lowe in "Proximity" for Joel Silver's Zinc Pictures."
  3. "Film Pro Lowe Plays Con on the Run - Star, Producer Lived in 'Proximity' to Dayton". Dayton Daily News. 2000-06-06. Archived from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
    The article notes: "Filming began Monday in suburban Cleveland Heights with a scene in which Lowe visits his family after he escapes. Filming is expected to be completed in early July and the movie likely will be shown next year."
  4. Rubin, Neal (2001-04-17). "Actress unable to see cable debut". The Detroit News. Archived from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
    The article notes: "Now, at 45, she finally has a major credit, even if it's in a minor role. Having outshined more than 400 other struggling actresses for the part, Avakian got to spend a week on location in Cleveland, where she had her own tiny dressing room with her character's name on a strip of masking tape on the door. ... Avakian plays the mother of the deceased student. She has four scenes, three wardrobe changes, no lines and some very vivid and important emotions: hatred, anguish, rage and despair."
  5. Harris, Dana (2000-04-03). "Silver's new Zinc banner sets 'Proximity'". Daily Variety. Vol. 378, no. 7. ISSN 0011-5509. Archived from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2021-08-30 – via Gale.
    The article notes: "Joel Silver's Warner Bros.-based Silver Pictures is launching a new low-budget production division, Zinc Pictures, whose inaugural project will be the thriller "Proximity," directed by Scott Ziehl ("Broken Vessels"). Rob Lowe is in negotiations for the lead. Seamus Ruane and Ben Queen penned the script."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Proximity to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above sources by Cunard. Sources provide enough independent significant coverage from reliable sources to pass GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:31, 30 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.

[1] ttps://www.dnaindia.com/education/photo-gallery-surat-stuti-khandwala-cracks-neet-jipmer-aiims-and-jee-takes-up-90-scholarship-offer-at-mit-2763873/stuti-scored-988-in-class-12-cbse-board-exams-2763876

[2] ttps://www.ghbase.com/cecil-tetteh-kumah-mfantsipim-school-student-adjudged-the-overall-best-student-in-the-2020-wassce/

[3] ttp://saharareporters.com/2019/07/29/stephany-ugboaja-16-emerges-best-waec-candidate

[4] ttps://www.thestar.com.my/metro/metro-news/2021/06/09/global-honours-for-malaysian-teen

[5] ttps://www.outsports.com/2021/8/16/22623849/lgbtq-paralympics-out-athletes-tokyo

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]