Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 11 December 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Forever[edit]

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

This article may not meet the general notability guidelines. It is true that this Amiga emulator stands out as the only emulator licensed to distribute copies of the Kickstart ROM, and it is certainly well-known to the Amiga community, but I have not been able to find much coverage on the subject elsewhere. Of what I was able to find, the vast majority did come from mainstream publications dedicated to computers or video games, but a lot of these were just passing mentions or tutorials on how to run Amiga software on modern PCs, although some of them were reviews or announcements of newly released versions of Amiga Forever.

Never mind some of the issues troubling this article. One copyrighted image is enough, but two seems unnecessary, and all of its three sources are primary. The article lies on the boundary of being or not being notable, but I am more inclined to believing that it is not. I had the same issue a few months back with DX-Ball, a former article that I marked for deletion (a shame since I played that a lot, but that problem seems to be common with earlier freeware games). Similary, I would argue that UAE (emulator) is not notable and could simply be merged into this article in the event that it is kept, because this separately released software is included in the Amiga Forever package. I doubt that this article should be kept, but given its notability among Amiga enthusiasts, I cannot say where it should be merged. Amiga, Inc. since it licensed the software to distribute the Kickstart ROM? Kickstart (Amiga) since it is technically still being sold by this means as of this post? I would like some help on deciding the future of the article. FreeMediaKid$ 23:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are reviews of this emulation package in published magazines inside (eg. Amiga Review issue 37 - Czech magazine, 1998) and outside of the Amiga bubble (c't 26/2013, p. 140 [1]). Should not be a problem to find more of this kind of coverage - enough in my POV to establish notability of the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of results in google books. Also reviewed, including latest versions like here in PC World.--Mvqr (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Other sources (Amiga magazines): CU Amiga July 98 p. 60; Amiga Future 128 (September/October 2017), p. 22 (there are more reviews of AF in other issues of this magazine). Pavlor (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Amiga was huge in its day. As this was the only official emulator, one would consider this as definitely noteable and passing WP:GNG. Also as noted, there is RS for it in Amiga magazines and I ran a search on google books, and it is mentioned there quite a bit - establishing notability Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a few extra references Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paşakonağı, Düzce[edit]

Paşakonağı, Düzce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yenitaşköprü, Düzce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several previous discussions [2][3] [4] support redirecting Turkish village stubs to the District article if they are sourced only to Koyumuz. However, these two redirects were reverted because they have a second source which briefly mentions them being populated by Kurds. I believe that this passing mention is insufficient to justify a standalone article, therefore I propose that Yenitaşköprü and Paşakonağı be redirected to Düzce district. (I had proposed these at WP:RfD and was, well, redirected here because this is a question of whether or not a standalone article should exist.) –dlthewave ☎ 22:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Styyx - These are all at best just bare mentions of Paşakonağı. The entire reason why these Mahalle articles were redirected to the district level (in a very well attended discussion) is because of lack of significant coverage such as would allow you to actually write an article about them. DLthewave is acting on a clear, pre-existing consensus that Mahalle that lacked any significant coverage should just be redirected to district level. FOARP (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barely even took me 15 minutes to write 4-5 sentences with the sources. It isn't that hard is it? ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 17:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that we are not discussing a "mahalle" but a "köy". The mahalle thing only exists in metropolitan municipalities. Erzurum (the province home to the whole "previous consensus" you're saying) is metropolitan municipality, Düzce, literally the newest province of Turkey, is not. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 17:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These new sources don't actually say anything about Paşakonağı. This source doesn't mention Paşakonağı. This source only mentions Paşakonağı once ("With the warming of the weather, animal breeders started to release their animals to the pastures. Buffaloes, which are concentrated in Bahçeköy, Paşakonağı and Yenitaşköprü villages of Düzce, were released into the pastures.") This source doesn't mention Paşakonağı. The real topic of all three articles is Düzce, so this is an excellent argument for redirecting there. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bruh moment. Perhaps check the article? First you say that the only source is the unreliable Köyümüz (fair enough), so I expand the article with sources online and now you claim they don't mention Paşakonağı, even tough I added them in the article with text? The first one mentions it as "Paşa konağı", the last one does at the bottom. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 09:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The sources don't actually say anything about Paşakonağı. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, really. Please WP:AGF. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please realize that Yenitaşköprü has a school regulated by the Ministry of National Education. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yenitaşköprü is not the subject of this article, 2) that makes the school an official state school, it does not mean there is anything that can really be written about this topic, which was the reason why the Mahalle articles (which are ultimately the same level as a koy) were all redirected to district-level unless there was some significant coverage of them. The real topic of all this coverage is Düzce anyway. 3) I know you're trying for a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass here, but the issue here is that even if they do pass that guide, the subject is better covered at the district-level (per the previous AFD), because there is nothing really to write about the place in terms of significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the top of this page: both Paşakonağı and Yenitaşköprü are discussed in this nomination. The latter passes GEOLAND#1 with the school. Your reasoning of "nothing to write about" is quite weak as I've managed to write things about geography, economy and education in the article with the sources above. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both would certainly appear to be recognised settlements. I see no good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per Users Styx and Necrothesp. Acceptably expanded, and in any case there is nothing wrong with geostubs as long as there are the sources showing that the places exist as recognised settlements. Ingratis (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 01:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (nom) - In my opinion both articles have been expanded with reliable sources to the point that a redirect is no longer necessary. Not a candidate for speedy keep/snow close since there are delete/redirect !votes, but I think the consensus is clear. –dlthewave ☎ 18:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Law of persons in South Africa#Testate succession. ✗plicit 01:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Parte Boedel Steenkamp[edit]

Ex Parte Boedel Steenkamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Legal case which fails WP:GNG. Relies on a single primary source and reads like it was copied and pasted from a law handbook or similar. The topic is not by itself notable, but anything useful here could probably be merged with Fetal rights. Mako001 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The appropriate merge/redirect target would be Law of persons in South Africa#Testate succession. - htonl (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/redirect the case is discussed in this paper but I can't find evidence that GNG is met. (t · c) buidhe 05:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. I can confirm that the articles are the same. Geschichte (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Canolinntas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG quite clearly, only having a handful of minor mentions in local Italian media, and meeting no other notability criterion. PK650 (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 02:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart School, Sitamarhi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sacred Heart School, Sitamarhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive School Barh[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.R. Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross School, Darbhanga[edit]

Holy Cross School, Darbhanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Araria Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikash Convent School, Karanjia[edit]

Vikash Convent School, Karanjia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talakusuma Govindpur High School[edit]

Talakusuma Govindpur High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing here in no way meets GNG or organizational notability guidelines. I went through various possible source searching options listed with the deletion nomination, and came up with nothing. I would suggest that the various school related nominations from today may need to be left open longer than normal. It takes quite some time to go through both the articles and a search for possible sources for even one of the schools. Some of these articles are quite long, and we want people participating in the discussion to have the ability to go over the article and consider other sources. I think this article illustrates the roots of the problem. When we had the secondary school notability guideline, it was written with the large urban and suburban US high school in mind. I went to Sterling Heights High School. That school employs just over 60 teachers. It has an enrollment of about 1500, which is not by any means exceptionally large among public high schools in the US. This school here has 9 teachers. Even among US high schools there are many schools that are extremely small and even the high school I went to rarely receives indepth coverage that says anything substantive about it. This whole thing is a mess. I think the best course is to evaluate schools on a case by case basis. I fear unless we are willing to wait at least a month many of the school nominations that started today will be closed without adequate discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish we would go to requiring that all articles go through the Aritcle for Creation process. It would lead to much better sourcing on the articles we get.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert - I completely agree with you, John. With hundreds of unsourced or badly sourced articles being created every day, it's becoming impossible to manage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We actually are better off than we were a decade ago. However it is shocking how many unsourced articles have lasted over a decade. We still suffer from Wikipedia starting out as a wild west, no order enrivornment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references in the article are extremely poor and there doesn't seem to be any out there that we can use for notability. So this clearly doesn't pass the notability guidelines. WP:NORG or otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been more than 5 years I have created this article. Regarding notable part I am not sure. I will add few references if that works. This is a govt funded school in rural place. --Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 05:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswati Vidya Mandir (Rourkela)[edit]

Saraswati Vidya Mandir (Rourkela) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's School, Rutungia[edit]

St. Xavier's School, Rutungia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's High School, Rayagada[edit]

St. Xavier's High School, Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Lawrence School, Tentoloi[edit]

Saint Lawrence School, Tentoloi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harobino Vidya Bhavan[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gayatri Residential English Medium School[edit]

Gayatri Residential English Medium School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desouza's School, Rourkela[edit]

Desouza's School, Rourkela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De Paul School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DAV Public School, Rourkela[edit]

DAV Public School, Rourkela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DAV Public School, Kansbahal[edit]

DAV Public School, Kansbahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Rourkela[edit]

Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Rourkela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. D. P. Senior Secondary School[edit]

S. D. P. Senior Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mehta Gurukul Senior Secondary School[edit]

Mehta Gurukul Senior Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhilwan International Public School[edit]

Dhilwan International Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtriya Sanskrit Model Senior Secondary School[edit]

Rashtriya Sanskrit Model Senior Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2012-03 ✗ G12
--Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yadavindra Public School, Mohali[edit]

Yadavindra Public School, Mohali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Roop Chand Jain Sr. Sec. Public School[edit]

Swami Roop Chand Jain Sr. Sec. Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National High School, Patiala[edit]

National High School, Patiala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Foundation School Sangrur[edit]

La Foundation School Sangrur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Fateh Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2009-02 ✗ A7 ← 2009-02 ✗ G12
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Malout[edit]

Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Malout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Nanak Foundation Public School, Mohali[edit]

Guru Nanak Foundation Public School, Mohali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General Gurnam Singh Public School[edit]

General Gurnam Singh Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Public School, Bathinda[edit]

Delhi Public School, Bathinda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Already listed at List of Delhi Public School Society schools. Peter Ormond 💬 22:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Sparks School India[edit]

Bright Sparks School India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Mahaveer Public School[edit]

Bhagwan Mahaveer Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBMB DAV Public School[edit]

BBMB DAV Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Gandha Singh Public School[edit]

Baba Gandha Singh Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 21:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PictureStart Film Festival[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 argument for deletion focused on WP:CRYSTAL, which discourages articles on future events unless they are "almost certain to take place". However, it does allow for articles about some future events, particularly if "speculation about it [is] well documented". The keep argument holds that that is the case here, as supported by multiple news sources. The closely related Next Indian general election article was a near-unanimous "keep" in a 2019 AfD on the same basis. The main distinction here is that the article specifies 2024 as the year of the elections, which is somewhat less certain, but concerns about details of article title and content are not typically accepted as good reasons for deletion (with some exceptions, such as WP:BLP1E and WP:TNT, which were not argued here). So "keep" appears to have the stronger argument from policy and past practice, as well as the majority in the comments. RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2024 elections in India[edit]

2024 elections in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. No elections are currently scheduled in India for 2024. All the elections listed are of uncertain date as they may be called early (hence why the titles of all the elections linked are 'Next ... election', not '2024 ... election'). Was prodded (and misleading content around claimed 2024 elections removed), but prod removed and misleading info reinstated by article creator without explanation. Number 57 09:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, these are parliaments whose terms expire in 2024, AFAICS none have called an early election in at least 20 years. A little more than two years away, it is not an unreasonable assumption to conclude, as evidenced by articles in the Indian press, that there will be elections in India in 2024 at state and national level. Furthermore, given the Election Commission lists the terms of all the current parliaments of India, one could potentially make the argument that articles could be extended up to and including 2026. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn You are referring to a different article that is located at Next Indian general election. No one has AfDed that. This article is about "(All) Elections in India in a future year". As I said in my comment above, unless there are reliable sources about elections, that page should not be created. Speculatory dates and speculations should not be added. Look at the alliance section. It says that INC, SS and NCP will have alliance without giving any source. It is not finalized yet and at this stage they are mere speculations. The entire article is full of unsourced speculations. Wikipedia should not be hosting unsourced speculations. Hence my delete vote at this time. Venkat TL (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of the distinction; to reiterate, I wrote: "the 2024 elections at national level and in the larger states" (emphasis added). Also, questions over content do not relate to notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once the speculatory contents are removed. There will be nothing left in the article. I am not removing it now as it is in AfD. No article can survive in the mainspace without reliable source confirming its notability. Right now these sources dont exist. Hence it is WP:TOOSOON to create such an article. Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a few minutes on Google news, here's what I can find on Sikkim's election, the smallest state, in 2024.[1][2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ "Sikkim CM to stand from Soreng-Chakung in next assembly polls". Devdiscourse.
  2. ^ "मुख्यमंत्री पीएस गोले सोरेंग-चाकुंग सीट से लड़ेंगे 2024 का विधानसभा चुनाव, बेटे ने दी जानकारी". dailynews360.patrika.com (in Hindi).
  3. ^ "'We will be back in 2024, there is no doubt on this'". Sikkimexpress.
  4. ^ https://www.uniindia.com/sdf-will-return-to-power-in-2024-former-cm-pawan-chamling/east/news/2335059.html. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ Bajaj, Simran (5 November 2019). "Didn't expect SKM-BJP alliance in Sikkim bypoll: Bhaichung Bhutia". EastMojo.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are these sources claiming that elections "Will be" held in 2024 or are they reporting about preparations for the next elections. There is a difference and I hope you can appreciate the difference. Wikipedia is not a place to add speculatory content from newspapers. see WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTNEWS Venkat TL (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) None of the state elections are certain to happen in 2024. All of them may be called early, hence why the titles are Next Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Next Odisha Legislative Assembly election, Next Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election etc. Therefore the article is a massive WP:CRYSTAL violation. As Venkat says, once you remove speculation from the article, there is nothing left to say other than 'Elections may be held in India in 2024'. Number 57 11:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources themselves discuss the elections of 2024. They do not generally speak of possible elections in 2024. Yes, it is possible that every single one of these elections may not happen in 2024. It's possible the 2024 US presidential election might not happen in 2024. It's possible the world will end tomorrow. The *sources* speak of the 2024 elections, that's what matters. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "No chance of alliance with Shiv Sena for 2024 Assembly polls: Maharashtra BJP chief". The Indian Express. 2 September 2021. The president of BJP's Maharashtra unit Chandrakant Patil made it clear on Wednesday that his party has no intentions of going into an alliance with the Shiv Sena for the 2024 Assembly elections as the latter had betrayed then after the 2019 polls.
  2. ^ "Aim is to win largest number of seats in 2024 Assembly polls, says Maharashtra Congress chief Nana Patole". www.mid-day.com. 25 July 2021. Maharashtra Congress chief Nana Patole has said his party aimed to win the largest number of seats in the Assembly polls scheduled for 2024 in the state.
  3. ^ Banerjee, Shoumojit (23 November 2021). "What Vinod Tawde's elevation means for BJP in Maharashtra". The Hindu. According to observers, Mr. Tawde's elevation, seen in the context of rehabilitation of Mr. Fadnavis' political rivals, signals that the latter's candidacy for the Chief Minister's post in the 2024 Assembly election is by no means certain nor is it to be taken for granted.
  4. ^ "Sudhir Mungantiwar: BJP's alliance with Shiv Sena limited its organisational expansion in Maharashtra". The Indian Express. 4 November 2021. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is prepared to battle against the alliance of Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena and come out winners in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections, said senior party leader Sudhir Mungantiwar.
  5. ^ "Will fight 2024 assembly elections with NCP: Shiv Sena". Hindustan Times. 17 June 2021. The Shiv Sena on Thursday said the party will contest the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections in alliance with the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) "in the interest of the state", days after Maharashtra Congress president Nana Patole announced that his party will go solo in the polls.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again these sources are quoting "intentions" of respective leaders and spokespersons to form an alliance or to fight an alliance. There is no joint statement confirming such an alliance. These sources do not confirm that an alliance has been formed, but merely inform the readers about such intentions from these politicians. Venkat TL (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And every one of any "confirmed" alliance can be broken any day up to, on and after an election. None of those points are germane to the issue, the only question that matters is whether there are sources discussing the 2024 elections? Feel free to add the word, "expected" to the article, the answer is an irrefutable "yes", there are reliable sources discussing the expected 2024 elections. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article should make it clear to the reader that this is speculatory and These are intentions and talks of alliance, not confirmed alliance. The article misleads the reader into believing the alliance already exists for the upcoming election. That in my opinion is wrong and misleading. Things may change in future is not enough reason to give misleading and speculatory information right now. People should read newspapers for such speculations where they discuss it in detail and give the necessary clarifications. I am not going to reply on the below examples from AP, as my replies are the same. At this point your posting of such links is like trolling this discussion. Venkat TL (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please AGF. I'm not interested in promoting the machinations of mainstream Indian political parties in 2024. I'm responding to the denial above of reliable sourcing regarding the 2024 elections. Whether or not the elections will be called early, or postponed, or never held, there is a large body of sources discussing state and national elections in India in 2024. That is the only question that matters for this AfD. Whether this is speculative or nor is irrelevant, discussing tomorrow's weather, or any future event, is inherently speculative, but if there are reliable sources for it and it meets the GNG then we can have an article (eg Human mission to Mars. It's not our job to speculate on whether or not the elections will occur, it's our job to determine whether or not there are sources discussing the events the article is intended to describe. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Reporter, Staff (16 November 2021). "BJP planning strategy to come to power in Andhra Pradesh in 2024". The Hindu. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national general secretary D. Purandeswari on Monday said that Union Home Minister Amit Shah had given clear directions to the party cadres in Andhra Pradesh to go ahead with an action plan to capture the power in 2024 Assembly elections.
  2. ^ "Chandrababu Naidu vows not to return to Andhra Pradesh Assembly till 2024 elections". Deccan Herald. 19 November 2021. In a day of swift and dramatic developments, former chief minister Chandrababu Naidu, on Friday, vowed not to reenter the state Assembly till after the 2024 elections.
  3. ^ correspondent, dc (16 November 2021). "Shah asks BJP leadership to target power in AP by 2024". Deccan Chronicle. He also noted that the AP BJP unit was lagging behind in projecting the party as an alternative to the regional parties. He asked BJP leaders to try and get the party to power in the 2024 general elections.
  4. ^ Raavi, Sridhar (29 September 2021). "Pawan Kalyan's Prediction For 2024 Elections". mirchi9.com. JanaSena chief Pawan Kalyan made an early prediction in the context of the forthcoming Andhra Pradesh elections. He predicts a drastic downfall of the YCP government in Andhra Pradesh. [...] There are a little over two and a half years for the elections and it remains to be seen if Pawan Kalyan's prediction will turn to reality.
  5. ^ "Karnataka: Kumaraswamy slams Enforcement Directorate for summoning Shivakumar on Ganesh Chaturthi". Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd. Kanna further said that their party is working with the target of coming into power in the next 2024.
  6. ^ "TDP-BJP alliance in Andhra for 2024 Assembly, Lok Sabha elections!!". www.telanganaflashnews.com. 7 June 2020. Friends turned foes TDP and BJP are all set to join hands again in Andhra Pradesh to take on ruling YSRCP in upcoming 2024 Assembly and Lok Sabha polls.
Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the closing admin, that I have reviewed these sources and they are speculatory. The notability criteria is not met yet. Same reason as above set of links. Venkat TL (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: 'These elections will be held in 2024', it is not decided yet. India has a parliamentary system, elections can be held ahead of time. This page should be deleted for now. Nitesh003(TALK) 15:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token, it has not been decided they will not occur in 2024. This is about sources, not predictions. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:CHRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." (emphasis added) That is the bar we need to discuss; ie are these events that are "almost certain to take place." Any how do we establish that? With reliable sources about the future event. Note the emphasis of FUTUREEVENT is not whether or not the event will take place, but the degree of certainty as *all* sources about *any* future event will contain degrees of speculation. As far as I can see, the delete argument boils down to a claim that as there is no ECI announcement or gazette for an election in 2024, there should not an article. There's two problems with this: Even ECI scheduled elections have had to be postponed and moved to another year (eg. Karnataka's scheduled 2020 gram panchayat elections were moved to 2021). Second, we're discussing the world's largest democracy ... AFAIA one has to go back four decades to the Emergency to find a year where no election occurred in India; given the present, existing sourcing, the notion that there will be no state, local or by-elections in India in 2024 is highly improbable, ie it is reasonable to assume that it is almost certain there will be elections (plural) in India in 2024. This is not an argument suggesting that we should have articles for 2050 etc, this is an argument based on sources and commonsense: are editors, despite extensive sourcing discussing the expected elections of 2024, so convinced that it is more likely (more certain) that no elections other than the general election will occur in 2024? Why should the entire article's existence hinge on the existence of a single source, which remains subject to change no less than any other? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one is disputing the elections will take place at some point. The whole issue is that there is zero certainty of which elections will take place in India in 2024 at present, meaning the article has no useful content if properly sourced and written. You start your opposition to deletion by citing 2024 United States presidential election, but that election is legally mandated to occur in 2024; this is not the case for elections in India, hence why this article is currently useless. Number 57 09:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic then there's no problem with creating the 3048 US Presidential election. The reason we would *not* create that article is because there is no sourcing. Asserting a legal mandate as the sole criterion is arbitrary and it's not based in policy to state that despite sourcing we should not have an article about upcoming almost certain events which are unmistakably notable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's 16 sources covering 3 states mentioned in the article referenced here; there's 11 quotes explicitly discussing the 2024 elections in two states. The assertion that there is "zero certainty" regarding where elections will be in India in 2024 is contradicted by these sources; to reiterate, on the basis of policy, the question is not whether or not the elections will occur (which can never actually be determined until after the event), but the likelihood of the event. That is the standard set by "almost certain". The sources I've presented indicate the elections are regarded as occuring in 2024 ie with almost certainty; in supporting delete, it would seem necessary to demonstrates otherwise with sourcing that indicates, for example, that the elections in AP or Maharashtra in 2024 are not almost certain. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too soon and unclear that any elections will be held unlike say, the US, where the constitution requires an election. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What sourcing indicates that it is unclear that all seven state elections and a general election will not be held in 2024? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no reason to delete this - while the date of elections are still uncertain, there's enough certainty to have this page. SportingFlyer T·C 18:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no certainty at all at this point in time, hence why none of the articles have 2024 in the title. It's a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. If the article were to be cleaned up enough to remove the speculation tags, it would have no content. Number 57 23:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but in the 16 articles cited above, 9 have 2024 in the title and 6 actually have "2024 elections/polls" (5 in English, 1 in Hindi). I genuinely cannot see how the 16 sources above provide no content for the article; there is nothing speculative *on our part* about political parties announcing strategies for an upcoming expected election. Given that there is sourcing discussing the *almost certain* 2024 polls, it's incumbent on those arguing delete to present sources that indicate the 2024 elections are not almost certain; CRYSTAL establishes thresholds for allowable articles which cover future events, the nomination and the delete arguments focus only on the article being about future events, which per se is not a failure of CRYSTAL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are misunderstanding. I am referring to Next Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election etc. And regarding WP:CRYSTAL, there is no issue with having articles on future elections like 2024 United States presidential election where that election is legally required to happen on a certain date. However, for countries without a legal requirement, we use titles like Next United Kingdom general election. 2024 elections in India is a CRYSTAL violation because no elections are currently scheduled for that year. I'm failing to see what part of this concept is so hard to understand. Number 57 11:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I get that, but I still don't think deleting this makes sense - it's a container page, not about an individual election, which would create a strange policy that pages for countries with fixed election dates are fine because they're reasonably certain to occur, but we lose information about the next elections of countries without fixed election dates because we're interpreting WP:CRYSTAL too strictly even though they are just as reasonably certain to occur. The goal here is to not lose encyclopaedic information. Deleting would do that. SportingFlyer T·C 12:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a container page that currently has no valid content. Again, I would have zero problems with this page if there were any elections confirmed for 2024, but there aren't. Number 57 12:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • And I don't think the dates need to be specifically confirmed in order to include the content on the page, as these will almost certainly take place in 2024. If this was the 2028 page I'd agree with you. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I appreciate both sides of the debate presented above. While the state legislature elections can be called at any time, they are on regular cycle and they usually follow that cycle. We have reliable sources that are presuming these elections will occur in 2024. I think that is sufficient to support this article's existence, even though there is the possibility that these elections will be called earlier. Bondegezou (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to the Elections in India article. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems pretty clear cut to me from a common sense point of view - the article says that for every single election that it has listed, the date is 'tentative', and in the very first line it says that the elections are 'speculated'. For me, that seems in obvious contradiction to WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps more importantly, this page has little actual content; at the moment it functions only as a list of 'Next election' articles. Per WP:TOOSOON, it would probably be more sensible to delete this now and resurrect it nearer the time. Gazamp (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But I think that's just poor wording in the article. These are elections that usually occur after a set number of years since the last election, but occasionally are called earlier. Look at the election articles and surf back through past elections to see the pattern. They're not absolutely definite for 2024, but these aren't wild guesses: these are the expected dates and RS treat them as such. Bondegezou (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have made a clean up of the article (including removal of "speculated" which was backed by no sourcing whatsoever), added sources, including from GoI Panchayati Raj Ministry which provides dates for elections due in 2024. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CRYSTAL reads, "...almost certain to take place." Is there any argument that there will be no elections in India during 2024? Ifnord (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources needed for this article wont be available until 2023. Per WP:V this cannot be kept unsourced. Venkat TL (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Devil's advocate, which section of WP:V states that an article about a series of events that no one has disputed will happen, requires removal because the sources, which no one disputes will be forthcoming, are not currently available? Ifnord (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this article is claiming ALL of those WILL be coming in 2024. Unlike the US system, nothing is preordained by law in India. This is an encyclopedia, not an Almanac FFS. Venkat TL (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This argument has been refuted; the sources speak of the 2024 elections, the appropriate response to that refutation would be sourcing indicating the 2024 elections are not likely or are uncertain. As far as I can tell, though, there are none to that effect. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not allowed to vote, but what about moving it to draft space to be worked on while more information comes out, and put it back into article space in mid-late 2023? --67.183.136.85 (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @67.183.136.85 you are allowed to vote. I am not opposed to this being draftified. In fact it should not have been created in the mainspace. Venkat TL (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Venkat TL: I though IPs aren't allowed to vote. --67.183.136.85 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I was going to close this, it's somewhat difficult to determine a clear consensus, but there also seems to be a relatively obvious solution to satisfy all sides that I don't see having been brought up. Why not, for now, move the article to the title "Upcoming elections in India", and then move it to the dated title once it is actually confirmed when those elections will be held? At that time, a new "Upcoming elections..." article can be created; rinse and repeat as necessary. I don't think there is any substantial doubt that there will be upcoming elections in India at some point, and certainly that future election has sufficient coverage to be notable, so why not just make sure the title accurately reflects their status? Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there are already articles for 2022 elections in India and 2023 elections in India, would the title of the suggested article create rather a lot of overlap? Number 57 22:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Seraphimblade thanks for the great suggestion. I agree with the idea of merging all the future years into an article "Upcoming elections in India". @Number 57 He is asking to merge the 22 and 23 articles also till the time their schedules are released. Venkat TL (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that's exactly what I had in mind. I was more thinking that the "Upcoming elections" article could be a summary style article which touches on all upcoming elections in India, both the ones with firmly scheduled dates and the ones which it is known will happen but not yet exactly when. As an example, and to get out of the minutiae of what's true today, imagine we're in the year 2030. There are some Indian elections scheduled firmly for 2031 and 2032, and some which, while they will definitely happen, are not firmly scheduled yet. In that case, we would have articles on 2031 Elections in India and 2032 Elections in India, since there's something definite to put there. The "Upcoming elections" article will touch on those elections as well, since they are upcoming elections, and link to those articles for more detail. It will also cover elections that are essentially certain to happen and confirmed as such by reliable sources, but are not yet firmly scheduled. Once the election actually happens, it will be removed from the "Upcoming" article, and then just be covered in the appropriate article for that year. I hope that's clear? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments above. Parliamentary politics notwithstanding, we should go with what reliable sources in India say, which clearly indicates a widespread assumption that in the very least Lok Sabha elections will occur in 2024. See e.g. "16 state polls to turn up heat before 2024 race" in the Economic Times, "'Khela Hobe' in 2024; BJP will be defeated across India: Mamata Banerjee" in the Hindustan Times, and others. Even if those elections don't occur, it is clear that at present mass media and politicians are operating under the view that they will. Overriding that broad apparent consensus based on the idea that it is somehow "unclear" that the elections will be held seems presumptuous. This doesn't trigger a slippery slope to e.g. 203* Elections in India because there simply isn't the widespread coverage of those hypothetical elections that there is for 2024. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhinyTheYounger You are talking about a different article which is at the location Next Indian general election This is a different one. Please read the discussion above. Venkat TL (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Venkat TL: One finds similar articles about state-level elections very quickly, as well (e.g. for Andhra Pradesh here and here, in addition to the sources already cited above). So it seems appropriate to have an article that catalogues the body of elections both national and sub-national that are widely anticipated to occur in that year. Yes, motions of confidence can be lost and snap elections held before those dates, but that is not something that any reliable media seems to indicate is a serious consideration for most of these elections. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Speaking for myself, You see there is no concern if you cover these speculations at one place, as Seraphimblade suggested. The 'Almanac writers' on Wikipedia have already created every possible "NEXT XYZ State election page" along with "NEXT XYZ General Election". They did not stop there. They created all the year pages too. Recently 2025, 2026 was deleted. There is no end to stupidity. Venkat TL (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that concern, but I disagree that it's particularly risky. Again, the bright line is fairly straightforward: politicians and media in India and its relevant states are not really talking about elections in 2029, or 2034, etc., and thus there is little coverage of those elections. But there is plenty of coverage of the 2024 elections at local and national levels, not just as events themselves, but also related to the strategies and opinions of involved political figures and parties, which is naturally of concern for an encyclopedia. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no bright line. It is only in your mind. The almanac fans dont agree with your bright lines. By promoting gossiping and speculations on wikipedia you are treading into the WP:NOTNEWS territory. Venkat TL (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bright line, again, is derived from Wikipedia guidelines: whether there is WP:SIGCOV for the topic as such. It is not gossip and speculation, but the thoughts and opinions of relevant political figures on the presumed 2024 elections as relayed by reliable sources. That sort of coverage does not exist for e.g. 2029 Elections in India, and therefore it would be appropriate to delete an article to that effect. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there is no floodgates problem here. The specific circumstances of this case make it inapplicable to others. At this time, there are multiple reliable sources speaking of the 2024 elections, including an official government source speaking of elections due in 2024. There are no sources presented which indicate in any way why there should be a presumption that there will not be elections in 2024, stating as such *without sources* is speculative. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the article's sources appear to confidently refer to 2024 elections at the national, legislative assembly, and Panchayati raj levels, I see no reason to dismiss an article on 2024 elections in India as undocumented speculation. WP:CRYSTAL says "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." I think the coverage by the article's sources meets this threshold. HenryMP02 TALK 06:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The events themselves can be verified – hence why we have articles on them like Next Indian general election. What cannot be verified, and why this article needs to be deleted, is that any of them will be held in 2024. Number 57 14:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only way we verify events is through reliable sources. It would be inappropriate, for example, to write of the 2024 United States presidential elections just citing the Constitution; we do so because there are reliable sources that speak to that election. While it is theoretically possible that every single election forecasted for India in 2024 does not occur (just as it is theoretically possible that the 2024 election for the president in the United sStates does not occur), an overwhelming body of reliable sources suggest otherwise, even accounting for the less predictable nature of parliamentary systems. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know what is so hard to understand about this. The US presidential election is a regularly scheduled election with a certain date. None of these elections are. There is a clear difference. Number 57 16:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. India holds special elections whenever a member of any the the legislatures dies or resigns. Counting the elections in the states, there are over 1000 seats It is outside the bounds of rational probability that none of them will die in any given year. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There will almost certainly be some elections in India in 2024. The issue is that currently we do not know which ones, so there is no useful content for the article at this point in time. Number 57 17:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 trivia without reliable sources or evidence of notability per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monoir[edit]

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

Unreliable sources. No proven notability. Super Ψ Dro 20:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorphina[edit]

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

Routine coverage, no meaningful coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Being for spamming only. No encyclopedic value. Peltamukkah (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Thanks, I have actually been meaning to nominate this article for ages. No encyclopaedic value indeed. Jdcooper (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Nothing to merge, as the sole mayor is listed in East Providence, Rhode Island's infobox. ✗plicit 02:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of East Providence, Rhode Island[edit]

List of mayors of East Providence, Rhode Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List article for just one person. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. per consensus, WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Grafe[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR, she had only one significant role on a Nickelodeon series back in the 1990s. Pahiy (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kraft, Louisiana[edit]

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

Topos show neither name nor much of anything here until the 1980s, when an industrial complex and a rail spur coming off the railroad appear. This complex is a paper mill. GNIS is sourced to a county highway map. Searching is rather difficult because of the ubiquity of Kraft and Kraft-Heinz food products and Kraft paper, but I'm not finding evidence that there was a notable community here, besides the paper mill and the rail spurl. Hog Farm Talk 18:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I live about 2 hours from this place. Closest notable town from the provided location is probably Natchitoches or Alexandria. Just a small location with sparse housing. WikiJoeB (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Macedonia, Ohio[edit]

List of mayors of Macedonia, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of not notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Evidence of legal recognition has been provided and consensus is that it's enough to meet WP:GEOLAND (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haiok, Ternopil Oblast[edit]

Haiok, Ternopil Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Village fails WP:GEOLAND due to lack of legal recognition or significant coverage. Sourcing consists of maps and tables which are specifically excluded from establishing notability per WP:NGEO. –dlthewave ☎ 17:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, this type of village lacks a municipal government, local council, incorporation or anything else that would normally be considered evidence of legal recognition. I'm not even finding the name in any of the sources; unclear whether this is a machine translation issue or if the wrong link was used somewhere along the line. –dlthewave ☎ 20:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned here by name, and there is an article on page 325 of volume 1 of the Encyclopedic Dictionary.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I do not think that a listing in this type of national place name directory is considered legal recognition by our standards. If the encyclopedia entry is in-depth enough to satisfy GNG, I would suggest using it to expand the article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Encyclopaedia source is nice but it essentially is evidence towards a potential GNG pass, but to meet that we need at least TWO instances of significant coverage. There is no evidence of a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass here because there is no evidence of legal recognition (e.g., something showing that the settlement is a level of administration). The word "Гайок" is not mentioned anywhere on the link posted above - I see Нарайвская громада, but there is no Гайок listed there. There is a Гаёк, though - is this what is being referred to? I suppose this could be a Russian name that is transcribed as Гайок in Ukrainian? But it is listed as a selo, which is essentially just a rural locality, not a level of administration. I'm not sure Gromada.info is an official website anyway, as it is not at a .gov.ua domain.
Oddly the same goes for all the other sources used on the page: ctrl-F "Гайок" returns zero results. Looking at the "Ternopil" section of each page I see nothing that looks even similar to this name. The "official information about this village" external link takes me to a site about Vilkhovets village. To be on the safe side I also looked in these sources for "Гаёк", but it is not mentioned in them either.
Given the above, Ymblanter, I am very sceptical that the encyclopaedia article actually does mention this place since the original author appears to have created this article without it being described at all in the other sources. This whole thing could just be a case of mistaken transcription. FOARP (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is indeed in Russian, so it is Гаёк there. Concerning legal recognition, I am not sure what you are talking about. This is not the US, this is Ukraine. There are no incorporated or non-incorporated communities. There are oblasts, which are subdivided to districts, which are subdivided to hromadas. There are a few hundred hromadas in the whole country. Each hromada consists of a number of rural and urban localities. Haiok is one of these localities. Fine, you can argue that only hromadas are notable, and everything else is not. But then it must be in the policies. Currently, we have an encyclopedia article about the village which provides population and some historical facts. We have a reliably sourced statement that it belongs to a certain hromada (hromada.info is indeed not in gov.ua domain and is using ads, but it is subordinate to the Ministry of Regional development or whatever it is called). We have reliably sourced info tjhat the village was previously subodrinated to Lapshyn [13]. This amount of information was always sufficient to keep an artlcle.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems rather like the Turkish Mahalle case where all we really have is evidence of existence, and no other actual information, and the decision there was simply just to redirect them to district-level, with the author losing the auto-patrolled bit at ANI. Selos are not (or do not appear to be) an actual level of administration so there does not appear to be "legal recognition" - instead they are just rural localities, and in this case we don't even have a reliable source telling us where the place is or how it is presently administered - just that it used to be under Lapshyn and for all we know still is. FOARP (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not under Lapshyn anymore, since the whole system of administrative divisions and local government was overhauled in 2020. There is no administration below the hromada level. By your argument, urban localities would also not be notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the encyclopedic dictionary article is an actual information, and is a tertiary source. You seem to ignore this argument. This is different from the Turkish Mahalle case.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ignoring the encyclopaedia because the guy who created this article (in 2 minutes or less according to the log) appears not to have confirmed that any of the sources they cited actually mentioned the actual subject of the article. Do you have access to the encyclopaedia and can you tell us what it says? I do not (the links here don't work for me) but I'm not going to simply assume it was after they cited three other sources that don't mention it unless someone can show me that it does.
Very happy to say that any locality, urban or rural, that we have no evidence of legal recognition for, and which is also not a WP:GNG pass, should get deep-sixed. Indeed, we've been pretty consistent in simply deleting/redirecting/merging urban neighbourhoods to larger units where there's just nothing at all giving us any real information about them (e.g., the Filipino barangays case). Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, it's an encyclopaedia, so we write encyclopaedia articles here, not bare gazetteer listings. We literally don't even have a reliable source for the location of this selo.
Since the issue of representation often gets raised here, let me just say that in my experience people in the countries the articles about are often the ones asking why we're creating all these garbage articles about their country. For example, in the Iranian ābādī case it was Iranian editors who raised the issue of the ābādī articles being pure garbage - they got especially angry because EN Wiki is seen as a gold-standard by editors on Farsi wiki and so the EN-wiki articles were just being machine-translated onto their Wiki. Similarly in the Filipino barangays case it was Filipinos who were asking why all these articles were being created about places that from a Filipino point of view just weren't notable. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the links work for me, and the article is there, I in fact looked at it before writing anything on this page. It is not very extensive but contains info which is now in the article. The user who created the article, as far as I understand, is a local historian, and he did not mass-create articles, so that the analogy with Iranian and Turkish stub mass creation is not correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it isn't WP:SIGCOV if that's all it says - if it's short can you just copy the text here? Like I said the links don't work for me. This article was made in 2 minutes, so regardless of how many articles were written, the amount of care that went into it was the same as in the Iranian/Turkish stubs case. The problem with the mass-creation was never the number of articles, it was the lack of care that went into them. FOARP (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have some font issues and can not copy it, but basically it says that Haion is subodronate to Berezhany Disctrict and Lapshyn administration (both outdated), that there was another village, Koloniia, which was later merged into Haiok, on which river it is located, population, and that it has a school (not sure what level).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Koloniia is not village, this khutir near village Haiok - Микола Василечко (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.58.77.77 (talk) [reply]
Thanks Ymblanter. OK, that sounds like WP:SIGCOV, but we'd need another instance of it for WP:GNG. I see some stuff for Haiok in L'viv, but nothing for this Haiok. FOARP (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Others villages in name Haiok in Ukraine: Гайок Гайок Гайок Гайок Гайок - Микола Василечко (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.58.77.77 (talk) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anchal Sahu[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR , she has got only one significant role. Princepratap1234 (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga , can you highlight which roles are you talking about as per WP:NACTOR? Two will suffice. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBASIC comes before WP:NACTOR, as mentioned above. Mujinga (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – no in-depth coverage, so she does not meet WP:NBASIC nor WP:NACTOR. The article claimed that she played a "parallel lead" in a show, but that information was supported by two sources that actually stated that she did not have a lead role. It looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. --bonadea contributions talk 17:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NACTOR. Pile on with the WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Claire[edit]

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

Nothing more than interview and PR if you read these non-reliable sources closely. Behind the moors (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2021-05 (closed as ✗ delete)
Logs: 2021-11 ✍️ create ← 2021-05 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The first AfD, in which her article was deleted, was seven months ago and very little has changed since then. She has a few new media features (e.g. [14], [15]), but they fall under the pattern of those discussed last time. She has friendly softball interviews and announcements that were most likely placed by management. If her music actually gets noticed by reliable entertainment reviewers she might just qualify for an article here in the future, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON, at least. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt to prevent speedy recreation until this passes WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sergej Grecicho[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO as he does not have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he been ranked inside the featherweight top 10 by sherdog or fightmatrix. Also fails WP:GNG as his main coverage is through routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 09:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Like the nom, I could not find anything beyond routine results. GNG is all that matters here as NSPORT is explicitly subordinate to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you only searched English sources, I am not surprised you didn't find significant coverage for a Lithuanian fighter who started winning medals almost 15 years ago in Europe. As I said, if I could access and read Lithuanian and Russian sources I'm pretty sure significant coverage would be found. Sambo is not a big sport in English speaking countries, but it is in Europe (especially in areas east of the old Iron Curtain). That said, 80 countries competed at the event where he won his last medal so much of the world was represented even if American papers didn't cover it. If an American or Western European had won these titles, he'd undoubtedly be considered WP notable. When the achievement can be documented, I hate to introduce a bias against non-Anglo competitors. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did search in Cyrillic -- Сергей Гречихо or Сергея Гречихо -- and Lithuanian -- Sergejus Grečikho -- but a news search from 2012 on only returned 1, 2 (reprinted several places), and 3. All of these are mere name-drops. JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts, though I question your Lithuanian conversion since my search on that version returned zero google hits and it seems unlikely that a world champion would receive no coverage in his homeland, but be covered extensively in Russia. However, I did find over 500 hits using "Сергей Гречихо" and са́мбо (which is Cyrillic for sambo). Just from the first page I found [16] which covers the ceremony given by the mayor of Vilnius honoring Grecicho, [17] mentions his three world championships, [18] is an interview describing a stunning come from behind victory, [19] is an article talking about his switch from sambo to MMA, and [20] calls him a three time world champion in combat sambo, a world champion in pankration, and runner-up at the European BJJ championships. Even without anything from his home country I think a good case can be made for his WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also didn't get hits with the Lithuanian transliteration; I assume he's just Sergey or Sergei Grechikho there. I'm not convinced any of those new sources demonstrate SIGCOV.
Sources

[1] is not significant coverage, all it says about him is: Congratulated the multiple champion of Lithuania, world champion and European champion 2012 Sergei Grechikho and his trainers Eduardas Rudas and Ricardas Piepolis... Eduardas Rudas, President of the Lithuanian SAMBO Federation and coach Sergei Grechikho noted that SAMBO is reviving and spreading rapidly throughout the world... Sergei Grechikho (68 kg, combat SAMBO) defeated Romanian Valeriy Tiphineana in the final... Sergei Grechikho was born in 1985, graduated from the Lithuanian Academy of Physical Culture in 2008, since 1994 he has been engaged in sambo. [2] just mentions his name 3 times in the context of stats: In the entire history of Lithuania, three athletes have risen to the highest step of the podium at the World Championships: Cheslovas Ezerskas, Eva Klimashauskienė and Sergei Grechikho... Combat sambo master Sergei Grechikho became world champion three times (2007, 2009, 2012)... Sergey Grechikho (up to 68 kg). [3] is an interview (does not count towards notability unless the interviewer provides substantial independent analysis, which this does not) on his performance at the European SAMBO Championships by the organization that runs the event (it is therefore not an independent body and materials released by it can be considered part of the standard promotional press kit for such things). [4] is the same as [3]. [5] is another interview (see [3]).

GNG requires independent, secondary SIGCOV, which is not met by interviews (primary, not independent) and brief mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand how Russian news coverage of a mayoral ceremony honoring him for winning the world championship does not qualify as independent and significant. One interview starts with an assessment of his "will to win" and his "very original and painful hold" before ever starting the interview and one provides independent confirmation of his titles. Both show independent analysis that precedes the interview. I'm not going to go back and forth about each source, nor do I feel the need to look at hundreds of other hits that I didn't check. I think you'd find them all insufficient anyway so we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Also remember that we have no sources in Lithuanian and there must be plenty of coverage in his own country and language. Papaursa (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ceremony is independent, but the coverage of him is not significant: it states the mayor congratulated him and his coaches, says whom Grechikho defeated in the final, and then gives a 24-word overview of his career. It doesn't matter how much the interviews make him seem noteworthy, it only matters that the authors provide detailed commentary on him. The first interview is not usable anyway due to it being promotional content by the event organizer (doubly non-independent), only the second interview's author can be considered independent and all they provide is Three-time world champion in combat sambo, world champion in pankration, vice-champion of Europe in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Sergei Grechikho spoke about his preparation for the fight against Magomed Idrisov at M-1 Challenge 61. And Lithuanian uses Latin script, so I don't see how translation is an issue here. JoelleJay (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you can translate all languages that use a Latin script and you believe that there is no coverage of him in his own country (but he receives coverage in another country)? I'm skeptical of both those claims. If you can't spell his name in Lithuanian then how do you think the search you did on his name is valid? I believe I'm done discussing this with you. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm you're right, I just realized Lithuanian is one of those languages where names are subject to declension, and apparently I was searching with a very unusual case (Grečichas, which I had uncovered in one Lithuanian article) that returned very little coverage. So I figured if Delfi only had two hits for him with a surname spelling that was definitely used in Lithuanian media then clearly he wasn't notable! But now I see there is a lot more in the nominative case, so I'll revise my !vote. JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I found results confirming his world titles in multiple languages, but none of them used the Lithuanian or Cyrillic alphabets. This made a proper search for his name impossible for me. I know listings of results don't constitute significant coverage, but I was hoping that world championships in a wide spread martial art like sambo would suffice when a search of relevant language sources isn't possible. Papaursa (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per sources by Papaaursa which pass GNG, believe there will be more Russian sources out there talking about him. Cassiopeia talk 02:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added one Lithuanian online source (lt name = Sergejus Grečicho) and there are others, never mind the offline coverage there must be in Lithuanian offline media: passes GNG.Ingratis (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage found applying multiple Lithuanian grammatical cases to his surname. JoelleJay (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:SK1: nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Immortals (1995 film)[edit]

The Immortals (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freefall (1994 film)[edit]

Freefall (1994 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and no other RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Jaipur. The concensus is clearly to delete, but the suggested redirect seems appropriate PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tilak Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd be good with that if there was an article to the neighborhood/district/etc. ready to go. A redirect to something relating to education in Jaipur would also work. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:ORG as there's no significant independent coverage to be found in WP:BEFORE. Can be redirected later if a good target is determined. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NSCHOOL. The unsourced, intricate detail is not worth merging. Ifnord (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am also fine with the proposed redirect. Capitals00 (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Model English High School[edit]

Model English High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N. G. Vartak High School[edit]

N. G. Vartak High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck) ← 2011-04 N. G. Vartak High School Staff (closed as ✗ delete)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Azad Urdu High School Akola[edit]

Usman Azad Urdu High School Akola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manjunatha Vidyalaya[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KC International School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irwin Christian High School[edit]

Irwin Christian High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sahakar Vidya Mandir[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viswa Vani Public School[edit]

Viswa Vani Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vijnana Vihara[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vijnana Vihara School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sathya Sai Higher Secondary School[edit]

Sri Sathya Sai Higher Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Public School, Sakhinetipalle[edit]

Noble Public School, Sakhinetipalle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Angels School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Public School, Kadapa[edit]

Hyderabad Public School, Kadapa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gowri Memorial High School[edit]

Gowri Memorial High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Wisdom International School[edit]

Global Wisdom International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akshara School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Balak Mandir High School[edit]

Adarsh Balak Mandir High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. There were 85 school AFDs in the same day, so it's not good use of time to wait for a broader consensus to develop. Geschichte (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zilla Parishad High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sudarshanam, G. (1991). Rural Education: A Study of Universalisation of Education in India. Gian Publishing House. ISBN 978-81-212-0351-7.
  2. ^ Nagaraju, M. T. V. (2004). Study Habits Of Secondary School Students. Discovery Publishing House. ISBN 978-81-7141-893-0.
  3. ^ Josephine, Yazali (2004). Financing of School Education: Focus on Equality & Development. Anamika Publishers & Distributors. ISBN 978-81-7975-030-8.
  • Keep broad articles on types of school administration are useful, and this has enough sources to justify having the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emmaus Swiss High School[edit]

Emmaus Swiss High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laxman Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nalbari Govt Gurdon H.S School[edit]

Nalbari Govt Gurdon H.S School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhu Dayal Public School[edit]

Prabhu Dayal Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharath English High School[edit]

Bharath English High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C High School Jagdishpur[edit]

C High School Jagdishpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

V. R. Senior Secondary Public School[edit]

V. R. Senior Secondary Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 01:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J K High School Ratauli Jarauli[edit]

J K High School Ratauli Jarauli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 01:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K.S. Lodha Public School[edit]

K.S. Lodha Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 01:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Harisingh Agri Collegiate School[edit]

Maharaja Harisingh Agri Collegiate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 01:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Blossoms Sunderbai Thackersey English High School[edit]

The Blossoms Sunderbai Thackersey English High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 01:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul Convent High School[edit]

Saint Paul Convent High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete During my search I found listings, forks en some passings mention about a former student of the school. Nothing coming even close to WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:ORG. The Banner talk 20:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You've been asked before not to nominate so many pages at once. By my count, you've nominated 50 or 60 articles on schools today. Curbon7 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Söderströms Förlags Ab[edit]

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

No sources, no information, and no notability. Philosophy2 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Söderströms was one of the two dominating Swedish-language publishing houses (together with Schildts) in Finland. (Finland is bilingual, Swedish being the smaller of the two official languages.) It had been central in Swedish literature since the 1800s; afte the merger with Schildts, Schildts & Söderström alone dominated the market. This is a key organisation in the history of (Swedish-language) Finnish culture. There's a lot that remains to do, but I've updated the article with sources. /Julle (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Julle says this was a major and long-established publishing house in Scandinavia. Actually I'd have no objection to having one Schildts & Söderströms article (Swedish Wiki has one of those, Schildts & Söderströms), but we can decide that after this AfD has been closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably, we'd have one for Söderströms, one for Schildts, and one for Schildts & Söderströms. But someone would have to write them, too. The eternal problem. /Julle (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "no information"? What kind of nonsense is that? Geschichte (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a (if not the) key player in both Finnish and Swedish language publishing in Finland. Looking at this, I'd be inclined to even retarget WSOY (publisher) and Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö to this article rather than their current target, Bonnier Group, which barely mention them. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per keep arguments posted above are convincing. Chelokabob (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: as mentioned, this was a long-standing and key publisher of both Swedish-language and Finnish-language material. Definitely important to Swedish-speaking Finnish culture. flod logic (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the available sources are not sufficient to count towards notabilty. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kayt Jones[edit]

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

After a BEFORE search, I could find nothing to substantiate the notability of this photographer. Two of the citations are unverifiable; the third is her own website. No SIGCOV in reliable sources. Yes, she has had photographs published in magazines, but her work is not in the collection of notable museums; her work is not regarded as important nor widely cited by her peers; has not originated a new technique or concept and is not part of a notable collective body of work. Apparently, she won an award in 2009, from "The Clothes Show Live" but I have been unable to verify this per RS. Not sure if this award is notable; it is not in the same realm as a Guggenheim, NEA, Tiffany grant or the like which we often find with notable artists. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST nor WP:BASIC. The article was created by a single purpose account WP:SPA. Bringing it here to seek the input of other editors in the community. Netherzone (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It wasn't hard to find her work in multiple well known magazines. Its a badly sourced article and needs word.Here is a decent source [21] I'd say tag it for improvements.Super (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not even a source. It's a list of web pages with that are tagged "Kayt Jones". The articles that it links to are all descriptions of magazine covers that offer little more than "photographed by Kayt Jones." It is not anywhere near enough to base an article on. When I saw the nomination I was surprised that there was so little or no significant coverage of Jones. One would think there ought to be something, but so far, no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources has been shown to exist. Vexations (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I too found lots of mentions of "photo credit Kayt Jones", but nothing ABOUT her or ABOUT her photographs. She has photographed many famous people, but "notability is not inherited". The closest thing I could find to significant coverage about her is this 2009 interview: [22]; but it's a primary source containing little to no actual editorial content, therefore does not count towards notability. I was surprised to find nothing in notable museum collections, or reviews, or articles on her, or even a monograph. The article has been tagged for citations since 2015, but it is unclear if there is anything out there with which to improve it. If sources can be found that discuss her and her work in an indepth manner, the nom can be withdrawn, but I'm not finding them. Netherzone (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Of course, I'll reconsider if somebody finds good sources about her. If this happens, ping me.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give it a week for folks to find sources, although if Vexations can't, not sure anyone can
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. I made an effort, but found nothing. Vexations (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep. Hmm this is an interesting one ... I have found coverage, I'm on the fence if it is significant enough or not. For example:
  • Hoary what do you think about those three? In addition, whilst they don't count as reliable sources, I do think that the interview found by the nom in models.com and the additional interview I found in SCMP do indicate her notability more broadly. In the course of my researches I discovered she has also directed short films however Foxglove (film) does not appear notable so I have prodded that. Mujinga (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The IPA is a pay-to-participate photo contest. Very dubious. Vexations (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mujinga I saw those, but don't think they count towards notability. An "Honorable Mention" award for a pay-to-play photo contest (as discovered by Vexations) does seem dubious. The piece, "End Frame" isn't about Kayt Jone's work, it's a piece about how her studio assistant likes working for her (trivial coverage). The piece in the e-zine Trendland, while it features several of her images, the editorial content is only 3 sentences long, so I'd say it's a primary source - a portfolio of her work - it seems like a marketing piece for a trade journal (in other words, PR). The interview is also primary because it lacks any editorial content. It's really perplexing because her work is obviously known and respected; but what is lacking is anything that is ABOUT her or her work. I realize it's a borderline case....if good sources can be found to meet GNG or NARTIST, the nom can be withdrawn. Netherzone (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the ping, Mujinga. I don't have anything to add to what Vexations and Netherzone have already written, so my "Delete" stands. As does my willingness to change my mind, if I'm alerted to some rather more substantial coverage. -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the answers! I agree those sources aren't the best for notability and that it's puzzling there isn't more out there. I was concerned by the International Photography Awards being a paid-for competition but having looked into it I don't think it's that unusual for such a competition to charge entry fees. Mujinga (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, this isn't unusual. But there are a lot of these awards (cf Prix Pictet, which goes to just one photographer), the link above shows that Jones didn't get one of them but instead an "honorable mention", and (cf Prix Pictet again, with Guardian write-ups and all) it's not obvious that the rest of the world pays much attention to them. -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's some things I found, corroborating some of the unsourced personal information in the article about her family.
Hope that helps. SilverserenC 02:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source--the additional ones included-- are either trivial or promotional or fail to show notability . There are very few awards in the world where "honorable mention "counts towards notability . DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. This is similar to a newspaper reporter in terms of recognizing notability. It's not what the reporter writes, but what others write about them. I do not believe the subject here has reached that bar. Ifnord (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Nickar[edit]

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

All current sources appear to fail WP:RS. I did some searching, and the few sources I found that might be credible fail WP:SIGCOV. Ffranc (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No significant coverage in reliable sources. The best source I could find was Hampson's Medii Aeval Kalendarium (1841), which gives some alternative names, but searching these didn't turn up anything either. It appears that Hold Nickar is just an obscure alternative name for the Nixie. Everything the article says about this creature being the origin of Santa Claus is just speculation based on the similarity of the name with "Old Nick". Dan from A.P. (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as soft delete, re-opened by request of VocalIndia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity stated that It is said that Saint Nicholas's legends were created mainly out of folk tales about the Teutonic god Hold Nickar, a malevolent water spirit who tips over boats and torments sailors, or even about Alte Hoerner, which stands for "Old Horney" and Nicholas' legends were mainly created out of stories about the Teutonic god called Hold Nickar, known as Poseidon to the Greeks. This powerful sea god was known to gallop through the sky during the winter solstice, granting boons to his worshippers below. When the Catholic Church created the character of St Nicholas, they took his name from "Nickar" and gave him Poseidon's title of "the Sailor".
  • [24] In Russia he was Hold Nickar patron of the sailors and in ancient Britain his shrines could be found in seaports where they had to face the seas . He was a descendant of Poseidon or according to the Italians a descendant of Neptune; in the Netherland he was Sinterklaas (sancte or saint Claus).
  • [25] his whole story is a quaint Christian myth that combined the characteristics of the Roman god Neptune (god of the sea, hence his being a patron saint of sailors) and of the god Hold Nickar(hence, Nicholas).
  • [26] In northern Europe and the lowlands “ old Nick ” is thought to harken back to a Teutonic sea God , “ Hold Nickar , ” king of the sea nymphs . His other language articles have a bit more info. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FiddleheadLady, VocalIndia, Hold Nickar may be mentioned in several sources, but as the nom said, it's a question of significant coverage – we need sources that discuss the subject in detail. Otherwise we don't have enough information to fill out an article. (The current article is 99% inaccurate, irrelevant, or insufficiently sourced; if kept, it would have to be trimmed down to a sentence or two.) WP:WHYN says "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page." Per my above comment, it seems from this source that Hold Nickar is a variant of the Nixie, and perhaps could be mentioned within that article instead. Dan from A.P. (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? Above sources i posted are not passing in mention. All are paragraphs that help illustrate the notability of Hold Nickar. That's shows Hold Nickar is a real Tuetonic god and important for the foundation myth of Christmas. WP:IDONTLIKE here. VocalIndia (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're offended; I was only hoping you'd clarify why you think this subject meets GNG. I don't agree that any of those sources contain a detailed discussion of the subject. I realise now that you're the creator of this article, so let me try and explain what I meant about it needing trimming:
* The claim that Hold Nickar appears as an old man or a child with horse legs is not suppported by the sources – this is a description of the Nicor, i.e. the Nixie.
* The claim that Hold Nickar is a corruption of Hjaldr Hnikar is cited to an unreliable source, in which it's clear that this is only the personal speculation of the anonymous author. I also don't see where this source says that Hold Nickar was depicted with grey hair and a beard; it only says this about Odin.
* The "Legends" section of the article only mentions Hold Nickar once, in the first sentence, which is unsourced; the rest of the section is an off-topic discussion about the history of the Santa myth. This might be relevant information to include in the Santa Claus article (if better sources could be found), but it's out of place here.
So if we were to remove all the unverifiable or irrelevant information, we would be left with something like: "Hold Nickar is the name of a Teutonic water spirit who was featured in an episode of Supernatural". This is why I said there's not enough information in reliable sources to fill out an article. I don't deny that Hold Nickar is a real (as in, really believed in) entity, but that alone is not a sufficient reason for an article (see WP:NRV: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists").Dan from A.P. (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DanFromAnotherPlace, I removed the unrelated legends section and focus on a Teutonic water spirit. I translated these sections from another language Wikipedia pages. You can see translation tag at the article's talk page. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. VocalIndia (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article now has quite acceptable number of RS, with no excessive unrelated information. Htanaungg (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 speedily deleted per CSD G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users). (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Shownmi[edit]

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

Non-notable singer, lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Fails WP:GNG DMySon (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as G5 [27]. Loafiewa (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 snow keep. Absolutely 0% chance of deletion, regardless of time passed. Nominator's point is also irrelevant as there is much more than one source. Geschichte (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mootez Zaddem[edit]

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

This is a BLP and the notability is severely questioned having only one connected source. A merge to a relevant main article would not be questioned as an WP:ATD Otr500 (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Only a few minutes of player, but that is two international caps. [28], there are other sources online, clearly WP:BEFORE hasn't been done at all. Govvy (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NFOOTY and GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep international footballer, and as per Mvqr, there are sources if a WP:BEFORE had actually been done. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 14:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McDermont Field House[edit]

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

Article shows no evidence of notability. Its only reference is a link to the subject's own website. Even if it were properly referenced, I struggle to see how this could be considered notable, since it's just a local field house hosting rec leagues and other local events. Frankly astonished this article been around for well over a decade! JonnyDKeen (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 14:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Knighthood (2021 Novel)[edit]

The Knighthood (2021 Novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, I couldn't find independent reliable sources that support notability of the subject. Bbarmadillo (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 MTN Group. North America1000 14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SuperSonic (ISP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Reference are routine annoucements. This is the last of these 7 articles made up 4 were csd'd, one was proded, 1 is at Afd for del and this. scope_creepTalk 11:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I wish there was a lot more to turn my !vote into a Strong Keep, given that it's the leading ISP in South Africa we are talking about. However, the coverage does seem to be from reputable sources on telecommunication technology and nontrivial, plus I would not consider award wins from leading Broadband institutions (MyBroadband) to be routine. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also felt the TechCrunch and Developing Telecoms sources appeared independent, though admittedly not very in-depth. The 5G-backed service appears to be fairly major, I don't think those announcements are merely routine. NemesisAT (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is neither a leading ISP, nor is the major services any different from any other ISP. It is the same kit, same protocols. None of the kit they offer, nor the protocols they use are developed in house. They are internet RFC's, so it a generic company. And both of you haven't addressed the WP:NCORP concerns, which are predominate, particularly the awards that are non-notable, and the routine coverage that fail WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 17:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another ISP article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wondernet, is also up for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting for the closer, NemesisAT and HumanxAnthro haven't pointed to a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. scope_creepTalk 18:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Literally all the MyBroadband refs, plus TechRadar, plus this. They are discussing announced events from an independent perspective and covering it within the context of South Africa's broadband industry. They all establish notability. I think the problem comes down to this: how are we defining "routine" in this discussion? I will say the Briefly ref looks like a press release copied from Supersonic and probably should not be cited here. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 18:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MTN Group - SuperSonic is functionally just the brand name of MTN's ISP operations. - htonl (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect - agree with Htonl. It might be notable enough in the future to have it's own page, but for now redirect it and incorporate some of the notable information into the MTN Group page. FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MTN Group - doesn't qualify on its own. Chelokabob (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MTN Group makes the most sense as per WP:ATD. On its own this topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 20:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 14:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insidious: The Dark Realm[edit]

Insidious: The Dark Realm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film should not be a mainspace article until principal photography commences per WP:NFF. No sources to back up the film title or poster. Existing draft article at Draft: Untitled Insidious sequel should be edited and improved until filming commences instead. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 11:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't they make another one? The last one had a budget of $10 million and grossed $167 million.-- Mike 🗩 18:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify Film will definitely be notable closer to release, merging or deleting would lose the history. No need to start over once it's released. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Changing vote to Delete per KaitoNkmra23 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This draft has been in draftspace for over a year, the article at hand has been created very recently with little reliable sources and/or notability, along with repeated and irrelevant sources, along with incorrect and speculative information. The existing draft should be used instead. KaitoNkmra23 (talk!) 10:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber). The consensus is to merge. Note that no consensus has been formed herein about renaming the merge target article, which can be discussed further at Talk:The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber) if desired. North America1000 14:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Logrus[edit]

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

This topic seems to fail WP:GNG. Talk:The_Chronicles_of_Amber#Merge_from_The_Pattern_(The_Chronicles_of_Amber)_and_The_Logrus ended with no consensus. The Pattern might, just might, be notable (see Talk:The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber)#Notability) but The Logrus is not. I am afraid there is little to do here now other than just to decide where to merge the tiny reception section added recently (sadly, IMHO, not sufficient to warrant keeping this due to coverage being in passing and failing WP:SIGCOV) followed by a redirect (either to The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber) or The Chronicles of Amber...). My preference would be The Pattern and then renaming that article into The Pattern and the Logrus. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 10:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCover[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Has two live sources, one of which it appears to plagarise, the other of which is a corporate press release so not independent. No other independent media coverage. IdiotSavant (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 on a merger target. There is no consensus to delete this text, however there is also no clear consensus on what the ideal merge target would be, if it's not kept as a standalone. It does not appear clear that a consensus is forthcoming, and the best location between List of Hitler bells, St._Jacob's_Church,_Herxheim_am_Berg or remaining as is does not require continuation in this format and can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 22:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler bell[edit]

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

This is a stub article about a church bell dedicated to Hitler, written in 2018 when it was in the news because the local council voted to keep it. This isn't sustained coverage. It's already mentioned in Herxheim am Berg. asilvering (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BEFORE failure. Google news link shows 2013-2019 coverage. Link #2 is NYT, #4 is BBC, #5 is NBC. Other coverage not currently in article is available from The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and others. Nom assertion of lack of sustained coverage is simply inaccurate. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and a couple from Scholar, too: [29] (paywalled [30] appears to be original), and ISBN 978-90-04-46222-9 which appears to be too new to be on Amazon yet. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, this is not a WP:BEFORE failure; we simply appear to be interpreting the guidelines at WP:SUSTAINED differently. If I'm reading you correctly, your position is something like "coverage over a long enough period of time is 'sustained coverage' by definition." Since you're also !voting for keep, I am inferring here that you take that further, to "anything with sustained coverage is by definition notable, and everything notable belongs in its own wikipedia article." I'll explain my reasoning for mentioning WP:SUSTAINED, my use of which is open to correction by you or anyone else; however, I don't think "you referred to the wrong guideline, and anyway, it was in the news over a period of several years" is a particularly compelling argument for keep either way.
    In my view, if WP:SUSTAINED meant "a subject must receive news coverage over a period of n months/years" and nothing else, it would simply say so. That would be both clearer and shorter than what it says now. Instead, it appears to be alluding to two related arguments: something like "a brief burst of news coverage may appear to be enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to pass WP:GNG, but may still be insufficient grounds for an article," and "significant coverage related only to a single event may not warrant an article." The latter here explicitly refers to BLPs, but it could apply just as easily to "typically non-notable" subjects - like, for example, a churchbell.
    That section refers us to WP:EVENT, which clearly states that inclusion is justified when "the event is of lasting, historical significance." It seems a bit much to argue that this bell is an object of lasting, historical significance, and even more (in my opinion, at least) to argue that the controversy over what should be done about the bell is of lasting, historical significance. It is not likely to be the catalyst for something else of lasting significance, or have a significant impact over a wide region, two other general criteria given there. For these reasons, my understanding of this guideline is that "sustained coverage" refers not just to "coverage over a period of time," but rather to "coverage over a period of time, such that the subject's likely lasting, historical significance is demonstrated or at least implied," a standard that I do not believe is met by this object or the controversy about it.
    Perhaps this is a misreading, and indeed anything that receives newspaper attention over a period of months or years satisfies WP:SUSTAINED. Very well. However, it does not follow from this that anything with said newspaper attention belongs in its own Wikipedia article. Your Scholar links are a good example of why: this object and its related controversy is interesting not in itself, but as an example of Vergangenheitsbewältigung - how we cope with our past, especially in a post-1945 German context. Is it a particularly important example of dealing with collective historical guilt? It does not appear to be so - or, at least, not yet. (Here is the only relevant sentence in that first Scholar link: "We might keep them as part of our cultural heritage, like the “Hitler Bell” still hanging in Herxheim am Berg, Germany.") Until that hypothetical day arrives, it's better placed in another article. One might suggest the article for the church itself, but, understandably, no one has yet created an article for this church in a German town of under 1000 residents. It is, however, as I mentioned, already in the article for Herxheim am Berg.
    Since this is now significantly longer than the deletion-nominated stub at hand, a tl;dr: we appear to disagree on the meaning of WP:SUSTAINED; however, regardless of whether either of us are correct about WP:SUSTAINED and indeed regardless of whether there is only one true way to read it, this topic does not need a standalone article. -- asilvering (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure a standalone article makes sense. Why bury it in as an UNDUE portion of an article about a town? How would that even help anything? It's a controversial Nazi-era "monument" serving in a municipal church in Germany that's made worldwide headlines. It's going to come up again and again until someone destroys it or it is relocated. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge -- I doubt the bell is individually notable enough to deserve an article of its own. I doubt that the bell is dedicated to Hitler, rather I suspect that it carries a quotation from him with his name. It seems that today cancel culture is so strong and Hitler so toxic that public figures cannot even use a simile involving him without others attacking them for it. This is obviously a controversial case, where some did not like the decision of the local council. The bell is presumably in the church tower where the inscription is invisible and would be almost unknown but for this ATTACK article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify why you think notability is at issue here? It's received significant independent RS coverage from over half a dozen media outlets--that's well above the GNG threshold. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject is discussed in German Wikipedia in Jakobskirche (Herxheim am Berg)#Glocke aus der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus. The section quotes many German sources. I have written a stub St. Jacob's Church, Herxheim am Berg, the Hitler bell may be moved there.

Xx236 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have written also List of Hitler bells. Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I've ported the relevant half of the stub over and cleaned it up a bit. -- asilvering (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are discussions in Germany if such bells may be preserved, replaced or commented by inscriptions. There are plenty of sources, in German only.Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - hence my remarks above, that this particular bell belongs as part of another article, rather than a single one of its own. -- asilvering (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have much less heartburn merging the content here into a list of similar Nazi-era bells, than to simply merging it into a town where one happens to be. Jclemens (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: People should also discuss a possible merger with the new List of Hitler bells, which is currently wrongly labeled a dab page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that none of the four people who have commented have strong objections to the list of Hitler bells? I've already added the info - there really is only two lines of it in the original stub article. -- asilvering (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you confident List of Hitler bells will survive AFD? It seems to me the problem with creating the list article is that someone can nominate it for deletion claiming it fails WP:NLIST because the group of bells as a whole has not been discussed by independent reliable sources. It would be irrelevant whether the separate bells are or are not notable. The list could be saved if it provided navigational purposes but, unless there are articles on the bells themselves, this would also fail. AFD is a terrible venue for conducting constructive editing. Thincat (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not. But if someone is determined to keep the list, they can have that argument on that AfD, were anyone to nominate it. Further, if the list is deleted, there is still also St. Jacob's Church, Herxheim am Berg (which is where German Wikipedia has it), and indeed Herxheim am Berg. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly because it's analyzed by few academic pieces Jclemens provided. Otherwise, I would have voted to Merge. While a regular Google search gives me loads of entries (a lot from reputable entries worldwide) they are always news announcements for the same three events. The bell gained controversy and resulted in the town mayor's resignation (2017), town population voted to keep it (Feb 27, 2018), and court ruled it could stay (Jan. 2019). Admittedly I'm going off of headlines here instead of looking at the prose of these pieces to see if there's anything unique between each of them, but how could a set of events that limited be its own article? On a side note, honestly, I'm more disturbed at Heil Honey I'm Home! having enough WP:SUSTAINED for its own article. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 03:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of being accused of bludgeoning, since you're pointing at the academic pieces as your reason for keep, I think it's very important to point out that, of those three academic links, the second is a pre-print copy of the first, and the first only says: "We might keep them as part of our cultural heritage, like the “Hitler Bell” still hanging in Herxheim am Berg, Germany." That is the sum total of analysis there - just a passing mention. The third one, I don't think any of us have read, so we don't have any evidence that it's not just a passing mention either. -- asilvering (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see sustained significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.-- Mike 🗩 19:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything But Conservative[edit]

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

Not a really notable topic. The lead calls it a "political campaign" but that's really overselling it; while strategic voting amongst left-leaning voters in Canada undeniably exists, it exists as a state of mind rather than an organized effort. For instance, the 2015 election's ABC campaign apparently consisted of "several websites" and "thousands of grass-roots volunteers"— which is not really much of anything.

The exception to this is the 2008 election, which did have a major, notable, organized effort led by the Premier of Newfoundland— but that event can be covered just as well on the relevant pages (2008 Canadian federal election, Danny Williams (politician), etc). As it stands, this page is taking one notable political event and using it to suggest a wider, broader, more notable "movement" than really exists. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Jerry Dias was one of the guests of the first segment of The Agenda on November 25; he specifically stated that Unifor in its past had advocated an "Anything But Conservative" voting strategy, for whatever that's worth. See The PC Party's labour charm offensive at TVO. (I see a similar point about Unifor members voting strategically is made in the article, but has no sources.) Mindmatrix 20:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - on the surface it doesn't seem notable, but digging through the references from major publications suggests otherwise. Nfitz (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Strategic Voting as this is not so much an orchestrated campaign as a system of messaging surrounding that phenomenon deployed within Canadian elections. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources are good and in depth.Super (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A merge to Tactical voting could be plausible, but the article is large enough on its own to the point that merging would give it WP:UNDUE weight without removal of important, sourced information. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 07:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I remember seeing tons of lawn signs and hearing a lot about this movement in WP:OFFLINE sources around 2008, and I'm convinced that notability is met. There's no need to fold a notable topic related to an election into the election's page. However, the sources I'm seeing online suggest that this existed as a coherent movement in 2008 and maybe 2015, and I think the topic of this article should narrowly be about the movement (backed by prominent politicians, covered extensively in the media) to oppose Conservatives in those two elections. See for examples 1 2 3 4 5 6, I see basically nothing about the movement existing in any election before or since. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bedessa (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Red X I withdraw my nomination . Update #3. There have been too many modifications to the disambiguation article for this AfD nomination to make any sense at this time. Please close AfD as withdrawn. Platonk (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update #2: There is only one article in the disambiguation page; too few per WP:DISAMBIG policy, and not what a disam page is for. Delete. Platonk (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous: There are only two entries. See WP:DISAMBIG. In this case, this disambiguation page is being used as a bandaid to [attempt to] straighten out what remains as confusions in other articles and redirects. Bedessa (a mispelling) is a redirect that points to Badessa, whereas there is another article with the same spelling Bedessa (Wolaita), a place in the same country but nowhere near the other. Someone should straighten out all those articles and redirects which use the wrongly spelled entry (there are several) rather than relying on a disambiguation page. But either way, this disambiguation page is being for something WP:DISAMBIG never intended it to be used for. Update #1: I cleaned up the mess including fixing the typo in three articles and two templates (transcluded into numerous other articles). I fixed the hatnotes in Badessa and Bedessa (Wolaita), and identified two more redirects now needing deletion, Bedessa & Bedessa (Wolaita) (disambiguation), that were created in misguided attempts to solve this mess. Platonk (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't why you nominated the article with this poor reason. The article Bedessa or Badessa pronounced in same way. Non of them misspelled. Ethiopians use both a and e interchangeably (you can also look at Addis Abeba and Addis Ababa), that's why the article that created before Bedessa (Wolaita) had used 'Bedessa' as another form of writing. If you had had a look, Badessa or Bedessa is a name for district in Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Whereas, Bedessa (Wolaita) is a town in Wolaita Zone, Southern Region, Ethiopia. There are also many towns in Ethiopia that named Bedessa and but not included in Wikipedia yet. So it is very ambiguous to identity, and following this, this disambiguation page was created. - Yitbe A-21 19:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Yitbe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Update: I don't know who removed the article from the disambiguation page, but I restored it back. You can review the history of the page, it's unclear for me who removed the content. Anyways it has been restored. I don't know in which reason you'll come back again. - Yitbe A-21 10:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yitbe: It wasn't removed, it was moved down the page with the correct spelling. Disambiguation pages should link to articles only, not to redirects. I have corrected your error and placed a notation about the alternate spelling. Please read and understand Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Platonk (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and move Bedessa (Wolaita) to Bedessa. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move. I don't know anything about Ethiopia, but Yitbe appears to be correct. The two towns appear to have the same name, which can be spelt with either a or e (I guess that's the influence of Amharic anglicisation, right?). Badessa for example was at this title only because of a 2014 move (having been at Bedessa before that), and the one source I checked spells it as "Bedesa". Given that the two towns are of comparable size, I can't see any one of them as the primary topic, so the primary titles should be occupied by dab pages: one for the spellings with e ("Bedesa" and "Bedessa"), and a separate one for the spelling with a, because "Badessa" has a range of other, unrelated meanings. That still leaves two open questions: which spelling should be preferred for the title of each article (the Oromo "Baddeeysaa" is also on the table for one of them), and what disambiguator should be used for the Badessa article: the region (Oromia), the zone (West Hararghe), or something else; should it be separated with a comma or with parentheses? (The relevant category reveals all sorts of disambiguators currently in use). – Uanfala (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uanfala: Well said. It is the influence of Amharic. I go with you; it's better to keep the disambiguation page, and rename the articles in the identifiable form like Bedessa (Wolaita) for the town in the Wolaita Zone, SNNPR and Bedessa (Oromia) or Bedessa (West Hararghe) for the town and separate district in the West Hararghe, Oromia Region. So I prefer moving Badessa to the one of the mentioned pages, Bedessa (Oromia) or Bedessa (West Hararghe). - Yitbe A-21 07:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update. I've just moved Badessa to Badessa, Oromia. I make no claims about preferred spelling, and the choice of "Oromia" as the disambiguator is because of its simplicity. I've used a comma (rather than parentheses), because that appears to be about 2x as common on Ethiopia-related articles (and that is the default for populated places on Wikipedia: WP:PLACEDAB). I'm not invested in those choices, so I wouldn't object if others decide to move the article to another title. It may be a good idea to have a conversation at WT:ETHIOPIA and come up with some naming conventions. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned with this AfD, what needs to happen after it's closed is just for the page Bedessa (disambiguation) to be moved to Bedessa. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Entertainment Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. It is also very promotional and subject to WP:TOOSOON. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Promotional piece of a non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify agree that it is WP:TOOSOON. Looks like they are starting to sign some bigger names, but coverage is very minimal. FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, promotional context. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can’t find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 05:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Dawson[edit]

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

Not notable, fails GNG --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with ray tracing support[edit]

List of games with ray tracing support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced list with no assertion of notability. Why is it significant that a game has ray-tracing, a technique that comes standard on modern GPUs and is getting more common by the day? Without an affirmative answer to this question, this falls under WP:NOTDIR. This is not a defining feature of video games that warrants a list. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete An article created a year before this one was deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games with ray tracing. I did a full history export to https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_games_with_ray_tracing Anyway, this was once a notable feature when it first came out, ample coverage was found in the previous AFD talking about it, but now its rather common so not a defining feature. Dream Focus 05:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for bringing up the previous discussion, Dream Focus. I was not aware that this has been litigated before. I don't know if this is a substantial recreation of the previous list or not. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find your logic here truly troubling. It is true that ray-tracing hardware comes standard on modern GPUs. However, just because the hardware comes standard does not make it a standard feature in software. In fact, the vast majority of all games released in a given time-frame do not support ray-tracing in any way. As far as notability goes, I think I have already laid out the foundation of why it is notable: it is not a standard feature in software as you appear to claim it to be. I also do not see how this falls under any of the of the points listed on the WP:NOTDIR page, so please enlighten me as to which specific point this page violates, and exactly how it violates that point. Svetroid (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Wikipedia is not a product catalogue. We are not here to advertise or sell games or GPUs based on the promise of a feature. "It's not a standard feature" is not an assertion of notability (please reread WP:LISTN and WP:SAL). Given that it's now a hardware standard, one might argue that lack of ray tracing support is more notable for a newly released game, but surely you wouldn't advocate for "List of games without ray tracing support", would you? Axem Titanium (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be basing the notability of ray-tracing on yourself simply saying it's not notable. You ignored my argument differentiating hardware and software support for ray-tracing, and then said "actually, lack of support for ray-tracing is more notable". Do I need to gather a list of all of the thousands of games released this year, and then show you the dozen that support ray-tracing to show you that it is notable? Are you next going to arbitrarily restrict what category of games we're talking about to try to make ray-tracing games look more numerous than they actually are for the sake of your notability argument? Additionally, making a list of games that support potentially different implementations of a hardware feature is not in any way, shape, or form advertising GPUs or games, and I find it ridiculous that you'd try to imply that. Svetroid (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Svetroid. If games with support for hardware accelerated ray tracing were actually as common as some here claim, then this list would be miles long. Only AMD's latest generation Radeons and NVIDIA's current- and last-gen GeForces support the feature. I reference this page fairly regularly, as a journalist, and benchmarker. The only issue I can really see is the lack of sources in places. In some cases, that seems to be because the game developer doesn't do much highlighting of the feature itself, making a list like this all the more useful (assuming people are not adding titles they are not 100% certain about). Deathspawner (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recreation of a previously deleted list, where consensus amongst numerous regulars of WP:VG is that it fell under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ray tracing is simply not a defining aspect of a video game. I sympathize with those who find the list a useful tool, but merely being interesting is not grounds for remaining on Wikipedia and this seems more fitting for some off site Wiki.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Over two years go by, and games with ray tracing still get coverage for that. https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/games-support-nvidia-ray-tracing/ shows 31 games out now with 14 coming later on. That's just the Nvidia’s RTX ray tracing, not ray tracing done by others. Find a review for a single game that has it, and the reviewer always mentions how good that game looks with the ray tracing. It is a notable aspect because reviewers always mention it in reliable sources. No matter how long the list gets, as long as reviewers are still mentioning this key aspect of the game, then its notable. Dream Focus 06:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that in the previous AfD it was already stated that a prose article about the history of raytracing in video games would likely be notable, but a list article would just be a directory. Furthermore, the article is almost guaranteed to be deleted at some point in the future when pretty much all new 3D games have raytracing due to graphics cards getting more powerful, making it pointless to maintain. Notable articles should be notable forever, not conditional to a certain span of time.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Its been notable for over two years now. If things ever change, then you can send it to AFD again. Right now it is notable. And this is not a directory but a valid navigational list, it listing information that someone looking for games that use ray tracing, would find quite useful to help them navigate to an article of interest to them. Also a valid information list for those who want to see how many are using this feature. Dream Focus 06:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that it is trivial. Orientls (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2011 Norway attacks[edit]

Timeline of the 2011 Norway attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bloated, overly detailed step-by-step description: e.g. The driver drives into the parking lot (15:16:07), parks the car (15:16:30) and opens the front door (15:16:46). Also, anything worthwhile in the background section can go into the main article, if it isn't already there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. On second thought, this just needs a thorough overhaul. Bizarrely, this timeline goes into great detail about minutia, but spends very little time on the important occurrences. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Tanzania relations[edit]

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

Not notable enough for an article, since these relations are not very special. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per lack of significant coverage in reliable source. The link noted directly above barely mentions Tanzania and in no way constitutes "significant" coverage of the topic. Yilloslime (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan–Spain relations[edit]

South Sudan–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no possible way that there are enough relations for this article to exist. Philosophy2 (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per Libstar. Nothing in the links found by Pilaz" adds up to "significant coverage" in my opinion. Yilloslime (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 05:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Perdue[edit]

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

Non-notable gymnast. Fails WP:NCOLLATH.Goyston talk, contribs 03:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 05:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azerbaijani cemeteries damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict[edit]

List of Azerbaijani cemeteries damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTPURP. The topic "Azerbaijani cemeteries damaged in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" has not received any coverage as a topic within reliable sources, either in the provided citations or in a WP:BEFORE search (this discounts coverage in unreliable sources per WP:RSP such as the Daily Sabah). Damaged cemeteries have been mentioned, but these mentions tend to be passing and occur within a broader discussion on the conflict and so are not sufficient to establish this as a topic on its own.

Further, this appears to be a WP:POVFORK of List of cultural monuments damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; while the latter has dubious notability and should probably be taken through AFD again, that doesn't permit this fork to exist. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this content was removed from the other article [39] and made into its own article. Dream Focus 02:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into the article from which it was split. Regardless of whether the other list should be deleted on WP:LISTN and WP:POV grounds, it is too short to warrant splitting. We note that both articles were created by Abutalub (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list clearly fails notability guidelines and serves advocacy rather than cyclopedic purposes. These graves were originally listed as "Azerbaijani and Islamic sites damaged during the NK conflict" with unreliable one sided sources, and while it takes some ongoing sweating to somewhat fix some the main list of churches and mosques, the author failed to improve this stillborn spinoff since creation, neither I see any prospect of how this can be improved to pass minimal wikipedia standards. An editor supporting the same point of view as the author is RfC-ing the graves in the main article currently, presenting them as "hundreds years old historical and cultural monuments", whereas no reliable neutral source calls them as such. --Armatura (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand the criteria of this list. Mukt (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons mentioned above. Archives908 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- War almost inevitably leads to damage, and the victors are likely to vandalise what they perceive as related to the defeated. The 1990s victory was emphatically reversed last year, leading the Azeris to cry foul over damage done by Armenians. The whole thing is written to justify the Azerbaijan position, without any corresponding acknowledgement of Armenian suffering. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while it can't be a WP:POVFORK of List of cultural monuments damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (or at least it would be unlikely to be so) as they have the same original creator, as noted by LaundryPizza; however, this article is does not meet WP:LISTN. I argue against merge as I think that this article largely would not benefit List of cultural monuments damaged in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as it already includes the partial destruction of the grave of Khurshidbanu Natavan, which is the only notable item from this list in my view. This is not to say the destruction of cemeteries isn't a travesty; just that it does not necessarily necessitate a wikipedia article. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 03:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Clear consensus against a standalone page; if there is sourced content that is merge-worthy, I would be willing to provide a userspace copy to anyone interested in developing it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Lou Bredemus[edit]

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

Other than being somebody's mother, subject has no notability. Described here as an "actress" yet does not even have an IMDb entry. The section titled "Career" is mostly about her family life. Dolloneal (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Jumeirah Lake Towers. ✗plicit 00:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Shore Towers[edit]

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

I can find no reliable sources--only the advertisements of real estate companies

Beware--do not try to find the actual official site -- the archives.org link given ,which i have now removed from the displayed version, does not work, and a direct search goes to malware. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_12&oldid=1061570094"