Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 26	August 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AuraOne Systems[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - sources are just churnalism and PR puff pieces. The article was created by the company founder. It has been tagged for notability for a decade. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – my searches don't find anything useful, and the sources cited in the article lack the independence and substantiality that NCORP requires. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable company that does not satisfy WP:GNG.Johnson Wagart (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of refs and others cannot be found, fails GNG, NCORP. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:16, 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 BOSS GP. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 BOSS GP Series[edit]

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

Unsurprisingly a group of rich playboys faffing about in old Dallaras has not received any sort of significant coverage from any independent, reliable source. Some very minor sources seem to give some level of WP:ROUTINE coverage, but even then a lot of that is likely just taken from press releases. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BOSS GP. A search for resources turns up nothing; as such, it doesn't have the notability to qualify as a standalone page, though a brief mention on the primary page would not be amiss. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I think this is a bit of a marginal case, but overall I would say it is not worthy of independent coverage.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BOSS GP lacks independent coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Belawan riots[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, basically. No indication these incidents had any lasting impact. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-07 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems routine, no evidence of any wider impact. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:16, 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 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. Seddon ^talk 00:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Slammer (series 3)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. – DarkGlow • 14:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:49, 13 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) 20:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The series is certainly notable...but this is a mess, and the S1 and S2 articles were PRODed under the same rationale. Nate • (chatter) 00:29, 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 keep. The appearance of a new source by an academic publisher and with a plausible path to improving the article is enough for the outcome to be clear. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhim Singh Rana[edit]

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

Self made hoax article with zero sources other than caste's own fabricated history copied here by Burdak from Jatland. Fails WP:GNG,WP:RSCASTE the image here is also a copyvio.[1] Wareon (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and send to hoax museum - this article was created in July 2005, making it one of the longest-living hoaxes if confirmed as a hoax. wizzito | say hello! 15:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see some more discussion before confirming as a hoax...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Unreferenced article.Johnson Wagart (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is certainly not a hoax and seems like the nominator did not bother to do even a simple search at Google Books. The subject was an 18th-century ruler of Gohad and there are plenty of sources to verify that fact, e.g. see here. Note that he belonged to a ruling dynasty which used the title Rana and his name is either mentioned in sources as 'Rana Bhim Singh' or 'Bhim Singh Rana'. Here are a couple of quotes from an academic source about how he lost and subsequently regained his territory:

Singh, Tripurdaman (2019). Imperial Sovereignty and Local Politics: The Bhadauria Rajputs and the Transition from Mughal to British India, 1600–1900. Cambridge University Press. pp. 71, 78. ISBN 978-1-108-49743-5.

p. 71
A second campaign was undertaken in 1707 by Raja Gopal Singh, which, after much loss of life and resources, resulted in the capture of Gohad and the expulsion of its Jat ruler, Rana Bhim Singh.³³
p. 78
The fort and the territories of Gohad that had been occupied by Raja Gopal Singh were lost. In the words of Sinha, the war with the Marathas ‘gave an opportunity to Rana Bhim Singh of Gohad to regain his lost territory held by the Bhadauria Rajputs’.⁵⁷ The Rana, who had joined the Peshwa’s army in its invasion of Bhadawar, distinguished himself so much ‘that Baji Rao, after defeating the Bhadauria Rajputs, restored Gohad to Rana Bhim Singh’.⁵⁸

- NitinMlk (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NitinMlk. Good work. I agree that the subject is not a hoax. "Rana Bhim Singh" (which currently redirects to Bhim Singh of Mewar) is the actual name of the subject, and much more notable than "Bhim Singh Rana" which could not provide me any sources on Google books that are pre-21st century. I have just found a lot more detailed source for this ruler. I withdraw this AfD and support moving article to Rana Bhim Singh". I encourage Johnson Wagart and Wizzito to support keeping and moving this article. Wareon (talk) 04:13, 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. Seddon ^talk 00:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Mwasinga[edit]

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

Non-notable. Article is promotional in tone and sources provided are mostly to his self-published books on Amazon. ♟♙ (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I concur that the article is very poor: it is promotional, and sourced mostly to the subject's own YouTube videos. However, a quick search for his name on Google News found enough mainstream coverage that he should meet WP:GNG. Barely. So it's a matter of fixing the article rather than deleting it... --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 20 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 22:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Subject seems to be notable but on the basis of available references my vote is for 'Delete'. YouTube is not a reliable reference. If creator add more reliable and siginificant coverage i can change my vote.Johnson Wagart (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there are a lot of press stories linked in the external links section that indicate that this pastor has national coverage. The church he founded has six branches in Malawi and an international branch so may be notable in its own right, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found enough sources to meet gng so there's no reason for the page to be as bad as it is. Whoever made the page just obviously didn't know much about wikipedia. I'm gonna clean it up. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:29, 31 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 01:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanna Koduku[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:50, 13 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 20:28, 20 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 22:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Finngall, i can see the nominator randomly nominates many film's pages.Johnson Wagart (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson Wagart: My repair work on this series of nominations should be construed neither as a !vote either way nor as a questioning of the good faith of the nominator. --Finngall ^talk 16:16, 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 no consensus with no prejudice against nomination due to lack of participation (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agni Parvatam[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 18:17, 13 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 20:28, 20 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 22:43, 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 no consensus with no prejudice against nomination due to lack of participation (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yippee[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmomusico (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 18:17, 13 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 20:28, 20 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 22:43, 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 01:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muddula Koduku[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:50, 13 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 20:27, 20 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 22:42, 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 01:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharya Bhartala Bhagotham[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:50, 13 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 20:27, 20 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 22:42, 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 01:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pandem (movie)[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:50, 13 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 20:26, 20 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 22:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Finngall, i can see the nominator randomly nominates many film's pages.Johnson Wagart (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson Wagart: My repair work on this series of nominations should be construed neither as a !vote either way nor as a questioning of the good faith of the nominator. --Finngall ^talk 16:18, 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 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 01:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaja Donga[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 13 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 20:26, 20 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 22:41, 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 01:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vajrayudham[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmomusico (talk • contribs) 03:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 18:17, 13 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 20:28, 20 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 22:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Finngall, i can see the nominator randomly nominates many film's pages. Though this article needs more references.Johnson Wagart (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson Wagart: My repair work on this series of nominations should be construed neither as a !vote either way nor as a questioning of the good faith of the nominator. --Finngall ^talk 16:07, 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 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 01:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subhodayam[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 13 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 20:29, 20 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 22:40, 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 01:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varnakkazhchakal[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 13 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 20:29, 20 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 22:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Finngall, i can see the nominator randomly nominates many film's pages.Johnson Wagart (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson Wagart: My repair work on this series of nominations should be construed neither as a !vote either way nor as a questioning of the good faith of the nominator. --Finngall ^talk 16:05, 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 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 01:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharyabhartala Bandham[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:50, 13 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 20:26, 20 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 22:39, 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. Geschichte (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhale Rangadu[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:10, 20 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 22:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Finngall, i can see the nominator randomly nominates many film's pages.Johnson Wagart (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson Wagart: My repair work on this series of nominations should be construed neither as a !vote either way nor as a questioning of the good faith of the nominator. --Finngall ^talk 16:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Expanded with sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NFILM. Added a contemporary review and restrospective article about the film. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep, per Kailash29792 and the updates made by them. Di xiku 20:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iddaru Ammayilu[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:11, 20 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 22:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Finngall, i can see the nominator randomly nominates many film's pages.Johnson Wagart (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson Wagart: My repair work on this series of nominations should be construed neither as a !vote either way nor as a comment on the good faith of the nominator. --Finngall ^talk 16:04, 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 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 02:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangaru Bommalu[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:11, 20 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 22:37, 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 02:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Rama Raksha[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Filmomusico (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:12, 20 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 22:37, 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 02:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aalu Magalu[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:12, 20 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 22:37, 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. – bradv^🍁 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biddles Corner, Delaware[edit]

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

Obviously the toll plaza got its name from this place, and to the east a short ways stands the Liston Range Rear Light, the couple of houses between it and the road being the former keepers' dwellings. There's also a barn in the vcinity that shows up in HABS/HAER. That said, I can find no evidence that this was more than a crossroads whose name gets used as a reference point for other things, so I'm not seeing the notability. Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Newspaper and map searches show that this was never anything more than a named crossroad. –dlthewave ☎ 20:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Newspaper articles confirm this was more than just a named crossroad. It's been possible for me to expand this article significantly, using newspaper sources from the 1800s, as well as a number of history books, including The History of Delaware. The Retirement Barn, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, in Biddles Corner; Biddle House, also on the NRHP in Biddles Corner; and other historic structures are in Biddles Corner, which is listed as a settlement in the USGS 1966, USGS 1967, Delaware Place Names, and GNIS. While GNIS could be wrong, the probability that all these others are wrong is unlikely, and doing some WP:OR, we can see twelve houses on Google Maps. As a settlement is a populated place, WP:NPLACE applies: "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source." Firsfron of Ronchester 23:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GNIS cites Delaware Place Names and the two USGS sources are exact reprints of it (note the matching page numbers and scroll up to see identical title pages), so they're either all right or all wrong. These place names books are usually just copied from maps which don't clearly distinguish between communities and crossroads. As for the NHRP listed locations, the Vandergrift-Biddle House is the only one that's actually at Biddles Corner. The other listings merely mention it in passing as a landmark (near Biddles Corner, 1.8 miles from Biddles Corner) if at all, never in the context of a community. I recommend removing them per WP:COATRACK. –dlthewave ☎ 03:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having been over Delaware Place Names a lot in this, my reading is that when it says a place isn't a settlement, the description it gives is as a rule accurate, but places it calls "settlements" often lack much other support for that assertion. They define "settlement" to mean "a populated place with a clustered population of less than 100 persons", and they do distinguish this from a "community" having a dispersed population, but given that they don't give populations for any "settlement" we've discussed, I have to figure that they looked and saw a place that looked like it couldn't have much population, rather than that they knew how many people lived there. Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mondamon Farm Barrack is reliably sourced to the Library of Congress website. The Liston Range Rear Light is reliably sourced to the Library of Congress website. The Retirement Barn is reliably sourced to the Library of Congress website. The US Geological Survey has stated that Biddles Corner is a settlement, Delaware Place Names has stated it is a settlement, and because we can look at Google Maps, we can see there is a settlement there, although small. Something quite similar happened during the AFD discussion for Redden, Delaware (which was kept), where you were removing sourced content with the edit summary Not located in Redden. But independent sources state McColley's Chapel is in Redden "a member of McColley's Chapel in Redden""Redden M.E. Church, Redden", "McColley's Methodist Church, Redden, Delaware". Firsfron of Ronchester 05:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"settlement" is still not a basis for notability when it's nothing more than a few scattered buildings – that can fall under GEOLAND#2. Redden had a recorded population and a post office, so poor comparison. Reywas92^Talk 13:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The presupposition that a geographic community needs to be a "cluster" is misguided. Historical Rural areas (and their subsequent suburban sprawl) do not have to have an urban density to be a settlement with a name and identity, so the intended derogatory "scattered" is highly subjective opinion not cited or supported. Djflem (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I really intend to be derogatory is "a few". I'm damn well aware of how scattered many rural areas are and that there are absolutely notable non-clustered areas that have a coherent community identity, but here we have a mere single interesection with no more than a handful of buildings owned by the Biddles and their successors, a "settlement" by definition perhaps, but still nothing whatsoever providing significant coverage of it being a notable community beyond just a location at the crossroads. Reywas92^Talk 20:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem here is this game of telephone: DPN says "settlement", for which they give a specific definition; GNIS says "populated place", which has its own definition; we turn this into "unincorporated community". The "presupposition that a geographic community needs to be a 'cluster'" is what the original source says about this place; in the few cases where we have accepted the existence of dispersed rural communities, the sources said that outright, but here, that is in contradiction to the only source we really have. The easiest solution to resolving the various references is that it is a crossroads by the Biddle farm but a larger rural community is something none of the soruces support. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The HABS paperwork for both barns says "Biddles Corner Vicinity" on the very first page; the HAER paperwork on the lighthouse gets to the second page before describing its location as "Near Biddles Corner". None of the three helps to establish Biddles Corner as a settlement in its own right. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NPLACE lists common outcomes but is not a guideline and doesn't "apply" as a directive. Searching newspapers.com bring several results as a location (including being the site of the toll plaza), but none with details as a community or with substantive coverage establishing notability. It's certainly correlated that the Biddle House is at Biddle's Corner, but not indicative that the small handful of homes in the vicinity is a distinctly notable community for which geoland1 applies. The History of the State of Delaware says "The 179 acres patented to Leonard Vandegrift now called the Biddle's Corner Farm...", perhaps useful for Biddle House (St. Georges, Delaware) as the farm's homestead but worthless here. In the article you wrote "The Craven House, in Biddles Corner, was built in the mid-19th century", yet the book actually says "Craven House, Biddles Corner vicinity", so where did this preposition come from??? The full context for the 1884 line mentioning the Fort Penn Grange is "Eli Biddle has built a large granary near here. The Fort Penn Grange is building a large hall at Biddle's Corner" (emphasis added). Also Birds Corner and Boyds Corner are marked on the topo map, bottom left, but this isn't, and all three were appropriately removed from the latest topo. If kept, this should be clear that this, like many other corners, is just that – an intersection used as a location for places in the unincorporated vicinity – not with the misleading "is an unincorporated community". Reywas92^Talk 04:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment The Chesdel Restaurant sat just south of this corner on US 13 for 38 years, but neither its website nor this article from the News Journal on its closure mention Biddles Corner. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as a comment on taking those prepositions too seriously: this article from the Philly CBS affiliate claims that the restaurant was "in Middletown". It most certainly was not; the location is actually quite a bit closer to St. Georges than to Middletown, which is some six miles to the SW, but it has a Middletown postal address, so.... Mangoe (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this expansion; whether or not there currently exists a bustling settlement at the location in 2021, it seems uncontroversial that a lot of stuff has been recorded as going down at a "Biddles Corner" at some point in the history of the universe; if nothing else, this ought to be kept. Beyond that, I have no horse in the race of whether it's referred to as an arcology, metropolis, unincorporated community, place name, crossroads, shit on a shingle, etc. jp×g 06:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's no different from any random street or intersection in a city near which things happened or historic buildings are situated. Being outside an incorporated city doesn't make this a notable place when there's no coverage about the place itself. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Avenue up for deletion? It's a grey zone.Djflem (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crap comparison and you know it. Better one might be Madison Avenue and 52rd Street since we do in fact have an article on U.S. Route 13 in Delaware that's part of this intersection. Moreover, we don't call everyone who lives on Madison Avenue a community because it's a location mentioned as where things are situated at or near. U.S._Route_13_in_Delaware#New_Castle_County could mention the historic buildings on the route here perhaps.

Keep a historical community. Djflem (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The community this was a part of would appear to be Saint Georges, Delaware or the St. George's Hundred, Delaware. Sure, a couple farms and homesteads might be a community of neighbors, but that doesn't make it notable. The NRHP nomination forms for Retirement Farm, Biddle House, and Monamon Farm here mention that, not the Corner. Reywas92^Talk 20:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable community, article has been improved. May have been a part of the St. George's Hundred but was its own community, however small, with its own history. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:12, 2 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. – bradv^🍁 16:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazraat el-Btadiniye[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources to this article; it is not mentioned in localiban; http://www.localiban.org/jezzine-district, and the co-ord given points to the middle of nowhere on google-maps Huldra (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Huldra (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the map coordinates point to a place of a different name and even if this place exists somewhere, the name suggests it’s not actually a settled place. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Huldra: there does seem to be a tomb of Safi nearby at 33°28'34.0"N 35°31'58.1"E, so the alt name An Nabi Safi could justify an article if we can find information about it. On the current name, Mazraat just means farm, but I cannot see anything similar to Btadiniye in the area (I think Chesdovi transliterated from Hebrew so it may have been mangled). Onceinawhile (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some (non-RS) sources for this: Nabatiyeh News from Dec 2019 saying that the Iqlim al-Tuffah villages have been reconstructing this maqam, with the hope that it will become a tourist destination. Here is a twitter photo from 2019 showing the construction, and here is a photo from a few weeks ago showing it built. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our Arabic Wikipedia article: ar:جبل_صافي "Safi Mountain". Using google translate the article says Safi Mountain is one of the mountains of the West Lebanon mountain range. Its highest peaks are about 1300 m above sea level. Its name goes back to the Semitic root, which means "Mount Safon", the center of the god Baal-zephon, who is the god of storms. It is likely that the mountain was named after its name due to the large number of storms and tornadoes that occur on it. It is said that a prophet with a shrine in a place that no one knows was buried on the mountain, which the people consider sacred.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; User:Onceinawhile; I don't think that Chesdovi made this article up from nothing; my point is that this place isn't a village. For 13 years this article has been sitting here, without any sources, and with co-ords pointing to a clearly uninhabited area; an absurdity. Perhaps, as you state, there is material out there for an article about the shrine(?), (As for an article asking to be made; I looked into the nearby Nabi Sejoud; now there is (was?) an interesting site, see commons, and Oholiab) (note that the Nabi is located just NE of the village). Anyway, I am waiting for what Chesdovi has to say here, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked it up on this historical map – no sign of Btadiniye. Nabi Safi is clearly there though. I agree with Huldra there is no evidence this is a village. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Eadon[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over a decade, no claim to notability within the article. No notable or even top tier appearances located within Soccerway or FlashScore. Google searches and a DDG search did not yield anything that would count towards WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see how this passes notability for soccer. The link to femalesoccer.net seems to be dead. RomanSpa (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Guildford City F.C.. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guildford United F.C.[edit]

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

Amateur local football (soccer) club. Generally accepted cut-off for notability of English football clubs is having played in the top ten levels of the English football league system (playing in the top 10 levels permits entry to the national FA Cup). This club has never played above level 12. No evidence of reliable in-depth independent coverage found either - only sources currently in the article are from the official site of the club and the league in which they play plus a tweet from an opposition team about a match against Guildford -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Until the other day, this was a redirect to Guildford City F.C.. This Guildford United doesn't seem notable, but a previous iteration (or two) were, and were incorporated/renamed to Guildford City FC. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guildford City F.C. - as before. Please consider protecting the redirect to prevent further disruption or deleting the history and recreating the redirect. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 08:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nfitz. Number 5 7 11:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guildford City F.C..Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:15, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Duruer[edit]

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

According to the reliable source Soccerway, he struggled to get any game time even in the amateur third and fourth tiers of Turkey, let alone the top tier, which is the only one at WP:FPL. Nothing found in my searches would indicate a passing of WP:GNG. This source cited in the article is actually about Murat Duruer and only mentions Mustafa once. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable footballer, fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 08:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:49, 31 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) 20:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Sklenicka[edit]

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

Individual does not meet WP:AUTHOR notability criteria. The only substantive claim to notability seems to be positive reception to the biography of Raymond Carver, but that is not enough to meet the WP:AUTHOR tests. Melmann 19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Melmann 19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Melmann 19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Melmann 19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page needs a lot of editing to clean up the COI and promo aspects, but there are at least two notable works: the Carver biography and also the Alice Adams biography. Both received extensive and in-depth reviews (e.g. this review of the Adams book in the New York Times). Both books are sufficiently notable to support individual articles, but I'd prefer to keep them together in the author's page. See Sole authors of notable books for my reasoning. pburka (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... or move to Works of Carol Sklenicka or Carol Sklenicka bibliography and refactor appropriately, per discussion below. pburka (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: Could you expand in regards to WP:AUTHOR criteria and how this article meets them? I struggle to see how even the most charitable reading of those criteria could support keeping the article. I do agree that articles on the books, individually, may stand a better chance of meeting notability, but this article (and discussion) is about the individual. It's not obvious to me that just because individual book is notable the author should WP:INHERIT the notability by mere transitive property. Surely, a notable author would receive coverage independent of any of their individual work. Melmann 21:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Melmann: I linked to an essay explaining my reasoning. This page includes details about two or more notable books. Would you prefer that we split the article up into two or three stubs about each of the books and replicate a biography section in each of those? pburka (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: I would prefer if we merged what is worthy of preserving in regards to these two books into the book subject's 'Reception/Influence/Cultural impact' section, and deleted the rest. I did read your essay, but I did not see any policy based arguments with which I could engage with. It appears to me that you're making a WP:IGNORE argument, which is in itself fair, but you seem to be making it for all 'less notable authors', not just this particular one, which in itself seems like a policy suggestion that might do better in WP:VPP. Melmann 21:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Melmann: On the contrary, as I note in the essay, it's consistent with WP:NAUTHOR#3, although I acknowledge it's a slightly radical interpretation. Do you agree that at least two of her books are individually notable per WP:NBOOK? Would you be more comfortable with my position if we renamed the page to Works of Carol Sklenicka? pburka (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: The books do appear to meet WP:NBOOK criteria 1. If you propose move (or if you bold move) to Works of Carol Sklenicka (or functionally equivalent alternative), I will withdraw this nomination. Melmann 22:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Melmann: Proposed above. Thank you for a productive and thought-provoking discussion. pburka (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sklenicka appears to meet WP:AUTHOR#3 for Raymond Carver alone, so there appears to be no reason to move the article, due to the support available for this notability criteria - the book was also featured as one of the The 10 Best Books of 2009 by the New York Times, and the NYT printed an excerpt, in addition to the review by Stephen King published by the NYT, the reviews noted below, included in the article, and potentially available with additional research. There is also additional support for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability, although this does not appear necessary to support an article for her. Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG due to in-depth coverage of her and her career (e.g. The Oregonian, Press Democrat, SFGate) and WP:AUTHOR#3, as the author of well-known works that are the primary subject of multiple independent reviews, e.g. Abigail Adams (Book Marks, six reviews); Raymond Carver (e.g. Publisher's Weekly, SFGate, NPR, The Oregonian, The Irish Times, CS Monitor, Seattle Times etc). Beccaynr (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close, do not retitle. The nomination is fundamentally misguided. It is based on the increasingly common, and disturbingly given credibility, heresy that something in Wikipedia policy dictates that creative people cannot "inherit" notability from their work. This nonsense is, of course, expressly contradicted by policy, guideline, and practice; as WP:INHERITED states, "the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability". The great majority of creative folks (and notable people in general) live unexceptional personal lives. Editors who expect that people must behave like Kardashians to merit individual articles don't understand what users come to an encyclopedia for. But we don't center our coverage on articles like Drumming of Charlie Watts, Comic strips of Charles Schulz, Baseball career of Sandy Koufax, or Scientific work of Wolfgang Pauli. The AFD process would be greatly improved if any NOMINATOR who cited NOTINHERITED without understanding it was topic banned for a month, length doubling with each subsequent offense. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: two books reviewed in many reliable sources: enough. I've added a couple more reviews of the Adams book, to support the "multiple independent reviews" for WP:AUTHOR#3. PamD 17:06, 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 16:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alshair Fiyaz[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. Whole article derives the notability through a single event (as most of the sources point towards it). - Hatchens (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the creator of the article. The article passes WP:GNG easily with the references presented in the article. Insider trading is a serious offense, so it should have more coverage. But the fact that other points in the article were covered makes it not a BLP1E material. The offense got wide coverage because he is notable, not the other way. I don’t see any problems in using the insider trading links largely as a reference since all those passes WP:RS. - The9Man ^(Talk) 15:03, 27 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) 18:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Others who are going to participate in this AfD, kindly do refer to the discussion at entity's talk page (Talk:Alshair Fiyaz) before making any decision. -Hatchens (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Weak keep based on the talk page discussion and the sources. It seems like this clearly meets notability as there's sustained coverage about a number of things including business stuff, polo, insider trading/white collar crime, and philanthropy (all the rich people hobbies). The best sources currently on the page are in The Times,[2] Bloomberg,[3][4] The Telegraph,[5] City A.M.,[6] and Financial Times.[7][8][9] I found more coverage (about various things) in Jerusalem Post,[10] International Business Times,[11] and Fashion Week Daily.[12] Per Hatchens's comments, it needs a lot of info added to be more balanced. Right now it has barely any negative info about the guy even though him being accused of insider trading seems like it was a big deal. I'm gonna edit this to make it more balanced by adding information about him insider trading, and add some more sources. There's more info about that in The News International,[13] and Wall Street Journal.[14]. Tbh I'm changing to weak keep because this guy seems like a jerk, and he tried to manipulate newspapers to make his stocks go up. The fact that rich people can do that to real newspapers is giving me an existential crisis. Who knows if any of these sources are reliable or if they all got insider "tips"?BuySomeApples (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Groundworks Companies[edit]

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

Coverage of this company is so run-of-the-mill you could pour in a sack of corn and come away with grits. This is a business directory entry, not an encyclopedic article, and there's no basis for developing the latter. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 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. The sources found by BuySomeApples demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ripps[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBAND. No in-depth coverage from reliable sources or any notable releases. – DarkGlow • 14:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, their first label Catskills Records could seemingly be notable, but their second label was distinctly non-notable. So this falls a little short. Geschichte (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Geschichte: the notability of the labels a band was signed to doesn't really matter. You have non-notable artists signed to major labels and notable independent artists for example. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage to meet GNG. An AllMusic biography,[15], Exclaim!,[16] a BBC article,[17] NME,[18] Drowned In Sound,[19][20] and ZapBang Magazine,[21] plus other interviews and local coverage which I used to flesh out the page. Weird thing is that the page already had info from a lot of these sources on it but not the sources. I think whoever made the page didn't really understand Wikipedia. The notability of the labels they were signed to doesn't matter for the band's notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since voting, I've found other sources like Hot Press,[22] and added them to the page. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:19, 25 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)} 15:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as multiple reliable sources coverage has been identified in this discussion including the BBC, Allmusic staff written bio, Drowned in Sound and NME and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:38, 31 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 15:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Stooksbury[edit]

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

Obvious WP:BLP1E stub of a random guy who ran for a single election five years ago, did not even try to win, and was blown out. The random musing in the article about how he won more votes than the next candidate is not even accurate (125,517 vs. 124,917). Nohomersryan (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's disregard the coverage prior to the 2016 election for a moment. Once someone loses an election, they are often forgotten. That's not the case here. He is being talked about well after the election, and by national media. This is much different from the more common situation where an unsuccesful candidate only attracts local attention which ends on election night. I think the post-election references are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced. Of these sources [23] [24] [25] [26] you have newly added, they all date to the special election that happened right after he lost, or only mention him in passing as the then most recent loser. The articles about him "breaking his silence" are the same, certainly not "well after the election". If the bulk of the new coverage is only about him in context as an election failure, he is still WP:BLP1E. Anything after 2017 that isn't talking about how he lost? Nohomersryan (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But there's no other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons (such as already having held a different notable office or attaining notability in another field before or after failing to win an election) being made here, and there's no compelling evidence that his candidacy would pass the ten year test as a topic of greater and more enduring significance than other people's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 24 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)} 15:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as the losing candidate in an election. Edge3 (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Khanna[edit]

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

I am not sure whether this person is self notable. I doubt he is gaining it from his mother, not satisfied WP:NARTIST and fails WP:GNG. For now it may be WP:TOOSOON DMySon (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created by advertising agency, which I have now blocked. Deb (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an "artist" with only one exhibition, in an event space called The Loft at the Quest Mall in Kolkata. [27]. Vexations (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachna Chhachhi[edit]

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

Can't see any notability to add this biography on Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG. References do not show significant coverage, most of them are self published or biography. DMySon (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons in the nomination. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are ample news portal & books references about her. She is one of the notable nutritionists in India. She is an active columnist and author of some popular books on nutrition and wellness. --Kalyan131 (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which three do you think offer the best in depth and independent coverage? Mccapra (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a single in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG, significant coverage. Bapinghosh (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Śajvo[edit]

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

I can't find much in the way of WP:SIGCOV, and I think it probably fails WP:GNG. I think it's also been auto-translated from Ukrainian. PepperBeast (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The name should be Syaivo according to most Eng. sources. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. After reading the auto-translated versions of all the cited sources, it's still not clear to me what the controversy over this bookstore is about nor why it is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:06, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jama Mohamud Takar[edit]

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

No evidence that he held any office, so fails Notability Guideline for Politicians. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 10:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 10:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 10:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable politician, no evidence of ever holding a office, and I can't find anything on them using a google search. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 09:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and lacks third party sources Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:44, 3 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: withdrawn by nominator, no !votes to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Emmanuel Gyimah-Boadi[edit]

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

~~BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is inherited from Afrobarometer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Member of the US National Academy of Sciences (in this case, international member, but nevertheless) is an automatic pass of WP:PROF#C3. And, unsurprisingly for someone elected to the National Academy, his high citation counts on Google Scholar also demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per David Eppstein, passes NPROF #1 and #3. --hroest 17:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to doing all the stuff pointed out above, he co-founded Afrobarometer which is a notable institution. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:38, 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 redirect to Extract. Sandstein 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid extract[edit]

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

This page is 13 years old and has collected copious dust bunnies over the years. No citations, and there isn't anything to cite. Fluid extract is quite a generic and undefined term. The page itself is uninformative and superfluous.

Probably should have prodded this, hindsight 20/20, but too late now. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 06:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination claims that there isn't anything to cite. Here are some counter-examples, which demonstrate the nature of this broad topic:

Comparisons of Soxhlet extraction, pressurized liquid extraction, supercritical fluid extraction and subcritical water extraction for environmental solids
Microwave-Assisted Extraction as an Alternative to Soxhlet, Sonication, and Supercritical Fluid Extraction
Comparison of supercritical fluid extraction and Soxhlet extraction for the determination of PCBs in seaweed samples
A non-conventional method to extract D-limonene from waste lemon peels and comparison with traditional Soxhlet extraction
Recent advances in extraction of nutraceuticals from plants
Oil extraction from microalgae for biodiesel production
Development of a novel supercritical fluid extraction procedure for lanolin extraction from raw wool
Comparison of extraction methods of virgin coconut oil: cold press, soxhlet and supercritical fluid extraction
A comparative study of various oil extraction techniques from plants
Ultrasound-assisted extraction in food analysis

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely. WP already has articles on Soxhlet extractor and Supercritical fluid extraction, and quite probably on other forms of extraction that use fluids. The only possibly-useful outcome of this page would be for it to be renamed and completely re-written to become some sort of list/disambiguation page pointing at the other articles. There is absolutely no need for an article called 'fluid extract' because this is such a broad and fuzzy term, analogous to having an article called "things that turn some sort of energy into rotational kinetic energy" instead of articles on the electric motor, the internal combustion engine and so on. Also, as someone who actually works in a closely related field, I'm not sure what much of the text of the current article is supposed to mean. Elemimele (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have such an article – it's called engine or motor. This is exactly what a broad topic is supposed to do in a general encyclopedia – we need such general explanations as well as detailed specifics. See can't see the wood for the trees. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and Redirect to Extract. The article is uncited and poorly written. Until a better article on this vague topic is written, it is a useful search term to direct readers somewhere. Extraction (chemistry) is another possible target. Both articles also need some help. Mdewman6 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Extract, as Extraction (chemistry) is probably over-specific. Extract is already a broad-scope article that needs improvement; we don't gain anything by having two such pages. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Fails WP:GNG. I'm sympathetic to the editors who desire to preserve this article as a redirect, but it is a misguided belief. The article was created 13 years ago in one small edit by a WP:SPA and has no sources, so there is nothing worth saving to enhance a different article. All of the very little content in this article is useless. Editor time would be better spent directly enhancing articles like Extract with reliable sources. What do they need this for? Newshunter12 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone who suggested redirecting, I don't really think there's anything worth preserving; it's more of a "eh, redirects are cheap" decision. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I am not suggesting we preserve anything from the article (not merge anything) but the page is a very plausible search term, so a redirect might be helpful. In spite of what I said above, I am not sure Extract in its current form is a good target, Extraction (chemistry) may be better. All that said, I would be okay with deletion and deferring to search results if that is the direction consensus takes this. I agree, let's improve these other articles. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would 'delete and redirect' be an agreeable compromise for either of you? We all seem to agree that this article is useless, and I'd be fine joining with a 'fluid extract' redirect to an existing article that hopefully will be soon revamped. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm normally not much of a fan of that end-around maneuver, as why not just preserve the page history along the way, but I would be okay with that, sure. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect Changed vote to help form consensus. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:14, 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. – bradv^🍁 16:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SQL PL[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There have been several books published on this topic. At worst it could be merged to Db2 Database. --Michig (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Db2 Database GorgonaJS (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Grant Allen (2008). Beginning DB2: From Novice to Professional. Apress. p. 156. ISBN 9781430205487.
^ Paul Zikopoulos; George Baklarz; Roman B. Melnyk; Dirk Deroos (2003). DB2 Version 8: The Official Guide. Prentice Hall. pp. 239–240. ISBN 9780131401587.
^ George Baklarz; Bill Wong (2003). DB2 Universal Database V8 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows Database Administration Certification Guide. Prentice Hall. pp. 845–846. ISBN 9780130463616.
^ Steve Sanyal; David Martineau; Kevin Gashyna; Michael Kyprianou (2003). DB2 Universal Database V8 Application Development Certification Guide. Prentice Hall. p. 136. ISBN 9780130463913.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it’s a DB2 database subtopic, and the content is small enough to fold in. I see some hits in GBooks, mostly as part of that, e.g. phrasing DB2 SQL PL. The general GHITS and GNews seems too small to support a separate article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is still active development. Version 11.5 is a latest. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 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 delete. czar 02:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiffing Brit[edit]

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

While this individual may be a popular gaming YouTuber, there is no secondary coverage, so it fails WP:GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added some secondary coverage, though I'm unsure of whether spieletipps.de is a suitable RS. Based on this edit summary, the article seems to have been created as a birthday gift. It reads rather fancrufty, and every other source besides the ones I added are primary and non-RS CiphriusKane (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff he has done seems to have gained attention on YouTube, like his Steam Summer Sale stuff and his promotion of the Community tab, but I can't find any reliable english-language secondary sourcing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the source is irrelevant really, as long as it's significant and reliable coverage, and the Humankind article definitely is provided spieletipps is considered RS. Most of the media attraction seems to be German, though I did have to filter an English-language source due to search result pollution (TSB got mentioned in a headline, and so every page on the site which linked to the news story got into the results), ~~may have to check that site again, see if I can filter the pollution~~ Cleared pollution, naething worthwhile CiphriusKane (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah OFC it doesn't matter what language the coverage is in, but it's difficult to assess the reliability of foreign language publications, there are plenty of junk-level gaming sourcing in English and I presume the same is true for German. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The majority of the secondary coverage is either the same press release about a Cities Skyline tournament or articles about his videos. While the use of Discord and Twitter as sources may be fine as per WP:ABOUTSELF, basing the article around such sources is bad. We could maybe swap out a spieletipps source with another to show multiple sources cover TSB, but I doubt it'd improve the article or help further claims of notability. This may very well be a case of WP:TOOSOON though, as there is some minor notability here, so maybe draftifying would be a better option? CiphriusKane (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Swinxy has added a few more sources, only Der Standard is really of any use. The Esports News source looks like a press release which literally just namedrops (but at least confirms something about TSB), and the AltChar source is a literal namedrop that just says TSB would have enjoyed a game before going into how bug-ridden the game was. So we've got 2 outlets (Der Standard and Spieletipps) providing some form of SIGCOV. As such, I'm still saying it's too little to establish notability at this time CiphriusKane (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was very little about him I could find (I even went to page 2 of google!), and the article is just bone-dry. I agree that the article may be WP:TOOSOON. SWinxy (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could be relevant but article must be improved. GamedevExpert^{(Talk to GamedevExpert)} 5:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet !vote. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete based on CiphriusKane's analysis. Most sources currently used are either primary or unreliable (maybe with the exception of Der Standard) and I cannot immediately find reliable sources that discuss the person in detail as to satisfy SIGCOV. IceWelder [✉] 12:11, 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 17:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Green Voice[edit]

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

Contested CSD. Recreation of article following AfD which I have always thought is against the rules. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. Fails GNG and ORG. Fails notability for political party by having no notable results or achievements beyond that expected of a political party, namely standing for election. "Finished in top 10 at Scottish Parliament elections" is not an achievement in itself (no deposits saved, no MSPs elected). doktorb _words^deeds 04:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 04:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 04:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 04:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the close for the last AFD specifically said there was no bar on recreation and that is clearly what happened. Nobody has broken any "rules". But in response to your third nomination of this article (in its third form) for deletion, can you explain why coverage like this, this, this, this, this, this, and this wouldn't be considered significant enough to justify the subject's inclusion? St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2021 Scottish Parliament election. I had a go at improving the page a little. However, I am still inclined to look at this as not meeting the WP:Event guidelines, given that notable coverage all seems to centre around this one election and the claim that IGV cost the Scottish Greens seats. The previous AfD closed as delete but specifically speculated that the May 2021 election coverage might provide sourcing for the topic to meet notability guidelines. While more mention in reliable sourcing now exists, it seems very much restricted to the Scottish Greens' complaint, and so doesn't meet notability. OsFish (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced with post-election references. Unreal7 (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nom has a history of attempting to delete all minor party articles. Coming back for a third bite of the cherry looks like an abuse of process. Emeraude (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The prior discussion resulted in a delete vote, and it is not abuse of process to renominate when it is recreated, even if that was without prejudice.
- This is not a valid keep reason within the rules of AfD. Please remember to be civil and assume good faith. If you're new to these discussions, or want any further advice, you can try the Teahouse. doktorb _words^deeds 21:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies - I misread. Emeraude (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As someone uninvolved, I have to say that Doktorbuk is absolutely correct on this point. The previous very recent AfD resulted in deletion; the community agreed with them. There is nothing wrong with nominating the page again. On the other hand, while Doctorbuk has a point that someone re-creating a page only just deleted might be vexatious, in this specific instance, the possibility of future notability after the May 2021 election was openly raised. The question is whether the new sources available post election now justify a separate article on IGV. I see no bad behaviour in this from either the re-creator or the AfD nominator. OsFish (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Failed party that gets less than half a percent of the vote is not necessarily entitled to an article. 2021 Scottish Parliament election#Analysis already covers this content and can incorporate the above sources without a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the same with the Abolish the Scottish Parliament Party and Restore Scotland? Unreal7 (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge them too. Performing miserably in a single election doesn't mean there must be an article. Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, it doesn't mean there mustn't be. Emeraude (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd merge or delete those without a doubt. I'll have to wait a bit before nominating them, but they are on my watchlist for future AfDs, as all such parties are and always will be. doktorb _words^deeds 02:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sums up your campaign nicely. Emeraude (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never hidden or denied it. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for every single registration on the Register of Political Parties. I will always look at new articles for political parties and ask myself, "Is this notable enough?". I know we don't agree on political party articles on here, but that's just what it is, we differ. doktorb _words^deeds 08:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep passes GNG. It is a thing which has made sufficient impact during its short life. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough coverage to pass GNG. We have articles on many failed political parties and perennial candidates because they have substantial references, despite never winning an election, and this case is no different. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1, nominator withdrew and there are no delete votes. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 21:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Chung[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Not enough reliable secondary sources. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude.....As a new user , please read WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (people). It sounds like you are nominating anti-China article in bad faith. Matthew hk (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF and don't attack your fellow editor by assuming their intention. The problem is that we don't have enough reliable secondary sources, and existing ones in the article are either dead, a bookstore's listing or just incidentally mentioning the subject. Also please don't call me a dude.
The only source in an established journal I can find is an editorial from SCMP called "Joe Chung: a Chinese who rejects all things Chinese", and I'm not very sure you can use that for BLP. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 22:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although he is not as notable as many other authors but he is notable enough to have a wiki article. Wasraw (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Thompson, Stephen (2014-09-10). "A Chinese Author Takes On China". Asia Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The article notes: "How much did Joe Chung anger the Hong Kong and Beijing establishment, and what were the results? Chung was one of the most controversial authors on the popular but now-defunct House News, a Hong Kong-based news website and content aggregator founded by former radio personality Tony Tsoi and others to cover covers politics, business, lifestyle, media, and local news. ... Born in the 1960s, the author currently lives in Norway, well out of the clutches of Chinese authorities. He became concerned with Chinese politics following the imprisonment of Wei Jingsheng in 1979, ..."
2. Lau, Shirley (2010-10-31). "Diaspora diaries". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The article notes: "In his neck of the woods, Chung is somewhat of an authority on Chinese affairs - and not only because he is the author of best-sellers I Don't Want to be Chinese Again and China is Stranger than Fiction. It is also because he is one of only 400 Chinese people living in Stavanger, in southern Norway. ... Chung is largely oblivious to the debate, however, enjoying a quiet Scandinavian life with his wife and one-year-old twins."
3. Lo, Alex (2017-06-26). "Joe Chung: a Chinese who rejects all things Chinese". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The article notes: "Among the first ones it has profiled is Joe Chung, the best-selling Hong Kong author of Don’t reincarnate as a Chinese in the next life. The book is admired by many intellectuals and politicians in Hong Kong and Taiwan. No doubt it captures something of the zeitgeist. Chung’s rejection of all things Chinese is total – he is even critical of the language itself. He moved his whole family to the Norwegian city of Stavanger in the early 2000s. ... Long before it became fashionable to advocate localism, Hong Kong separatism, Taiwan independence and anti-China emotionalism, he had been advocating all of them – except he sees Hong Kong society as inherently Chinese and corrupt as well."
4. "The Liberty Times Editorial: Only Taiwan can decide its future". Liberty Times. 2014-06-19. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The editorial notes: "A recent online survey of Chinese people found that 65 percent of respondents would prefer not to be Chinese at all. This sentiment prompted the Hong Kong author Joe Chung (鍾祖康) to write his 2010 bestseller I Don't Want To Be Chinese (來生不做中國人)."
5. Fan, C. Simon (2016). Culture, Institution, and Development in China: The economics of national character. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 249. ISBN 978-1-138-18571-5. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The book notes: "Some books have severely criticized the Chinese culture in recent years, including The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis of China Culture by Bo-Yang (1985) and I Don't Want to Be Chinese Again by Joe Chung (2007). Although these authors are Chinese, the titles of their books alone might prevent them from being published in Western countries. However, these books are highly popular among Chinese readers. For example, Chung's book was first published in November 2007 and has already been printed in 55 editions."
6. Franklen (2007-11-19). "鍾祖康：來生不做中國人" [Joe Chung: I Don't Want to Be Chinese Again]. zh:獨立媒體 inmediahk.net (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
7. "鍾祖康稱被 facebook 指年前言論犯規或刪帳戶　斥向中國獻媚". Stand News (in Chinese). 2018-01-18. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
8. 楊天帥 (2017-06-23). "【斷交中國】鍾祖康：來生不做中國人　難免包括香港人". Stand News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
9. 何山 (2013-09-11). "專題: 港人移民系列（2）---"來生不做中國人"" (in Chinese). Radio Free Asia. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Joe Chung (simplified Chinese: 钟祖康; traditional Chinese: 鍾祖康) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the sources. We can start incorporating them into the article. I retract this AFD. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 02:18, 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 keep. Some concern has been expressed about the nomination and I suggest the nominator takes note of these. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aseel (website)[edit]

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

Article is about a web start-up in Afghanistan. While references are good, there is insufficient content in the article to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Whiteguru (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not read WP:NCORP or WP:GNG to mean that notability relies on the content of the Wikipedia article. Amirah talk 10:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also Whiteguru you already said this on my talk page, and I asked you to explain what you meant by it as a don't see where you get your reasoning from the guidelines you have quoted. Instead of responding to my request for an explanation, so that I may understand the guidelines and not repeat the same, you nominate the article for deletion. I am not a new user, but I am new to creating pages outside my subject area. At the moment I am totally feeling like giving up on Wikipedia despite my many contributions over the years. It is behaviour like yours that leads to this. Amirah talk 10:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ARTN. Amirah talk 10:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think you should have your new page reviewer privileges revoked because I don't think you understand the Wikipedia policies on deletion, (correct me if I am wrong), and when you messaged my talk page and I asked you to explain what you meant, then instead of explaining you simply ignored me and put the article up for deletion. That is not a good way to treat another editor, who is simply trying to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive manner. Amirah talk 10:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I could easily edit the article and add further content to it, but before doing so I want to understand which one of us is right in this discussion, so that I am not left with any misunderstanding which may effect my future editing of Wikipedia. So would somebody please respond and let me know. Is there any validity in the grounds Whiteguru has given for deletion or not? Amirah talk 10:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is just nonsense. As AmirahBreen has correctly pointed out, the notability guidelines do not depend on the amount of content in the article, but they do depend on having suitable references. Therefore "While references are good, there is insufficient content in the article" is an argument for keeping the article, and perhaps expanding it, emphatically not an argument for deletion. The references do show notability. JBW (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nomination argument is nonsensical, notability rests on reliable sources, and passing notability guidlines, not on content in the article. . For an extreme hypothetical example, even if the Joe Biden article had one sentence about his election to the presidency, and no other information, that article would still clearly be notable because it meets the WP:GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs to be developed. The website is recent, but the few references that are provided are serious. Lagoyan (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as relevant notability guidelines are satisfied by the non-trivial coverage received from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titan PMR[edit]

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

This patient medical record system fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. The Pharmacy.biz website cited in the article is not reliable—many of its articles appear to be based on press releases, with little editorial oversight. I'm not sure about the merits of the cited Business Live source. All other sources I found in my WP:BEFORE are self-published material or press releases. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't realise that Pharmacy.biz is not a reliable source. If you want to delete the article then go ahead. Amirah talk 11:38, 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. ✗plicit 03:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Wonders[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. The only criteria under WP:NACADEMIC which they might meet is the 3rd bullet: "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor..." However, I am not sure that the American College of Sports Medicine meets the criteria of a major scholarly society. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It certainly does not, nor are any other categories of WP:Prof passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: some sources, [28][29] although the first is written by the university communications department...I couldn't find any reviews of her 2 books. TJMSmith (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A majority of the content is cited to primary sources (CV, journal articles by the subject). A handful of name drops and newspaper quotes do not adequately show that WP:GNG or any specific notability criterion such as WP:PROF is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WorldCat came up empty when searching for the first of the two listed books (Exercise Programming for Cancer Patients, 2013). The second book (Pediatric Cancer Survivors, 2017) was a co-authored e-book published by IntechOpen, who appear to be a predatory publisher of the "you've got a document, we'll sell it as a book" variety. I don't think we're looking at a WP:AUTHOR pass. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 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. ✗plicit 03:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dealpath[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Justifiably PRODded and deleted in July, but recently restored solely on the request of a company representative. – Teratix ₵ 02:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Written like an advertisement. Wikipuffery, yes. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing but spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability, as required by WP:NCORP, is not evident.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 31 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 Penn State Nittany Lions#Soccer. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Park Avenue Army[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Penn State Nittany Lions#Soccer. Giant Snowman 07:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Penn State Nittany Lions#Soccer. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Penn State Nittany Lions men's soccer & Penn State Nittany Lions women's soccer. NoahRiffe (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Penn State Nittany Lions#Soccer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:01, 3 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.

[1] Grant Allen (2008). Beginning DB2: From Novice to Professional. Apress. p. 156. ISBN 9781430205487.

[2] Paul Zikopoulos; George Baklarz; Roman B. Melnyk; Dirk Deroos (2003). DB2 Version 8: The Official Guide. Prentice Hall. pp. 239–240. ISBN 9780131401587.

[3] George Baklarz; Bill Wong (2003). DB2 Universal Database V8 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows Database Administration Certification Guide. Prentice Hall. pp. 845–846. ISBN 9780130463616.

[4] Steve Sanyal; David Martineau; Kevin Gashyna; Michael Kyprianou (2003). DB2 Universal Database V8 Application Development Certification Guide. Prentice Hall. p. 136. ISBN 9780130463913.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]