Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 22	December 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pete's Basement[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Searching for other sources yields nothing and the current sources are WP:INTERVIEW content or WP:SPS. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources and insufficient to demonstrate notability. JonnyDKeen (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable defunct podcast that never got enough notice in reliable sources to consider it notable. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:15, 26 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 23:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Jubayer Hassan[edit]

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

Played only one match, according to this Dhaka Premier Division Twenty20 Cricket League isn't notable t20 competitions. Fails WP:NCRIC, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and hasn't played in a notable enough cricket tournament either. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Shinepukur Cricket Club Fails WP:NCRIC as not played in notable tournament under the new guidelines as nom and Joseph2302 states, Fails WP:GNG also. Could be redirected as a WP:ATD but there's not a list for the team currently. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:49, 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 redirect to Miss Israel#Titleholders. ✗plicit 23:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Israel 1969[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not have multiple reliable sources, demonstrating a lack significant coverage. As such the WP:GNG is not met. Miss Israel itself is certainly notable, however the subject of this article does not inherit that notability as an associate. I hence propose this article be deleted. There is already a list of 'Miss Israel' and this event is included in that list. Most years do not have their own stand-alone article, and there is nothing about the subject of this article making it sufficiently notable for it's own page, especially because the main information in this article is already included in the Miss Israel list. Such-change47 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At the risk of being accused of WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm curious why the nominator chose this page to nominate instead of, for example, Miss Israel 1968 or Miss Israel 1970. pburka (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment The current pageant deletion strategy is instead of a bulk nom that'll get called out for lack of WP:BEFORE, they tend to bring one random year up for nomination and then if successful, then build a bulk nom with the rationale '1969 was deleted, so now we can delete the rest', thinking we'll forget this is also a solid AfD rationale/result... Nate • (chatter) 01:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Pburka: and @Deathlibrarian: Honestly, such a fair question. As a newcomer I do a lot of 'suggested edit' tasks. When I come across pages I think meet criteria for deletion, I nom. I did not nominate the other pages because this is the one which came across. Happy for the others to be nominated also, if there is no sigcov then they should just remain in the list and not have their own article. I may not have gone about this properly - ought I have nominated all of them together in a group? Is that allowed? I do not want to be seen as a newcomer who just floods AFD with too many noms.Such-change47 (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Israel#Titleholders per WP:CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 01:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with pburka and wonder why this particular year is being picked out for deletion, and others aren't when the concept is presumably equally notable. Either the standard of notability justifies this sort of page for yearly records of Miss Israel, or it doesn't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Deathlibrarian: Agreed; the entire deletion pattern of pageant articles under a claim of GNG not being met has been sketchy for years, which is why I try to push against it (and a rd at least allows for the ability to still add sources, return it as a separate article, but if it can't, keep the article in history rather than be deleted). The deletionist targeting of media mainly featuring women (lately seeming to also encompass every made-for-TV film in the '90s and '00s, along with Hallmark Channel films) is something I'm very uncomfortable with, when we have a lot of bad made-for-DVD (now streaming) action films that are only notable for paying off has-been actor's mortgages rather than ever being watched outside of a small critic base that's like 'yes, this is bad, a yule log has more entertainment', yet somehow pass WP:N because of the has-been actor...while we delete women-led films because a deletionist seems embarrassed to type in 'Danielle Steele's (novel title)' in Google.</rant>Nate • (chatter) 02:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a concern.Yes, you can see some years listed here and some missing, I'm wondering if that's because they were deleted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the article creator's talk page, it looked like they had good intentions, but were chased of by what I consider hostile and unhelpful scolds and very unhelpful template warnings, along with en bloc PRODs. Can't blame them for sticking to category space after that. Nate • (chatter) 05:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Nate. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Israel#Titleholders as an WP:ATD. With regards to nominating a single article, I strongly prefer this method versus if this were a mass nom. If this one is a redirect (as it is leaning) you could do a mass nom at AfD to WP:BLAR the pages. snood1205 14:33, 30 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 as unneeded stats per unanimous consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan national under-17 football team results[edit]

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

The consensus is that results pages shouldn't be provided for junior international teams. Fails WP:NOTSTATS JonnyDKeen (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage at AFC and other places is just routine stats coverage. Way below the level we should be covering in any case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed, NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 08:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stats page, not Wikipedia material per 6-7 other similar AFDs. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSTATS --Devokewater ^(talk) 20:14, 30 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 per CSD G4. The criteria is substantially the same, which has been met, in my opinion. While there were changes, on the whole, the conditions have not changed since the first AfD, and as I'm the first person with access to the deleted version of the article to review the CSD, in my judgement it is appropriate to delete it under G4 rather than to let let the AfD run its course, especially as one of the participants in the AfD has suggested that. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kollision[edit]

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

This page was put up for speedy delete, but as it was put up for speedy delete a few months ago, and removed by an admin on the grounds that the article was improved with new sources it was removed, I contested and removed the tag. Also, at the risk of a potential edit war with the speedy delete proposer, I am putting this up for AfD myself as this should be the process used. In addition, upon reviewing the page in question I can't quite tell if the notability is established or not, but I lean to no. I'm not well versed in Music topics so I am not the best to resolutely determine this. However, the notability is shakey and uncertain enough for me to feel an AfD is valid. This is also the second AfD for this page, the first of which can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kollision (1st nomination), which resulted in a delete vote in 2019. It was remade by the same person --Tautomers_{(T C)} 23:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as non-notable. Tautomers, why did you decline a G4 without having access to the deleted copy of the article? --Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 00:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the core basis of my rationale is that the speedy delete proposal several months back was declined by an admin (see the articles edit history), and on a glance at the article and the sources, it did not seem obvious to me that a speedy deletion, nor a prod would have been valid. My appologies if I made a mistake in judgement, but it felt too hasty, and the subsequent reapplication of the speedy delete tag aggressive. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 00:25, 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Igri Karan massacre[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Unnecessary articles of alleged events sourced by two self-published spreadsheets: (1) a victim list spreadsheet on tghat blog, and (2) a victim list spreadsheet at the end of a document self-published on ResearchGate. As standalone articles, none of them pass WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG, primarily because the events cannot be verified with any reliable sources. Other content in these articles is COATRACK, copypasta'd to each to fill them out and make them appear notable. These 12 orphan articles are part of a series of 106 almost-identical articles created by a now-blocked sockpuppet and were the subject of a prior AfD which was closed as "procedural keep" because there were too many articles bundled together for other editors to be able to effectively evaluate them at AfD. (28 of the original 106 have since been deleted.) Platonk (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - articles fail WP:EVENT, sources fail WP:RS. These articles should never made it out of NPP. --WMSR (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The creator has been blocked and their creations are all supported by dubious sources. Mccapra (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A list article may be appropriate if reliable sources exist, but it seems that the SP creator has just cookie-cut a bunch of pages from a few unreliable sources. There are currently 48 pages for purported massacres from the Tigray war. Mztourist (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant list article for these sorts of events is Timeline of the Tigray War, as long as they have reliable sources to verify the information. The "massacre" names were coined by the Wikipedia editor/creator, not the news media. Platonk (talk) 06:18, 26 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 23:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DyStar[edit]

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

PROD declined (courtesy @Phil Bridger:) on the grounds of potential sources. However my review of those sources indicated some name drops, press releases and run of the mill announcements of acquisitions, nothing independent or in depth. The German article doesn't appear to have much more of substance from which to build an article. Star Mississippi 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : this company seems notable to keep. A major company in textile industry. I have found 2 new book sources and there are plenty more news coverage on them. Check [1] and [2].Jaxarnolds (talk) 02:40, 23 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) 22:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When contesting WP:PROD deletion I said that many potential sources are found by searches of books and academic papers. I believe that many found here and here cannot be classified as "name drops, press releases and run of the mill announcements of acquisitions". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided above. Fieari (talk) 23:57, 23 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Senda[edit]

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

This is not about the tone, which could be cleaned up as it's not bad enough to be a G11. However, I looked for sourcing in English and Spanish and I find only routine churnalism. Nothing to establish organizational notability on which to build an article. Star Mississippi 19:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company involved in a controversy ([3], part 1, part 2) still ongoing four years after a deadly crash. I also found this. Searching is made harder as there is a Brazillian supermarket called "Grupo Sendas", but I think there is enough coverage. NemesisAT (talk) 19:56, 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) 20:00, 16 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) 22:51, 23 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barium acetylacetonate[edit]

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

The notability of the topic is doubtful and the article contains errors (see Smokefoot's proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 50#Structural inconsistency among acetylacetonate complexes). Leyo 20:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Leyo 20:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a compound called barium acetylacetonate, so I will rescue this article. Eventually. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you really do so, that's certainly okay. Please also take care of the structural formula that you claimed being incorrect. --Leyo 20:17, 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) 22:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a valid compound (though, I can't think of anything that it is or would be used for) and is therefore notable. In addition another editor stated they intend to improve the article and there is likely to be available data on its properties in the literature that can be used to expand the article further. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 23:57, 23 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berea, North Dakota[edit]

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

We're in "grain elevator by the tracks" territory, except in this case it's the huge complex of the Columbia Grain Valley City plant. This all there is of Berea, and when I filter out the college in Kentucky and wade through the innumerable juxtapositions with the Ohio town, I'm left with a lot of references to railroad improvements, I'm left with a picture of the station which used to sit next to the yard here, and a group of fifty customers of the station petitioning about something. I'm just not coming up with anything that says this was more than a shipping point. Mangoe (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of anything more than a rail siding with a grain elevator and a train station here. –dlthewave ☎ 05:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of photos, CB&Q and BNSF. Nothing else. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may have been a farming community but I'm not discovering much that would point towards notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:21, 25 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Cameron (Wiccan)[edit]

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

Non-notable Scottish man who performed a neopagan wedding. Despite my due diligence, I'm unable to find how the subject meets our WP:GNG outside of this WP:ONEEVENT. Even the event coverage about the wedding was minimal:

"Vault to host first Wicca wedding" in the The Herald (Glasgow) is a passing mention.
"Couple tie the knot - literally - in underground temple" in The Guardian has a brief mention and a quote from the subject. This article was also cross-published in The Scotsman.

Newspapers.com pulled up nothing and I waded through books, news, and general Googling and I could not find anything that establishes WP:GNG with reliable secondary sources. And that includes using "The Hermit" which, to no surprise, pulls up a million tarot card links.

Thanks for your consideration and assuming good faith on this nomination. Missvain (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even come close to passing the notability guidelines. Amazed this article stayed up as long as it has. JonnyDKeen (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:BASIC. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would completely agree that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Dunarc (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I found a mention of him in Ghostly Scotland, but there is just not enough content to pass WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:44, 30 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 (WP:SNOW, WP:POINTy nomination). (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 07:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in Henan[edit]

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

Lacks WP:IRS as all sources are official government-sanctioned PRC media, with no sign of notability in english language. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the claims made in the nom statement, this would mean anything Chinese without international notability should be deleted. This is clearly a ridiculous standard. As per WP:NONENG non-English sources can be used for WP:GNG, and using the government website to source the case counts of the region it serves is completely normal. But here are several English sources about the COVID situation in Henan that I found on a quick Google News search:

"After Floods, China's Zhengzhou Hit by Surge in Delta Coronavirus Cases". Radio Free Asia. Retrieved 2021-12-23.
"Lockdown Imposed in China's Henan Province After Fresh Cases Emerge". Radio Free Asia. Retrieved 2021-12-23.
"Coronavirus second wave? Central China in lockdown over fears of COVID-19 return". 7NEWS. 2020-04-02. Retrieved 2021-12-23.
"Chinese province vows to control Covid-19 outbreak 'by end of August'". South China Morning Post. 2021-08-15. Retrieved 2021-12-23.
"Devastated by Flooding, Central China Province Now Faces Covid Outbreak - Caixin Global". www.caixinglobal.com. Retrieved 2021-12-23.

Jumpytoo Talk 21:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It isn’t clear to me whether this nomination is based on official Chinese sources not being reliable or on disputed notability. I don’t see how notability is in doubt; there might be some concerns about verifiability based on official media but not enough to warrant deletion of an entire article IMV. Mccapra (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This feels like a WP:POINTY nomination... the notability is pretty obvious, and non-english sources are allowed. Fieari (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If both Radio Free Asia and Chinese State Media are covering it, I don't really think there is an issue with potentially inflated notability by the Chinese Government or the American Government. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 01:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Jumpytoo. Sources do not need to be in English. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it’s clear there’s no shortage of sources and no real concern about verifiability has been advanced. Mccapra (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Chinese state media (like those of many totalitarian states) are inclined to suppress unpalatable truths, but that does not mean that they are always unreliable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable! Time for an Admin. to do his duty. — Ret.Prof (talk) 01:45, 30 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 (WP:SNOW, WP:POINTy nomination). (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 07:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in Liaoning[edit]

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

Lacks WP:IRS, every single source is mainland China (censored media). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the claims made in the nom statement, this would mean anything Chinese without international notability should be deleted. This is clearly a ridiculous standard. As per WP:NONENG non-English sources can be used for WP:GNG, and using the government website to source the case counts of the region it serves is completely normal. But here are several English sources about the COVID situation in Liaoning that I found on a quick Google News search:

Stevenson, Alexandra (2021-11-10). "A Chinese city tells overseas visitors to quarantine for 28 days, then do another 28". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-12-23.
"Shenyang in China imposes 56-day isolation". The Independent. 2021-11-11. Retrieved 2021-12-23.
"Chinese city quarantines thousands over new COVID-19 cluster". CNA. Retrieved 2021-12-23.
"COVID-19 tests in northern China administered by robot". euronews. 2021-01-13. Retrieved 2021-12-23.
News, Taiwan (2021-01-05). "Northeast China scrambles to curb new COVID surge | Taiwan News | 2021-01-05 12:13:00". Taiwan News. Retrieved 2021-12-23. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Jumpytoo Talk 22:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as with the nomination immediately above, I don’t think we’re close to the territory where an entire article needs to be deleted. Mccapra (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This feels like a WP:POINTY nomination... the notability is pretty obvious, and non-english sources are allowed. Fieari (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – in addition to the sources cited in the article and the ones listed by User:Jumpytoo, more are available at zh:2019冠状病毒病辽宁省疫情. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it’s clear there’s no shortage of sources and no real concern about verifiability has been advanced. Mccapra (talk) 07:20, 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Takla[edit]

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

Declined and rejected at AFC, holding the record for the most sushi rolls eaten in one minute is not inherently notable? Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as nominator notes, the prospect of appropriate sources seems low. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The fact that the subject wrote about himself also doesn't look good. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability is not established. Mccapra (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable here. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article, and the one local news article is not sufficient to meet the "multiple" part of WP:BASIC. Jumpytoo Talk 07:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. search on google turns out close to no items relevant to the subject. – robertsky (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater ^(talk) 20:18, 30 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paintclub[edit]

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

Not enough in-dept coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it would be appropriate to have an article about this type of establishment, but not one about a single, unremarkable instance.Vexations (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring the PROMO/PAID overtones, I do not see how WP:GNG is met by this small (less than 10-person?) company. As noted by Vexations above, several of the sources (including this Irish Independent article) cover the concept of "art workshops" generally. Rather than this single company (offering such a product/event) specifically. That this small company has had their PR efforts picked up by several (mainly local/regional) news outlets is great for them. Kudos. But these small number of mentions are not sufficient to meet ORGDEPTH or GNG. Guliolopez (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 30 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Julia[edit]

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

An AFC acceptance that is the wrong side of the "We accept it if it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process" sourced to Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, interviews with the subject etc. Fails WP:BIO. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the sources in the article, see the following Arabic language sources:

Sky News Arabia: Translation of title: "Abu Julia" reveals the details of his success on social media
Al Jazeera: Translation of title: Behind the scenes of Abu Julia's kitchen
Al-Quds Al-Arabi: Translation of title: Palestinian chef Abu Julia tells “Al Quds Al Arabi” the story of his success and rise in the world of social media

These are high quality news outlets publishing feature articles on this person. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but definitely hinges on how we treat non-English sources. Refs to social media seem mainly to affirm popularity in the argot of those platforms, for which they are primary sources. Once: agreed that there's enough diversity of RS sources to keep and expand, despite the challenges w using interviews to establish notability. – SJ + 21:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
he also makes a recent appearance in a short story by Jordanian writer and politician Arabic: Basma Al-NsourUser:Petsquirrel 10:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)^[1][reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hog Farm _Talk 20:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concept 2 Rowing Oars[edit]

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

I find zero indication that there is any reliable independent sourcing of the oars. Almost everything here is sourced to primary sources and commercial sites for purchasing the oars. Of the few exceptions, row2k doesn't mention Concept2, the Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter is an amateur publication with (as far as I can tell) no peer reviewing, and Rowing in Motion mentions Concept2's corporate method of measuring oar stiffness. None of it constitutes significant coverage of the oars.

IMO it's not suitable as a merge or redirect to the company article at Concept2, because it's such an unlikely search term and there's no sourcing to support the inclusion of any of this content in that article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP due to the referencing issues stated in the nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:40, 29 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polecat Landing, South Carolina[edit]

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

Topographic maps here show a point where the road goes down to the river in the middle of a swamp, which is confirmed by searching elsewhere. Newspapers.com has about a half-dozen passing mentions, none of which contribute to WP:GNG and which generally confirm that this is a river landing. Best I can find elsewhere is a passing mention in Horry County, South Carolina, 1730-1993 in a sentence listing river landings, as well as a trivial appearance in a blog listing of "25 Unusual South Carolina Place Names". River landings don't get the WP:GEOLAND auto-pass, and nothing I found constitutes significant coverage per the GNG.

Comment - while one map I saw has the label "Cartwheel Landing" here, my searching for this site made it pretty clear that Cartwheel Landing is a separate location, as Polecat and Cartwheel appear in lists separately. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "is an unincorporated community" appears to be false, no population at all on the topo. When is this mass-creator going to own up to his mistakes? Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet GNG as required for miscellaneous geographic features such as river landings. –dlthewave ☎ 04:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to simply be a river landing. Not enough sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater ^(talk) 20:22, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ziaur Rahman Azmi[edit]

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

Non notable author who only got coverage from some unreliable sources, far from being independent and mainstream WP:RS media. Wareon (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. desmay (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. any sort of notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Seems to have been a well accomplished person. If WP:BIO needs to be improved, tag appropriately.

Saudi Gazette profile (2017) - link
The Siasat Daily obituary (2021) - link
Al-Jami Ul-Kamil Fi Al-Hadith Al-Sahih Al-Shamil (12 Vols.) -- his work seems to be quite significant and seems to be well regarded in modern Islamic literature, which I will not claim to be an expert on. [4] [5]

I have no doubt on notability just based on the above searches. No reason to delete. Ktin (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am tagging @TheAafi:, because I have seen them work on WP:ISLAM topics. Either way, I would recommend that this AFD is posted on WP:ISLAM and feedback from the group sought before closing. My two cents is to Keep. Ktin (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ktin, Thanks for the mention. I remember accepting this from a AfC draft because then I thought that this is a borderline notability case. Based on the reliable sources we have, I don't think the subject tends to meet WP:GNG and his book could possibly help him meet any subjective criteria. I need some time to relook. I'm currently travelling and once I reach my place, I'll try to look for some offline sources [and I guess there would be plenty in Urdu]. Thanks ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 06:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work by TheAafi in getting the sources checked. Reaffirming my keep recommendation. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two sources cited above, Saudi Gazette which use puffery language "Another legendary work accomplished by Azmi" and Siasat which also use puffery language "One of the greatest scholars of Islam in recent times" aree unreliable sources and the articles do not seem to be anything more than routine coverage. There are biographies of every writer available on such sites and their death also get coverage by these like-minded sources. These sources do not meet the criteria of WP:SECONDARY. Dear Debasish (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you genuinely arguing for this article to be deleted because the sources use puffy language? Just so you know, that's a remark on the state of journalism not on the article. Please stand down and wait for TheAafi to finish their searches on this topic.

PS: Choose your newspaper of choice and you will see that none of them are free of the "puffy language" accusation that you have just hurled. E.g. NYTimes Greatest Scholar NYTimes - Legendary Work The Guardian Greatest Scholar The Guardian Legendary Works. If you have issues with Siasat go take it to WP:RSN Ktin (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on context. For example, anyone can call Muhammad Ali as one of the greatest boxer, and that won't be counted as puffery but calling this non-notable author as among greatest or remark his works to be legendary would reek of fluffy language that is far from expectations we have built for independent sources. Dear Debasish (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources mentioning Ali as the greatest boxer is equal to sources saying a notable Islamic scholar as legendary & great". Stating that sources are "puffery" only because you think someone is clear cut non notable because he has not been covered very much online is explicit bias. If Ali is seen as a legend, Azmi is seen as a legend to those who have discussed him. As Ktin said, this should be seen as a remark on the state of journalism. Anyways, I'll post my analysis of the native sources discussing Azmi in a day or two. Thanks ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has made very significant contribution to the hadith scholarship and his works on the subject have been widely acclaimed by scholars of the subject. There is plethora of coverage available online in Urdu that I'd claim that this meets WP:GNG. Much more offline. I've updated the article partially and included several sources. His death wasn't just noticed by Indian media but Daily Jang and Daily Pakistan have given him attention as well. I've also added a reference from Urdu Digest, a well known journal published from Pakistan and that's about two pages about him. To conclude, this clearly passes WP:GNG. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no evidence supplied that the subject's achievements have "been widely acclaimed by scholars". Please supply translations of the non-English sources so that editors can check their validity. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Well. There are several examples of this. Irfan Siddiqui in his article From Bilariaganj to the Jannat al-Baqi (translated title) mentions that Azmi's work Al-Jamiul Kamil is undoubtedly the largest collection of sound ahadith throughout the Islamic history. Irfan is a well known columnist and journalist from Pakistan and the article appeared in the Daily Jang (for the newspaper piece I've offline), though I've its reference from the Urdu Digest Journal. Indian Islamic scholar Razi ul Islam Nadwi considers him a famous muhaddith and states that Azmi all alone did such a work which actually research academies do with a big team of researchers "with having several facilities". There are several offline sources that indicate Azmi's works being appreciated by Islamic scholars. Besides what we have online, there's one book in Urdu entitled The Spiritual and Academic Journey from the Ganges to the Zamzam (translated title) which is over 216 pages and discusses Azmi significantly. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions are not enough; we require in-depth sources about the subject. Please supply translations of any non-English sources so that editors can judge for themselves if notability is met. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't say "it is just a mention". Those are separate articles that significantly discuss Azmi. I just quoted few statements. Apologies if you misunderstood. I cannot supply translations of each and every work that discusses Azmi in Urdu. However, from Nadwi's article, I am trying to roughly state the following excerpt:

One of his uniqueness was that he was not a Muslim by birth, but he belonged to a Hindu family in Bilaria Ganj town of Azamgarh district. He has done a great job of teaching and writing in the field, he alone has done such a great job that academies have to do with abundant facilities and a large team of researchers. Irfan Siddiqui's detailed article is also helpful.

To the best of my experience with Islamic biographies, he passes WP:GNG for 1: there's a 216 pages book by Khalid Azmi published from New Delhi that significantly covers his life and works. 2: There are several significant articles on his life & works by Irfan Siddiqui & Islamic scholar Razi ul Islam Nadwi and several others. I'd like to ping Vice regent and Hindustanilanguage and Gazal world who understand Urdu language and can independently assess Azmi's notability. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a full translation to justify your claims then. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

~~@TheAafi: can you provide links to the Urdu sources?VR _talk 05:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually, I just saw these sources. @Xxanthippe: asking a user to write the "full translation" is unreasonable. For example, one of the sources provided in the Bibliography is a 12 page article. I think you should assume WP:AGF here that Aafi isn't lying. I know someone who is fluent in Urdu and will try to have them verify this as well.VR _talk 05:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources mentioned on both the article and here do not verify the individual to be notable outside his own spectrum. AnM2002 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
just asking do you know Urdu? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to be notable outside his own spectrum to pass WP:GNG, whatever that means. Based on the analysis above, I think the article is good. Ktin (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That depends upon the nature of the spectrum. Whatever the case, notability must be actually demonstrated by sources and not by editor's claims of what exist in sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

It is necessary to be notable outside the sources that are predictably going to write about you. Since none of these sources are mainstream there is a clear need for sources that are independent of the subject. AnM2002 (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002: Can you explain why these sources don't meet WP:Independent? VR _talk 08:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent or not, do they prove notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Because if we depend on them then it won't be possible to write "non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject" as required by WP:INDEPENDENT. They are at by large puff pieces as already explained above. By the language that these sources have used, one can identify that they are not neutral. There are thousands of such individuals who write about Islam and happen to get coverage upon their death by the publishers whom they are closely related with, that's why significant coverage from independent sources is required. AnM2002 (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002: I think you're confusing independence with bias. WP:IIS is defined as "have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." What conflict of interest do Aafi's sources have with the subject? Keep in mind that WP:BIASEDSOURCES can be acceptable as reliable sources.VR _talk 14:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this showing that the Palestinian Ministry of Awqaf expressed condolences on his death; and a review of one of his books. It’s clear his reputation was international, with coverage outside his adopted country in Pakistan and Palestine. There’s more but my Arabic is too slow to plough through it all and I’m unfamiliar with some of the titles so can’t be sure of their general reliability. Mccapra (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to provide translations to convince editors that these sources convey notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Can't you assume AGF on editors about non-English sources? --Gazal world (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of judgement and for that, evidence is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Well why would you want to trust my translations? Translate them yourself with Google so you can form your own view. Demanding that other editors translate sources for you in an AfD discussion is ridiculous. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I had someone look at these sources and they verified that each one of them gives WP:SIGCOV to the article's subject.VR _talk 18:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vice regent, Thanks for that. I've included several other resources. Pakistani jurist Mahmood Ahmed Ghazi cites Azmi in his "Muhazrat e Hadees" and Pakistani Islamic historian & biographer Muhammad Ishaq Bhatti discusses Azmi in about ten pages in his 2015 work Chamnistan-e-Hadees. Given this much attention, this article is a clear cut GNG pass. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 18:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 30 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 Itarsi. (non-admin closure) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Loco Shed, Itarsi[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in the article or as far as I could find online[6][7]. Some passing mentions and some non-independent sources, but no significant independent attention for this loco shed. Fram (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is Notable and it has a some media coverage according to the online search . HelpingWorld (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources give significant attention to indicate that it is notable? Fram (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete made by a sock. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 02:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a couple of Hindi sources which I think cover it substantially enough to pass WP:GNG --Hemanthah (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate Hemanthah's sources. Note that the "substantial edits by others" would disqualify this article from a WP:G5 deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:34, 16 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) 18:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Itarsi - even if it falls short as a standalone article, it has reasonable sources, and Itarsi is clearly a railway town in which the loco shed is a significant feature. Ingratis (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

or alternatively to Jabalpur railway division. Ingratis (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is notable and I think now with the user:Hemanthah's sources it convinced all of us to pass the WP:GNG and it also has many hindi articles available online.Zubakinglee69(talk) 3:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Checkuser note: sock strike. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Itarsi sounds like an excellent WP:ATD. BD2412 T 00:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A mixture of a snow keep and DENY. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gestapo–NKVD conferences[edit]

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

I nominate this article for deletion. It's a long-surviving fringe theory article (essentially a historical myth akin to claims that Hitler escaped from Berlin or that Beria and Himmler met in 1940 etc.). It was created in 2007 by User:Tymek. It's about rumours and hearsay about events that almost certainly didn't take place. It's one of the excamples of Polish nationalist history fiction posted here on Wikipedia (cf. this hoax that staid here for 15 years). The issue has been raised several times by non-prominent users/IPs at talk (several attempts: [8]; [9]); to no avail.

When it was created in 2007, the article had no inline references but a number of obscure websites added as sources. Back then Wikipedia sourcing policies were not rigorous enough. Now they theoretically are. The only things that have changed wrt this "article", however, have been as follows:

1) a bunch of academic nobodys (almost all are Polish) have been inserted as "sources"; however, they just mention the alleged events passing by without any substantiation. A clear violation of WP:REDFLAG. For such exceptional claims that the article presents as facts here, exceptionally good sources would be warranted. This is not the case in the current article;

2) the article has been turned into a WP:COATRACK in a sneaky way so as to give legitimacy to the fringe views (supposed "common conferences of Gestapo and NKVD" held in occupied Poland) - so they've added stuff about Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk, a Nazi propaganda poster on German Heim ins Reich policy), i.e. things that did take place and are all sufficiently covered in relevant articles.

The bottom line: this article has been created to advance a theory that Gestapo and NKVD held a series of conferences (even dates are provided!) in 1940 in occupied Poland. This theory has never found ANY serious academic support. Robert Conquest once picked it up and mentioned it but he never returned to this. To my knowledge, not a single notable scholar has published an article, book what ever, on these alleged events. It is WP:FRINGE and has nothing to do in an encyclopedia.
The article as it stands also constitutes an egregious violation of WP:NPOV, because it deliberately misinforms the readers by selling this fringe view as certified facts. The results are very sad, because numerous websites have indeed picked up this fake from Wikipedia and took it seriously and so this theory has been circulating in the Internet for more than a decade [10], [11], [12]. And for this fact we have to thank our Team Poland and the incompetence of the admins (e.g. rather than intervening to remove this stuff prominent admins showed up to shoot a messanger half a year ago [13], [14]).PjN 17:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

~~@Tymek: @Volunteer Marek: @Jehochman: @Cloud200: @K.e.coffman: PjN 17:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Post scriptum - it is an ominous sign that the article was DYKed back in 2007: "A fact from Gestapo–NKVD conferences appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 24 July 2007. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Gestapo and NKVD convened four conferences discussing the elimination of the Polish resistance movement?" - but this was so many years ago and the project has been constantly progressing over all these years. Yet the fact remains that some topic areas are not properly supervised by competent people.PjN 20:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC) strike sock - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek[reply]

Note OP has been blocked as a sock puppet for block evasion. Volunteer Marek 15:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current sourcing is poor. I need to dig more into this. Searching in Polish for "konferencje NKWD i gestapo" does give a few hits and suggests that the topic may be notable, but it is also quite possible that our article contains some outdated or unreliable information. This (in Polish but with an English abstract) seems quite relevant and recent and discusses the topic extensively, and it seems to challenge that theory, which would suggest the article needs a rewrite or at least an update to represent modern scholarship on this topic. It would be good to see what sources this article is citing and do a proper lit review on this topic. It's possible much of the scholarship is in Polish, maybe some in Russian and German. In either case, I think the article may need a rewrite, but probably not WP:TNT, and the topic likely meets WP:GNG. This seems more like a case of tagging this with {{Improve sources}} than something we need to discuss at AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way things stand, there's nothing to "improve": the article should be written from scratch, in case real sources would be found. But what are the odds? Let me quote the article:
"The best known conference took place in Zakopane,[13] in the villa "Pan Tadeusz", located at the Droga do Białego street close to the Dolina Białego valley. The German side was represented by Adolf Eichmann. The Soviet delegation was headed by Grigoriy Litvinov."
You genuinely believe all these scholars who have written books on this criminal could have missed such an important fact as Adolf Eichmann leading a German delegation in a conference with NKVD representatives in 1940?
You've had 14 years to write a real article there! You cannot improve an article where not a SINGLE basic fact is supported by a reliable source. Obviously I did search for German and Russian sources: there was nothing really. PjN 18:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC) strike sock -Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek[reply]

Then it seems likely the topic is primarily covered within Polish histiography. The article may contain errors, and perhaps even newer historiography is queestioning what was discussed in these conferences or maybe even if they happened, but the source cited does suggest that they have been a subject of academic discourse, and exist as as a topic of interest. I am not seeing a case for a TNT approach, just a copyedit. A major one, perhaps, but I am not convinced there's nothing left to salvage here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep Damn it Miacek (yes, this is a bad faith nomination from a banned user) you're gonna make me spend my precious time writing up the SPI, aren't you? Was this you too? You're basically saying what that banned sock said word for word. Putting aside the implicit racism in statements like "Polish nobodys" the conferences, especially the Zakopane one are well documented in sources. Here is Laurence Rees [15] (already used in article), here is an Oxford University Press source [16] (already used in the article), here is another Oxford University Press source [17] (already used in the article), here is Yale University Press [18] (already used in the article), there's of course Robert Conquest [19] (already used in the article), here is an article from George Watson (scholar) a scholar at Cambridge [20]. These are all sources ALREADY present in the article. So much for the claim that the article is sourced to a bunch of "Polish nobodys". It's also trivial to find further sources. Here is another source from Oxford Uni Press [21], here's one from Cornell Uni Press [22], here is University Press of Kentucky [23] and then there's a whole bunch of sources, easy to find, which are RS but maybe not strictly academic. Ok, off to write up that SPI. Volunteer Marek 18:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, here is a link to the discussion with what was probably "PolskaJestNajwazniejsza"'s other account [24], which got itself banned pretty quick. The same exact points were raised and debunked. Volunteer Marek 18:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Marek, feel free to launch an SPI. You know just as well as I do that Checkusers cannot verify my alleged connection to Miacek because this user has not been active in any Wiki project for several years by now. But you'll surely find a way to get me banned by hook or by crook (like Potugin whom you mentioned got banned for "tendentious editing" 2 hours after he criticized you a bit. Amusing. So it's kinda dangerous not only to sock but just to criticize you).
Anyway, back to the real issue: you just posted the string "NKVD Gestapo zakopane" on Google Books and got a number of hits (books listed on that site are usually serious stuff indeed). But that's exactly what I was pointing out: people have uncritically been repeating rumours. It's what I called "passing-by mentions". You won't find a single source that actually gives any information on these events nor cites primary sources. These authors have been fooled, sometimes surely just by this bunch of Wikipedia articles on various language editions. Now go have fund with Maicek sock hunting.PjN 19:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you've dropped any pretense and aren't denying that you're Miacek and Potugin. Volunteer Marek 19:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I already told you 2 weeks ago I'm not Miacek and now I'm denying being Potugin, too. Did you expect I'd get "upset" or something? Why should I? It's odd you need to accuse all less-experienced users of being someone's sock puppets ("how could you possibly show up on this or that talk page with your mere 600 edits?"; "how did you find this article that you had never edited before" - *yawn*). Stop derailing the discussions. Post your SPI requests if you want, unless CUs post my IPs publicly (which I believe they are not allowed to do), I couldn't care less. Please now discuss the issues I raised with regard to this article and its outlandish claims, if you really want it to be kept.PjN 19:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda too late for a denial now that you've pretty much admitted it and even thought it fit to taunt me with the "hahaha CU won't find anything because Miacek account is stale". Volunteer Marek 19:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bordering on a conspiracy theory. Unconnected events are strung together in the article and are not supported by sources. What sources there are discuss maybe one meeting in a footnote, like this Yale University Press collaboration with Eastern archives, brought up above, that says no documents were found but mentions a claim by a Polish historian. Real sources discussing these supposed meetings as a topic do not exist.--Iron Thain (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC) - WP:APL50030 - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your 18th edit, and first since August. Pray tell, how did you find out about this discussion? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obscure topic but meets WP:GNG. Possibly expand as Gestapo–NKVD collaboration because there were prisoner exchanges and other activities in addition to the conferences. Scholarly coverage here, here and here for example. The following books gives some detail about these conferences too:

Barbarossa 1941: Reframing Hitler’s Invasion of Stalin’s Soviet Empire [25]
Poland's Struggle Before, During and After the Second World War [26]
Soviet Union in World War II, History of Blood [27]
Radio London and Resistance in Occupied Europe, British Political Warfare 1939-1943 [28]
Anders' Army, General Wladyslaw Anders and the Polish Second Corps, 1941-46 [29]

--Nug (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question was not "notability" per se. I mean yeah, hoaxes and refuted theories, too, can have notability. If they're notorious enough. The issues were WP:V, WP:NPOV and other core policies. I have Jstor access so I skimmed through the first article you provided: Andrzej Toczewski, “Cooperation between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich in Exchanges of Polish Population and Prisoners of War in the Years 1939–1941 - The Polish Review, Vol. 37, No. 2 (1992), pp. 209-215. It was mostly about the population transfers between Germany and the USSR which is an interesting and valid topic on its own.
However, the article did exactly what I told you all at the very beginning: it only repeated the theory that such conferences took place "from March 1940 in Cracow and Zakopane", with a reference to Losy Polaków w ZSRR w latach 1939-1986 , London, 1987 and Los Polaków w niewoli sowieckiej, 1939-1956, London, 1956. A one meager paragraph with no details, and links to books that by now are completely outdated! And what is more embarassing for the promoters of this story on Wikipedia: as you see the dates of the alleged conferences categorically don't match (27 September 1939 in Brześć[1]October 1939 in Lwów[2]November 1939 in Przemyśl[1]6–7 December 1939 in Kraków[3]8–9 December 1939 in Zakopane[3]20 February 1940 in Zakopane [1]March 1940 in Kraków[4])!
To sum up: a number of Polish figures began spreading rumours after the War about a series of secret conferences of Gestapo/NKVD having taken place in the occupied Poland. The story never got particularly elaborate, and it contains numerous contradictions (check the article history and alleged participants: the notorious Latvian Bolshevik Teodors Eihmans was already shot in 1938, the absurdity of presuming Maksim Litvinov's participation, Adolf Eichman's participation etc.). Some authors indeed kept (and keep) reporting (parroting) the story, but none of the sources provided stands to scrutiny.
Feel free to start an article on Gestapo–NKVD collaboration though because Stalin indeed had German communists handed over to the Gestapo, I think even NKVD dossiers were handed over to the Germans. This has credible eyewitness accounts. PjN 00:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Polska jest Najważniejsza: You're now talking about Margarete Buber-Neumann which is a biographical article that describes these prison exchanges out of lack of better place. Cloud200 (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, so I opened this one you linked, too. Cienciala, Anna M. “Poles and Jews under German and Soviet Occupation, 1 September 1939–22 June 1941.” - The Polish Review 46:4 (2001): 391–402. Page 392 tells us: It is known that there was some cooperation between the NKVD and the Gestapo against Polish resistance groups, but no documentary evidence has been found to date. Checkmate?PjN 00:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC) strike sock - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek[reply]

I certainly do hope you are not Miacek, the Miacek I knew was a valued contributor before going off-piste after suffering some personal issues, according to what I read on talk. I hope he recovers and comes back soon. You need a reliable source to say these conferences were a hoax (I don't know how prisoner exchanges would have been facilitated without the Gestapo and NKVD having a conference). With regard to "no documentary evidence has been found to date", that doesn't mean it was a hoax. After all, the Soviet did claim the M-R secret protocols never existed until the Soviet version was released from the Soviet archives in 1980's. Discounting a source on the basis that author is Polish seems kind of racist to me. --Nug (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not Miacek, don't worry, though I have no way to prove my innocence, so to say. But I don't get your other points: I'm not saying it's necessarily a "hoax". I was saying this is all rumours, speculations and hearsay and a scholar you linked to admitted no documentary evidence has been found. Btw, I'd appreciate if you didn't fall to the level of a Volunteer Marek and play with the ethnicity/race card: I did not discard anyone "on the basis that author is Polish". I can read basic Polish and tell which source makes sense. I only discarded these authors because they did not qualify as reliable for our purpose. Once again, I'd encourage you to start articles on valid topics such as German-Soviet population transfers and the (real) Gestapo-NKVD collaboration, if you can find decent sources. As I said, I do remember reading about a German (likely German-Jewish) emigre to the USSR who was handed over to the Nazis along with the NKVD dossiers. The article was either in German or Russian. If you keep fighting for THIS particular article at hand, though, you're fighting a losing battle.PjN 01:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC) strike sock - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to avoid "ethnicity/race card" plays, please reconsider using offensive descriptions of other editors such as "Team Poland". And if you agree the issues are not with notability than this is a case of WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is well-sourced by not only Polish Institute for National Remembrance but even Russian (!) historian Alexandr Nekrich, who, based on completely separate evidence bases, happen to come to the same conclusions: there was a comprehensive intelligence, exchange of prisoners and resistance suppression cooperation between USSR and Third Reich, in this area represented by NKVD and Gestapo, respectively. And it did not happen out of thin air: this cooperation had legal foundations in German–Soviet Frontier Treaty of 28 September 1939 where it is even explicitly mentioned. Exchanges of prisoners such as German communists arrested in 30's and held in GULag being sent back to Gestapo who placed them in German concentration camps are mentioned for example by Margarete Buber-Neumann. There seems to be a fair amount of doubt about the purpose of these conferences - that is, whether they discussed population transfers or suppression of resistance, which is understandable as their protocols were likely kept secret - but not the fact they did happen. Cloud200 (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well known and highly significant subject, although it could be expanded a little: please see my comment on this article talk page - [30]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This request should be closed or deleted. Nominated by a sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Obviously keep -- This is clearly a notable subject, even if some people do not like it. No doubt the objective was joint action to suppress Polish resistance to what may be called the 4th partition of their country. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 27 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Animals by Number of Bones[edit]

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

I question the utility of this list. It is essentially an expanded trivia item - "which animal has the most bones?" - that currently is set up as a hodgepodge of random taxonomic levels. Even if constrained to, say, families or orders (and accepting the vast variability that exists at those levels - basically giving the mean), this will be a rather pointless list. Some discussion would maybe make sense in context in an article on evolutionary osteology; but I don't think we have such a thing at the moment, and as a standalone this strikes me as physiology cruft (not a common category...). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NLIST is not met. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ludicrously WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia list. Why would you bother trying to list the number of bones in every vertebrate animal, and how is it encyclopedically useful? Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia, and has no clear, defined scope at all. Would be impossible (and pointless) to try and list the thousands and thousands of vertebrates by bone count, and family level listing would be disingenuous. AryKun (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was basing the concept of this list off of a similar list, List of animals by number of neurons which I felt also had undefined scope and also has broad taxonimical categories and would also be impossible to accomplish (i.e. listing every organism with neurons). TomLum (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created an AfD for the latter. AryKun (talk) 04:25, 30 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

János Birtalan[edit]

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

Despite playing one minute of professional league football almost 10 years ago, there seems to be very little evidence of a WP:GNG pass, which would be required if the article is to be kept. See recent AfDs for Márk Kónya and Tamás Csepregi for this consensus. Google News and a Hungarian source search have a few hits but none of the coverage is in any significant depth at all. He, for example, gets passing mentions in Nemzeti Sport but this clearly doesn't count towards notability in any way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notion someone could become notable for one minute of play time, unless that one minute receives a large amount of coverage, is just ludicrous, and is one of the main problems with some of our sport SNGs at present. Even actors and actresses need "multiple" roles that are "significant" in multiple "notable" productions. Someone might have a notable role where they only appear on screen for 1-minute, but that is very rare. Why we allow one game play to put people into the notable column for some sports I have never understood.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 28 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. Sandstein 22:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmed Group[edit]

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

Reads promotionally in places, CSD objected to. No evidence of notability, when trying to find sources I am getting stuff come up for different organizations/companies with the same name. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional, without any evidence of significant coverage which would support notability for inclusion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:12, 26 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 01:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Ragutu[edit]

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

Available references do not satisfy notability of the subject, fails WP:GNG. Not yet ready for mainspace, declined draft that was accepted by a sock Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla. Strong indication that the creator is also a sock. DMySon (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 23 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 15:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Petre and Mile Želčevski[edit]

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage from my limited BEFORE search and according to WP:NBUILD, heritage status does not establish notability. – ².O.^Boxing 13:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 13:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"heritage status does not establish notability"!? Ok, let's just delete millions of articles if we use your logic. The article is created for the purpose of a project/activity of meta:Shared Knowledge user group. Do not nitpick! The article is sourced as much it can be: Three references and two external links of which one directly mentions the building as cultural heritage. Dandarmkd (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes it does. You appear to have misread it. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Therefore clearly satisfies WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Apologies, after re-reading I see I was wrong. I was focusing on the Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments aspect. I think I should stay in my lane and stick to boxing topics lol

I withdraw my nomination. Does an uninvolved editor come along and close when they see I've withdrawn? Or is there something else I need to do? – ².O.^Boxing 14:57, 23 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Theatre[edit]

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

I believe this article does not meet the notability criteria and is original work. Only two sources are linked. One is a site maintained by a former member of this theatre, the other site is maintained by the writer of the article. The first site was in the past hosted at http://www.tonyward.org.uk/genesistheatre/, which is the site of the Wikipedia writer. I have searched for other sources, but have not found them. The writing does not meet the quality standards of Wikipedia. To select a few quotes "For any further information contact Chris Dumigan", "Chris Dumigan still lives in the Greater Manchester area as do several other former members and there are regular reunions", "The original musicals Stag and Marilyn are the ones discussed most often by former members". These quotes further show that this is original work. Finally, the lack of sources also creates problems with WP:BLP. Dajasj (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources - please see the news article from the Manchester Evening News. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New-article.jpg

The linked website includes biographies from 7 former members (Chris Dumigan, Chris Fogg, Guy Taylor, Ally Davis, Anita King, Alan Ratcliff) and numerous pictures. The objection that there are no sources is clearly false. A cursory glance at genesistheatre.co.uk will show many photographs of people and show programmes i.e. multiple sources.

The writing on the wikipedia article is is the first hand accounts of the aforementioned people.

The objection about original work is nonsensical - there are many wikipedia articles about original music and theatre productions very likely by people who have also met the original artists.

The objection to the quality standards is also not applicable "For any further information contact Chris Dumigan" is entirely appropriate given that the group ended in the early 1980's There has been interest on BBC radio and people are keen to know more and/or keep in contact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyGWard (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Short-lived WP:MILL amateur theatre group that did not attract much, if any, press coverage. The material in the article is entirely WP:OR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there’s no evidence of coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 09:22, 30 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. Sandstein 13:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of current monarchies by continent[edit]

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

We already have List of current monarchies. No need for a duplicate and useless article. Peter Ormond 💬 12:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK that duplicates information without adding anything of value. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These "list" articles are trivia. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly pointless WP:LISTCRUFT content fork. Dronebogus (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia organized through OR. JoelleJay (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's already a page in the articlespace dedicated to this subject. Multi7001 (talk) 02:57, 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 redirect to Texas secession movements#Texas Nationalist Movement. After discounting the WP:SPAs and the people apparently canvassed to this discussion, there are very few (experienced) Wikipedia editors who believe that this political activist is notable as per our criteria at WP:GNG, despite this discussion itself receiving local media coverage. But as has been pointed out redirecting the name to the article where his group is covered is a reasonable WP:ATD. Sandstein 12:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Miller (politician)[edit]

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

Political candidate running in primary of 2022 Texas lieutenant gubernatorial election, no real notability outside of announcing as candidate. Mvqr (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Miller is notable, look up "Daniel Miller Texas" in Google News. Multiple wikipedia pages already mentioned him. He has been on national news https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpWvBLCj-W0. He is a published author. You can find many news articles about him. And, of course, he is running for a state-wide office. And, I mean, all there needs to be to exceed the notability threshold is having multiple sources which are not from the subject. He well passes this bar. Js22003 (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here are five articles which he is a significant subject in that were published before he announced his candidacy, for ease 1 2 3 4 5 Js22003 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only notable as a candidate. I don't think the above articles convey any sort of lasting notability. We can include information about him on the election page, as is traditionally done. SportingFlyer T·C 12:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if his coverage won't last, as notability is not temporary. Also, he already has had coverage over a significant amount of time. Here are articles from 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. And anyway, he already meets the GNG. Plenty of significant coverage in articles, even if he isn't the main subject of all of them, he is mentioned in a more-than-trivial manner. The previous nine articles I've provided in this discussion all meet the Reliable criteria. They are all secondary. They aren't associated with him or his group. As I understand them, this article isn't what Wikipedia is not. The presumption that this article's subject is notable is as sure as almost every other subject on Wikipedia; Miller's coverage meets every criteria in the Notability guideline, and none of the criterias in what Wikipedia is not. Js22003 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That coverage is on the Texas Nationalist Movement and not so much about Miller as an individual.--Mvqr (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-elected politician; as above, only notable as a candidate. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Texas secession movements#Texas Nationalist Movement, not independently notable per WP:NPOL or as a leader of a political movement. It is possible that this movement could be eligible for a standalone article, but that is outside the scope of this discussion and would happen later. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Js22003 (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daniel Miller is important enough to have a Wikipedia page base solely off of his 25 years of service in working to secure and protect the political, cultural and economic independence of Texas. All a person needs to do is make their way through the pages of https://tnm.me to see this. Daniel Miller has at least two books, one being on the best seller, he has also had countless appearances on every major as well as some minor news media outlets ranging in the thousands. He also has a Texas Music radio station.TexasGiGi (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC) — TexasGiGi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Operating the third largest political organizationd in one of the largest states in the Union has garnered him much notoriety among people all across this country. The TNM will continue long after he is gone and so will his legacy as founder. His best selling book, TEXIT, is widely considered to be the "Bible" for Independence Movements not just in Texas but around the globe. This alone ensures he will be notable for decades to come. If he were to withdraw as a political candidate tomorrow he would still be eligible based solely on the massive number of magazine and newspaper articles and tv appearances on major networks over his lifetime. TexasQueenbee (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC) — TexasQueenbee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Daniel Miller is a notable author of two successful books, "Line In The Sand" (2011) and "TEXIT: Why and How Texas Will Leave the Union" (2018). Mr. Miller has been interviewed by countless news sources and television programs on Fox News, Newsmax, WBAP 820, CNN, CNBC, BBC News, Real American News as well as countless podcasts. For 25 plus years has served as the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, www,tnm.me that boasts over 426,171 Texas supporters. Mr. Miller has been a go to source for all things related to Texas sovereignty and the push for TEXIT independence. Mr. Miller is more than just someone running for office and not just any office, the Lieutenant Governor of Texas. Chris Milton74 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Chris Milton74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. The closing admin will undoubtedly note the SPAs !voting here. They are noted as such. A reminder to all that AFD is not a vote. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per WP:NPOL and no indication of sourcing that suggests notability outside of involvement in Texas Nationalist Movement, so a redirect there is not unreasonable but not necessary, per se. No prejudice to recreation if the candidacy gains traction and merits an article per WP:BLP (e.g., if but not necessarily if he wins the primary). --Kinu ^t/_c 04:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He meets the NPOL because he is running for office and meets the GNG. All the people for deletion so far are assuming that his notability relies on the SNG for politicians, but he wouldn't even needed to have run for office to be notable, as he fits the GNG. It doesn't matter is he is non-notable under the NPOL SNG, as he is notable under the GNG. Maybe the page name should be renamed "Daniel Miller (political activist)". Being honest, I didn't put hours of thought into the name of the article at the time, but I didn't know his notability would hang on it. Also, Daniel Miller is, I would argue, similar, but more notable than Spike Cohen (who has a Wiki article). They are both candidates for the second highest executive office, and are in radio. But, Miller is also a published author. There are tons of Daniel Millers, so I needed to put something. There's even another "Dan Miller (Florida politician)". So, maybe (activist) or his middle initial could be added to the page, but satisfying NPOL beyond running is not necessary because he does fulfill the GNG (and this is writen under the first two points of the NPOL). I think I should remind all future participants in this discussion the spirit of the Notability rule. First, it prevents nobodies from creating their own articles (why you or I can't write our own articles). Second, it ensures that there is enough reliable, secondary information to create an objective article. Clearly, there is more than enough of that, provided in this discussion and in the references on the main article. And, I mean, look at how large the article is after just a few days. In short, the NPOL is satisfied because the GNG is satisfied. No one has provided evidence to the contrary; of the GNG not being satisfied. Notability guidelines are supposed to ensure articles can be of high quality while being adequately sourced, and this is the undeniably the case for this Daniel Miller article. Js22003 (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striking keep, you already voted up top.--Mvqr (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed keep. Sorry, meant it to clarify that my comment didn't mean I changed my opinion from keep to move, or some other alternative, as I did introduce the possibility of changing the name of the article as another possible remediation in the comment. Js22003 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. Js22003 (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media Coverage on this Issue I just found out that the article's nomination as an AfD, and this discussion itself, has had a news piece written about it (the news piece). Both my and SportingTiger's comments were quoted on this article. This AfD discussion has been publicized about. I don't think this happens very often, so I just wanted to let future Wikipedians and the Closing Admin know that this discussion may be 'unusually non-academic'. And, I know it may be unconventional, but that even the potential deletion of Miller's Wiki article gets press coverage; I think just gives more credence to the claim that he is notable. I mean, when the thousands of non-notable vandals a day add their own name and articles about themselves to Wikipedia, and are summarily reverted, they don't get any press coverage. Although, this shouldn't really be considered real evidence, as it is so unconventional, just something to think about. Also, I just thought it was cool that I was technically quoted in the press. Hi, mom! Js22003 (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC) P.S., if someone knows the standard word or phrase to bold at the beginning of this entry, can you add the current one, or maybe suggest it? I've never encountered this on an AfD before.[reply]
The media coverage, a brief Dallas Observer piece, is is on David Miller himself issuing a statement labelling Wikipedia as a "cancel-culture co-conspirator" on the 17th of December shortly after this article was nominated for deletion. Miller's statement is so outlandish, including labelling those who want to delete his article as the "mini-Stalins of the world", that the outlandish statement of this candidate got brief coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't find that article before as it doesn't come up on Google News. Still, could lead to a hostile and non-academic discussion, or an edit war between 'Millerers' and 'Observerers' in the main article. I actually recently reverted what seemed very much like an attempt at adding a post on here (it was even signed) erroneously added to the main article. And I still technically got quoted in the press. Look, no hands! Js22003 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC) P.S., Is there like a WP: or essay or something detailing what to do if a discussion has been publicized about? I've never encountered this.[reply]
Keep Daniel Miller is a notable figure in Texas politics. He has been involved in grassroots movements for several decades. I have discovered that people are familiar with his work if they are engaged in Texas politics. However, this does not mean that his influence is confined within his home state. As I have personally seen Daniel Miller featured on national and Texas-wide media dozens of times. Respectfully, there is no objective reason to delete this page. Mandp112 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Mandp112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to 2022 Texas lieutenant gubernatorial election. Does not meet WP:NPOL at this time. KidAd • SPEAK 00:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as he was never elected, and was only a candidate. I agree with other editors that the appropriate place for information about him would be in election articles. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and the level of coverage outside his campaign does not amount to a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by JS. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are problems with the page, and Miller does not pass WP:NPOL. However, this is an easy pass of WP:GNG. Courthouse News centers its article about the subject. The Dallas Observer describes him as a founder of the independence movement. The New York Times describes a meeting Miller had with Texas' Lt. Governor. The first two articles I mention are quite substantive, and the third shows national attention to both the movement and the subject specifically. All of these articles predate the subject's candidacy. There is a lot of material that should be trimmed from the article in keeping with WP:DUE, but that is a discussion that should occur on the talk page. --Enos733 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daniel Miller is the President of the Texas Nationalist Movement, he has worked for Texas Independence for 25 years, he is the author of 2 books (Line in the sand) and TEXIT: Why and How Texas Will Leave The Union, he is the co-owner and operates Radio Free Texas, he has been interviewed by numerous sources including tv, radio, print and social media, he was a pen pal of American astronaut, marine and senator John Glenn. He is running for Republican primary for the 2022 Texas Lt. Governor. Ken42555! (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC) — Ken42555! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Daniel Miller is President of the Texas Nationalist Movement for over 25 years and owner of a radio free station and author of two books ( Texit and Line in the sand ). He is now running in the Republican Primary for Lt. Governor He has also made numerous talk show program on national television(User talk:jay.vandiver)Jay.vandiver (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC) — Jay.vandiver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I smell some canvassing in this discussion. After discarding the votes from SPAs that are not policy-based, there's no clear consensus on whether to keep, delete or redirect the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Texas secession movements#Texas Nationalist Movement. It's not implausible that someone would want to look him up, but we don't really have a case for independent wiki-notability. Describing the person separately from the organization is sometimes a distraction, and I think this is one of those times. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a lot of reliable sources are cited. More SIGCOV is needed from reliable sources for the page to remain in the articlespace. If there are any additional reliable sources, they should be added. Multi7001 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Daniel Miller (political activist)". I agree that, if you only took into account his political career, he would not be notable. He does not fit the two points in WP:NPOL, and the caveat below the points, which reads, "Just being an... unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." does not guarantee qualification of notability, but just prevents dis-qualification. And, I must admit that I named the article hastily, and that in hindsight, "politician" may not have been the best descriptor. If all Miller ever did was undertake his campaigns for office, he wouldn't be notable. The articles which do mention his political endeavors; his mayoral, representative, and lt. gubernatorial runs, do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. So, he should not be referred to as a politician in the article's namespace, because, although he is a politician, that is not what makes him notable. An alternative would be moving the article to "Daniel O. Miller", but my opinion is that the 'activist' option would be preferable as there are already multiple 'Daniel (Middle Initial) Miller' articles. But, as just a living person, not a politician, there is, I believe, a sufficient number of news articles and interviews in which he or his actions are the sole focus (coincidently, none are about any of his campaigns for public office, another good reason why he should no longer be referred to as a politician in the article's title). This 2012 Mediaite article reviews an interview he gave on Fox's Hannity about a seccession petition on a White House website. Politico also interviewed him but also went further into detail about reactions to the petition here. In 2016, British publication The Guardian interviewed Miller about the ongoing Brexit vote, the interview also being used for a France 24 article demonstrating "attention by the world at large" per WP:N. After the Brexit vote, Miller's reaction to its result is analysed in The Victoria Advocate. This article discussing the rising popularity of Texas independence from The Epoch Times even includes Miller's name in its headline. The Atlantic published an interview and biographical piece which details events of his early life. Even though not all of these sources are used in the article at this time, they still establish notability as "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources" per WP:NEXIST. These articles span a time of multiple years, and per WP:SUSTAINED "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability". Per the WP:BASIC, these works together constitute "multiple published secondary sources". Furthermore, these are all "reliable" as they allow for the satisfaction of WP:RS, as they are not all considered to be of the same political affiliation or even based in the same country, and they do not receive significant funding from Miller, and would not clearly benefit from Miller's actions and goals, whether successful or unsuccessful; they have no players in the game. So, I believe Miller fully satisfies WP:BASIC. Under WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage is defined as an amount of coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". In the article, all information is cited, and no original research WP:NOP was needed to write it. Because no original research was required, the significant coverage requirement is satisfied. These sources are reliable per WP:SOURCE as they are "respected mainstream publications", "magazines", and "mainstream newspapers". Per WP:SECONDARY, they are secondary because "they rely on primary sources for their material" and for their "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas". All the above sources are independent of the subject per the definition given in the WP:GNG as they are not "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". In conclusion, as the sources which exist for this topic, in my opinion, satisfy WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, but does not satisfy one of the two points of WP:NPOL, the article should be moved to "Daniel Miller (political activist)". I believe this solution is a good marriage of the evidence provided for both the "Keep" and "Delete" opinions. Js22003 (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides the weak possibility of notability , the article is highly promotional . That's a good reason to use deletion when notability is borderline DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not notable, per WP:NBIO, for lack of sufficient significant coverage by independent reliable sources; most of the cited sources are to either minor publications or primary sources. We should probably redirect to 2022 Texas lieutenant gubernatorial election; that’s what we usually do with candidates who are not otherwise notable. Alternatively, redirect to Texas Nationalist Movement, but that movement is apparently not notable enough to be an article in itself; it is a section at Texas secession movements. (Considering that it is said to be the third-largest political organization in Texas, someone may want to expand it into a full article, but that’s another issue for another day.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daniel Miller is the most notable proponent of the Texas secession movement today, his name is synonymous with the movement in its current standing. Millions of Texans are aware of Texit because of the decades long work of Mr. Miller. Therefore he should be considered of sufficient notability, perhaps it is more fitting to edit the promotional aspects of the content. -- patrickwynne (talk) 08:43, 29December 2021 (UTC) — patrickwynne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Redirect to Texas secession movements#Texas Nationalist Movement? Only marginal notability. Anyone else notice the poor quality writing? Moriori (talk) 01:25, 30 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) Magnolia677 (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Navarro Paul[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST. Unable to locate any biographical details, except for the book listed as a reference. Within that book, a chapter is devoted to Christine Navarro Paul, although only a small portion of the chapter is biographical; most of the chapter is devoted to explaining legal issues of the Chitimacha. No indication her creative work meets WP:ARTIST. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found her work in one museum collection, and added that to the article. Will check my hardcopy books on Native Am art to see if there is anything else. Magnolia677, where were you able to view the entire chapter of Usner's book? I don't have a copy of that. Netherzone (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could view only portions of the chapter. The search feature brought back snippets not provided in full text. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her work appeared in newspapers of her time. Her work is in at least two significant public collections. Her artwork had a pivotal role tribal politics of her time. She was also an ethnographic informant for Mark Harrington. Yuchitown (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:ARTIST criteria #4, as her work is represented in several notable museum collections. Judging by the sources found and improvements made by Yuchitown she most likely also meets WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 17:42, 23 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 11:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of TAN(Gold Chains TB) Episodes[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax made up by the article creator. See results of this Filipino search and this Filipino search involving the long name. The same searches being conducted through Google also yield nothing, likewise with Google Books. I had already sent to draft as a valid WP:ATD but the creator reverted this with no explanation or improvement after only 8 minutes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally unsourced and so violating verifiability. We see things like this at MFD in sandboxes, where they are deleted as Wikipedia is not for web hosting. This is worse because it is in article space, and is being move-warred from draft space into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robert; unsourced with not much to indicate WP:CCS let alone WP:GNG. Eagleash (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Per WP:G3. Definitely a WP:HOAX. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:15, 29 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. Closing this now, despite the relist, as there was absolutely no reason for this to be relisted, based on the overwhelming consensus of the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 19:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Stow, Ohio[edit]

(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? 23:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stow, Ohio, reported a population of 34,837 at the 2010 United States census. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:NPOL. Just being elected does not make candidate notable. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG either.Such-change47 (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, the article fails to meet either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG.TH1980 (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any information here can be placed into the history section of Stow, Ohio. I'd say it'd be a merge, but there's not much there to merge. Local experts can probably add more on the history of the city's government and add it to the main article, this spinoff is not needed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 02:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST ,WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Prodipto Deloar (Talk • Contribute) 11:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prodipto Deloar: Why was this AfD, which voted unanimously for delete, relisted? Was it an XfDcloser mistake? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:13, 23 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdu Almonum Alhanfy[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Initially I tagged it for speedy deletion, but he has appeared to publish a lot and I wanted to apply some good faith that there may be non-English sources supporting notability. Singularity42 (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 04:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom fails WP:PROF. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it’s an unattributed translation from an ar.wiki article to which I’ve now linked it, but the sourcing there is equally dire and I can’t find anything else to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has seems to have written stuff but there is no evidence of impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 26 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 11:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. V. K. Raju[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG. Peter Ormond 💬 07:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant independent coverage to be found. Fails WP:BIO. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:33, 29 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. Sandstein 12:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khunn Hsett Han[edit]

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

Moved once already to Draft space, doing so again without consensus would be move warring, hence AfD. Absolutely not ready for mainspace. likely WP:BIO fail Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:BLP --Whiteguru (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it certainly looks like an issue, but I have no way of knowing whether the Burmese sources are reliable or not. Do we have any editors who can read Burmese? Star Mississippi 22:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References from Myanmar Times ([31] and [32]) seems reliable, although they're from MM Times' FB, not from its website. MDN source and Yadanarbon source are, like, "Myanmar Hosts Miss Crystal Angel International". Those twos are just trivial mentions. Not sure about Sunday Journal's source and Yangon Media Group source. Maybe Draftifying would be a solution since current version is not ready for the mainspace. Htanaungg (talk) 13:42, 23 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 11:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mili Mili World Music[edit]

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

Unsourced, promotional article for a band of which I can find no significant coverage or other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a website bio/about us section. Puffery. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 23 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 11:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwuka Monye[edit]

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

BLP of a run of-the-mill businessman with plenty of primary and low quality references. This is not the first article created by this editor which appears to be UPE. Mccapra (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable/puff piece. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Theirs no proof of notability about the article subject and by the way doesn't passes WP:GNG NEITHER WP:NPOL. The editor who created this article seems to be new, started editing from 26 September 2021 and from the username review this looks like a paid editor.--105.112.153.89 (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The proof of notability is all there in the articles and news mentions of this individual and no this is not a paid contribution as I'm in no way a paid editor and only just find the subject interesting because of his contributions to business process improvement in my home country. If there are improvements to the article you recommend please go ahead to make them. The article subject passes WP:GNG and is not a politician so certainly doesn't align with WP:NPOL. Wikistarnigeria (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Wikistarnigeria (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete As per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:57, 29 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. Sandstein 11:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Souls on Board[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for a few reasons:

This article appears to have been created solely for the purpose of promoting the band. The article lists a member of the band as Richard Bowers and I notice the article's creator is Richbo82 who has only ever created this particular article and no other edits made. I think this backs up my view that the page is promotional. It would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopaedic rather than an advertisement.
Does not satisfy WP:GNG as the band is not subject to multiple, non-trivial sources) per WP:BAND.
Ultimately, a lack of notability and the promotional nature of the article leads me to conclude it is not suitable for Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not a place for promotion and its contents are not verifiable. Such-change47 (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:BAND.LibStar (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero hits in Gnews or newspapers, only references to air traffic control and airplanes. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the group released two albums via an independent label, reviews for each album are now included in the article. The tone problems and COI have been reduced. It now passes WP:BAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But were the reviewers, like Mess + Noise, an edited publication, as opposed to a blog or user-generated? Geschichte (talk) 07:57, 30 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. Sandstein 11:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua at Four major beauty pageants[edit]

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

This appears to be an attempt to recreate under another name Nicaragua at major beauty pageants, which was deleted as part of a bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at major beauty pageants. In any case, notability is not established. Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per previous consensus, this violates WP:IINFO and falls short of WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Is this possibly eligible for WP:G4? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may be but I can’t see the deleted article to be sure. Mccapra (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not needed per prior discussions and policy brought up by User:Spiderone. Pikavoom (talk) 11:51, 23 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. Neither Mommmyy nor the nominator nor anybody else was able to find relevant sources. Sandstein 11:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jatiyo Bangla Sammelan[edit]

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

A 1600 members club doesn't qualify for WP:ORG and more than that it lacks significant coverage WP:SIGCOV, reliable & independent sources WP:ORGIND. Just trivial media mentions are not enough for this entity to remain published in Wikipedia. Also, possible WP:PROMO/WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if I can't find references on that topic, I want to leave my comment as A "weak keep", as its a national thing. Mommmyy (talk) 19:42, 16 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) 07:26, 23 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. Withdrawing my own nomination Missvain (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Rule[edit]

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

Despite my due diligence, I am struggling to see how this subject passes WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSIC.

All the sources I've found are either (1) non-mainstream sources or (2) passing mention mainly of appearances or concerts. I hope folks can prove me wrong, but, I'm struggling to see why this subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia at this time.

Thanks for assuming good faith with this nomination. Missvain (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some sources here and here, but I have not looked at them. Subscriptions are required, although the second one gives you a few free looks. On face value some of these look like they might be reasonable references. Aoziwe (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i'd probably lean keeping this as there does seem to be enough coverage of her dating back to the 90s. Much of it trivial, though some seems more significant (such as this full page from The Age in 1998 and this clipping where she is referred to as a "well-known Melbourne singer". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bungle - The piece from The Age is good, but, trivial coverage doesn't build towards WP:GNG. Maybe WP:BASIC, but, it would have to be a lot and not primary sources (i.e. concert promotions in a local newspaper unless it's a big feature). If you can present more sourcing, I'm all ears (or eyes..) Missvain (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain: I do take your point, but I am seeing what I believe to be sufficient coverage to justify some degree of notability. Some is relatively significant coverage. For instance, something more recent is this article from a 2008 edition and this article from a 2009 edition of Albuquerque Journal (New Mexico's largest newspaper). I don't know if you have a newspapers.com subscription, but I can see enough results on there alone, including the clippings I have taken and the mentions from Aoziwe above that suggest this person can pass WP:GNG, or definitely at least WP:BASIC, as you point out. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bungle - I'm actually embarrassed. I do have subscription at newspapers.com and for some stupid reason I did not even use it when I was reviewing her article. I apologize for you doing the grunt work and my amateur move at nominating this. It's been a week and I've had a head cold, so I'm blaming my cold medicine.

I'm going to withdraw. Missvain (talk) 20:47, 23 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. Sandstein 11:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiel Music[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. I couldn't find any hits in Google News, Archive.org's books, or Newspapers.com. It seems like there might be some hits in Google Books, but I can't access a preview for most of them (although my guess - based on the other lack of sources and one preview I could see - is that they're mostly passing mentions). - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not consider the coverage mentioned within the article as significant coverage as there are few sources available, and those that exist contain only trivial references to the article's subject. For this reason does not meet WP:N - Such-change47 (talk) 08:32, 23 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. Sandstein 11:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Grabiec[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC notability. Honestly, the best sources I could find (even with a BEFORE) were the ones already in the article - and those sources are mainly a mix of Discogs, LinkedIn, and non-independent announcements/press releases.

The sources in the article that look the best at first glance are ivibes (which seems to be a forum), and Beatsmedia (whose blog-like post is tagged as "Promos"), so it doesn't seem like there's much here. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage. In addition to the lack of coverage, the low number of followers and views/listens on Soundcloud, Spotify, and YouTube are a weak indication that coverage isn't likely. Pikavoom (talk) 08:47, 23 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 Shakshouka. Speedy withdrawing to redirect per comment - I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't think to check Huevos a la flamenca on enwiki! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy eggs[edit]

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

Unfortunately I was not able to locate any in-depth sources about this dish under this name or the Spanish name huevos a la flamenca. Everything that came up was recipe sites and cooking blogs, no actual discussion of the dish's history or development or the like. The es.wiki article has references, but they're all cookbooks, and a recipe is a primary source, not coverage of a topic. Happy to withdraw if anyone with a better method of searching Spanish sources can find coverage of the dish. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shakshouka. The dish is mentioned as a well-known part of the cuisine of Seville and Andalusia (e.g. [33]) but the Spanish name already redirects to what looks like a well-developed article.Citing (talk) 21:19, 27 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. Sandstein 11:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benin–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Another article largely sourced from the Spanish ministry of Foreign Affairs. No embassies or agreements. Level of trade and aid very low. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete on the basis that neither has an actual embassy in the other's country. I tend to find these articles can be useful and generally favour retention, but if there aren't any embassies then I guess it's not likely to be a particularly notable relationship. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 30 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 Sinclair QL#Description. Sandstein 11:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZX8302[edit]

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

No sources, no notable articles to cite. Fails WP:GNG Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty clear via nom. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a "retro chip", I find it highly likely (though not assuredly likely) that this received notable coverage in sources that are not searchable online, in particular: contemporary tech magazines. I do not currently have access to a brick and mortar library to check, however. Fieari (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Chip visible on first video at about 3m 47s at [34]. Not looking at full video though to see if mentioned elsewhere, but certainly on a least one board rev. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sinclair_QL#Description, where it is mentioned. A quick WP:BEFORE style search verifies this is a real chip, a ULA designed for the the Sinclair QL computer. Per our policy WP:ATD, verifiable information should be preserved if possible, not deleted. The chip's main impact was on the Sinclair QL and it is a plausible search term, so a redirect there is warranted. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Mark viking. Note ZX8301 may be a similar case. Pavlor (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, with Sinclair QL#Description providing a good target. As Pavlor notes, ZX8301 is entirely analogous. In an ideal world, we would probably have a more technical article like Sinclair QL hardware spanning the kind of content in https://web.archive.org/web/20060504000555/http://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/roklein/ql/Hardware but we are better spinning off such an article from Sinclair QL than merging the stubs. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:20, 27 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. Sandstein 11:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of events affected by the COVID-19 pandemic[edit]

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

This article was created on March 12, 2020. Needless to say, we've gained a bit of additional perspective since then, and at this point it simply does not make sense to have an article with such an absurdly large scope any more than it would to have an article on List of events in 2018. I could envision a decent article on the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on events in general, but to get to that we need TNT. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When you think about it, this list is unnecessary when basically every single event from 2020–2021 was affected by COVID-19 one way or another. Waddles 🎄 ❄️️ 05:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Waddles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not object to a redirect instead as suggested by some of the editors below, in order to preserve the history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be fun to blank the page and replace it with the three words "All of them", but we can't have fun things so let's just delete it as overly broad. Fieari (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sob. But yes, a delete for sure. -- asilvering (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fieari: That's actually the first thing I thought when I came across this, lol. Waddles 🎄 ❄️️ 05:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge A list of events not affected would probably be shorter. It might be appropriate to move List_of_events_affected_by_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Political_events to Political impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, though, for example. Reywas92^Talk 14:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION I started this article when the pandemic was just starting, and I think it was serving it's purpose to inform just how big the scale of the pandemic was/is. My question now is - can this article be preserved in some way without it being live on Wikipedia as it is now, so there is more of a document as to how Wikipedia covered this pandemic? Victor Grigas (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victorgrigas: See https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_affected_by_the_COVID-19_pandemic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to keeping a copy of it in project space for historical purposes, if it were deleted. Seems harmless to archive it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a suitable merge target (for a summary) would be Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic? Lots of options at Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Would be useful to preserve the history in some way IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could it be split into smaller lists by timeframe and/or topic? XOR'easter (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but I think most of the events that'd be noteworthy enough to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE have articles that discuss how the pandemic affected them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Perhaps it would be best to redirect to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (thereby preserving the page history for research purposes, if anyone wants it), and selectively merge the lists to the more specific "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on..." articles, as appropriate. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a thoughtful idea! Could everyone consider this idea please? Victor Grigas (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to topical sub-pages. I don't think a list is necessary, as basically all events have been affected. But specific parts of this page are probably useful, such as the Political Events list, or the Religious Events list. These have subpages based on the "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic" model. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge totally unnecessary with the events that were supposed from March 2020. ApprenticeWiki work 12:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, but I think we could use the existing Category:Events affected by the COVID-19 pandemic which serves the same purpose as the list? --Kzkzb (talk) 12:40, 28 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. Sandstein 11:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HanaLena (Nash Street)[edit]

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

Coverage is entirely local in nature. Found only trivial coverage under either name Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local coverage and no major awards or releases. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local coverage and not much of it does not rise to significance. Pikavoom (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated by others, the group did get a little coverage in local entertainment papers ([35], [36]), but they do not qualify for an article here per WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:13, 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 keep and move. Geschichte (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wee Man (comedian)[edit]

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

Fails to meet any WP:GNG in my opinion. As a YouTuber the person has 16K subscribers. The sources are mostly blogs or primary. The few others seem to be passing mentions. SVTCobra 03:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 03:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also this bylined article on the subject's career in the Scottish edition of The Sun. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article was in a rotten state and the sources were poor. I'm added multiple sources from national newspapers that have a focus on Bratchpiece as an individual performer and performing with others. With the previous level of focus on YouTube within the article I expected it might have been created when that was the route to some fame in 2007. I was surprised to see the article had only been started in 2016 as there are multiple sources to show that at this point he had been involved in stand up. Several sources describe his act with father and brother as Scotland's only stand up comedian family. He has been involved with quite a bit of writing since 2013. I think as one of the first viral internet comedy video sensations in Scotland that managed to still be writing and performing comedy 14 years later, I think he has made a fairly unique contribution, thus passing WP:ENTERTAINER. I think the article should be moved to Neil Bratchpiece over the redirect as the Wee Man was only one comedy persona. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I corrected a typo Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In light of the fact that Neil Bratchpiece has a career that is not solely tied to The Wee Man character, I do agree he meets notability guidelines for entertainers. You may consider this deletion request effectively withdrawn. I thank Drchriswilliams for improving the article and agree it should be moved to Neil Bratchpiece. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:31, 23 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. Daniel (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fosshost[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Advertisement and fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Pretty much all primary sources and self reporting, no reliable sources available. Only claim to notability is a 10-day partnership with freenode (not notable both per WP:NINI and WP:1EVENT). Pretty much only self sources passing mentions, and page is a giant advertisement. Naleksuh (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not see how they are notable.--Mvqr (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, why would Fosshost advertise, since they're exclusively an open source project providing services to other foss projects, there is no commercial intent or gain for them having a page on wikipedia. The partnership with freenode was notable and caused significant interest from a large number of people, not to mention that they received support from another notable person which has an established page on wikipedia that has been on the wiki since March 2020 (which isn't even addressed in the page). The article can be improved and I will take on this task. The quality of the article is not if better quality than the SPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software in the Public Interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.54.208 (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC) — 193.178.54.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Conflict-of-interest promotion of projects has little to do with for-profit status. There's plenty of advertisement, even paid spam, by non-profits. MarioGom (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: Yeah, and I wasn't saying that Fosshost organization was advertising either, I said the page was an advertisement. Naleksuh (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naleksuh was a member of the Fosshost community and was removed for their conduct. This user has a personal conflict of interest in the project and their work. Their disruptive behaviour continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.245.117 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC) — 82.132.245.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a single event about Fosshost that is mildly notable: the Freenode controversy. A small explanation of this at the Freenode article should be sufficient. MarioGom (talk) 15:49, 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 redirect to SixTones#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japonica Style[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC; song did not chart and is not notable. lullabying (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Google showed lots of fan content, but nothing to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SixTones. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SixTones#Discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 26 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) 02:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Landres[edit]

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

Not seeing the in-depth coverage about him needed to pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination merely states WP:GNG without reason per WP:JUSTAPOLICY, and I think further explanation and rationale is needed to justify deletion. In terms of why this article should be kept, reliable secondary sources independent of the subject must be published and present in order to demonstrate the ultimate element of notability: significant coverage. These appear to be present within the article because a number of the sources whilst perhaps not including the subject as the main topic of the article, do mention him in a way that is more than trivial. The sources appear reliable, a number of different news sites (including the wall street journal) and books (including one by Bill Clinton) mention the subject, and these sources are independent also. It is true that this WP:SIGCOV creates only an assumption, not a guarantee that the subject merits their own article. That being said given the substantial number of times this person has been covered significantly, I feel the subject meets the standards of WP:GNG and for that reason the article should stay - Such-change47 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't think he passes WP:PROF, but three books coedited by him have in-depth reviews. Together with the incidental coverage already in the article, I think there's a weak case both for WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. (There are enough reviews that the AUTHOR case would be strong if the books were authored, but as coedited works I think they count less.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has written 3 books that have been covered in multiple reliable sources. Passes WP:AUTHOR. Brayan ocaner (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Actually my personal opinion is a strong keep, and I only added "weak" for by-the-rules. I NPP reviewed (but did not tag as reviewed) a bit back. I said IMO just short on wp:GNG sources, suggested adding some of those, and tagged for notability. Has been improved a bit in those areas. The article also needs work but that is not a question for here. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 29 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. Not sure what's going on with the moving and blanking, but given that the creator and the mover have been blocked, I'm not going to worry too much about it. Multiple speedy deletion criteria reasonably apply here, and so it's not worth consuming more of the community's time at AfD. If page salting becomes necessary, feel free to contact me. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terentyev Konstantin Victorovich[edit]

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

Terentyev Konstantin Victorovich

Biography of a dead person that has no references and does not make an obvious claim of biographical notability that speaks for itself. This page has already been moved to draft space once and moved back to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as weird shit. The article creator uses the same name as the subject, so either they’re an obsessive fan trying to force a bio onto Wikipedia in disregard of policy, or the article is some sort of joke. Mccapra (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been moved to the userspace of a non-existent user and blanked. Not sure what's going on here... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is better formatted at everybodywiki. However significant coverage is lacking, and the number of views and subscribers on their YouTube channel, which is being updated over the past month, does not indicate wide interest. Pikavoom (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 (unremarkable musician) and per article author's request. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G7 (and/or A7) The author has blanked it several times now, with no significant contribs from others, so it is eligible for G7 in my opinion. Mako001 (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question to you all? Why in Wikipedia here is this insignificant group? Sheriff (band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Шериф (музыкальный коллектив) (talk • contribs) 11:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC) — Шериф (музыкальный коллектив) (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If you believe that that article fails Wikipedia's notability policy, feel free to discuss it on the relevant Talk page. Alternatively, you can nominate the article for deletion and present your justification. Here, the discussion focuses on the article you created/edited. Also read WP:WHATABOUT. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an attempted repeat of an article that was already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheriff (Russian group). Moving and blanking shenanigans should be investigated too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this article was created well before the other one got deleted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Kashmiri is correct, the other article was an attempted repeat of this one. Speedy Delete anyway because the two articles are about the same person/band combination with nearly identical text, and already deemed non-notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it makes sense to leave it as it is. Probably this is a person from the same group Mirage (Russian band), because Natalia Gulkina appears there, and then this musician, producer. This is one chain of Russian music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorarchrds8 (talk • contribs) 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Knickrehm[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Has produced only non notable films. The Kansai International Film Festival which he founded, the article for that has been deleted. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:48, 23 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) 01:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kabzaa (2022 film)[edit]

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

Kabzaa

This is an unreleased film that has no references and does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines. A draft version, Draft:Kabzaa (2022 film), also exists. It appears that the originator is trying to game the system by making it impossible to move this stub into draft space. The draft has 13 references, and an assessment of those references will be provided later, but this should be deleted both as failing notability and as failing verifiability.

There is also history at Draft:Kabzaa(2022film), showing that the draft was declined twice. The draft should be retained, because the film will probably be notable when it is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider any issues in this article to be surmountable at this time. There are good sources demonstrating significant coverage here:

"Kichcha Sudeep to star in Upendra's period film Kabzaa". IndiaToday.

"Sudeep to enter 'Kabzaa' Sets on December 15". TechiLive.

I consider this as significant coverage as the sources I found are notable and verifiable. As such this article is likely to meet WP:GNG. Per WP:NFF the reliable sources appear to indicate principal photography has commenced, given that a well known Bollywood actor is confirmed as being on set. As such, the film meets the general principles set out in WP:NFILM given its sources, and hence satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Granted, the article is new and its creator should focus on expanding it as time goes on. Such-change47 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFF does not mean that the moment principal photography has commenced, every film is automatically entitled to keep an article forever. That applies only to extremely high profile films such as the Marvel franchise, that get a lot of WP:GNG-worthy coverage during the production process, and not just to every single film that exists. The primary notability criteria at WP:NFO are the ones that apply to all films, and you have not demonstrated that this film passes NFO. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Changing my vote based on what @Bearcat: said. Not changing merely because someone else disagreed, but because I appear to not have made as strong a case as I thought. If this does not meet policy for unreleased films then it should go. I am not a deletionist however we do need to ensure consistent application of policy. Thanks also to @Robert McClenon: for pointing out my use of unadopted policy - Such-change47 (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Such-change47 appears to be quoting a proposed version of the future film guideline that was not adopted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator tried to bypass the AFC process by just immediately copy-pasting this into mainspace without waiting for an AFC review, which is unacceptable regardless of whether the topic passes notability guidelines or not. Wikipedia process must be followed, which means submitting the draft for review and waiting. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the criteria of WP:NFF yet. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I first looked at this (NPP) I thought draftify. It is a poorly resourced article, and to learn there is already a draft? Existing references tell this is going to be a very expensive film. It can go to deletion, does not meet WP:NFF. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:00, 25 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) 01:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karikku[edit]

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

Some sources are reliable but not indepth or just an interview. Non-notable Youtube channel or media company Fails WP:ORG, page repetively created. Behind the moors (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the article and would like to raise the point that the previous 2 deletions were held for articles created by other editors. Another point to be noted - This article was accepted by new article reviewers after a lot of debate. My talk page is full of it. You could check it out. To be frank, I haven't been much involved with the article lately, and do find a lot of statements without citation. But they could be edited out if necessary. All I'm saying is that my version was approved by the reviewers. If a consensus of deletion approaches. I request you to consider the old version of the article dating back to 2020 December. The article was much shorter, but good enough to survive in Wikipedia. If a general agreement to keep the article is reached, all good. Cheers...--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis77177, Your concern previous 2 deletions were held for articles created by other editors. What is the difference between previous two editors and you? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karikku is one of a notable YouTube channel in Kerala and the top channel in terms of web series and original content. Their group of channels are creating a wave in the Malayalam language and have even bagged award for their digital content. Tobinkoshy (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous deletion discussion was more than 2 years ago, and even then many references were listed. In the ensuing period, Karikku has managed to get more press even though they take a long while between sketches now. The platform is easily the most popular in the state of Kerala and I could find some good references about the platform as well as some discussing their recent episodes which are as listed -

"A shift in Malayali's viewing habits". The Hindu.
"The upward trajectory of Malayalam web series". The Hindu.
"Meet the creator of YouTube's viral 'Karikku' team". The Hindu.
"Malayalam content creator Karikku's debut sketch video on Netflix grabs eyeballs". The Hindu.
"Outgrowing cinema". Deccan Chronicle.
"Watch: New episode from popular Malayalam web series 'Karikku' goes viral". The News Minute.
"Watch: New episode from popular Malayalam web series 'Karikku' goes viral". The News Minute.
"Karikku's Kalakkachi arriving next month". Reporter Live.
"Karikku to make a movie out of 'Thera Para'? Motion poster released". Malayala Manorama.

All these and a million other articles which talk about 'Karikku' fame actors besides the references already on the page indicate the level of acceptance the platform has and this therefore passes WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 17:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears the sources shown by Jupitus Smart demonstrate enough coverage as passing WP:GNG. Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Can find a lot of significant coverage. - SUN EYE 1 20:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources Padavalam🌂 ► 12:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources compiled by Jupitus Smart. Pikavoom ^Talk 12:39, 28 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) 01:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firmus Advisory[edit]

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

Subtle promotional article on a non notable organization that fails to meet WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The sources used in the article aren’t even about the organization and a WP:BEFORE shows user generated sources, self published sources, press releases, and directories. Nothing cogent at all, needless to say WP:ORGDEPTH is non existent. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The RS here is low quality, and this company is mentioned in it only referentially. Fails WP:NCORP - not notable company. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has received significant coverage in third party sources and they meet the basic notability criteria. Owula kpakpo (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The editor above is the article creator who is yet to show via reliable sources how this subtle promo article meets WP:NCORP. If you can’t show us reliable sources to substantiate your assertions then your !vote is invalid as it constitutes mere claims, see WP:ATA. Celestina007 (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources --- Robertjamal12 (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertjamal12, please can you show us what reliable sources show this organization to be notable? See WP:SIRS can you show how it is applicable here? If you can’t your !vote is invalid as you making a claim without substantiating it. Celestina007 (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking in depth coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless sources other than PR and passing mentions can be shown to exist. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:N. First source has only a trivial mention of the subject. Same with the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sources. Each source mentions the subject only once in a brief manner, often referring simply to a report the subject produced. Given the coverage does not address the subject of the article directly and in detail, WP:SIGCOV is not satisfied and hence nor WP:GNG or WP:N - Such-change47 (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 16:35, 23 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 Mengly Jandy Quach. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mengly J. Quach Foundation[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found. Redirect rejected by article creator: a redirect to Mengly J. Quach Education (which seems to be of limited notability as well) or to Mengly Jandy Quach seems to be warranted, but there isn't enough independent sourcing available here for a stand-alone article. Fram (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. With all due respect, Mengly J. Quach is one of the most notorious philanthropist in Cambodia, whose charitable works are channelled by his Foundation. Check out his Facebook page and his hundreds of thousands of followers if you havn't yet. Countries like Cambodia it is true struggle from a lack of secondary sources and online references. Our ESEAP (South East Asia Pacific) user group is doing it's best to tackel this issue. I am disappointed that as English Wikipedia strives for more inclusivity, smaller countries still struggle to find a place.Willuconquer (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Willuconquer: I believe you that this foundation may be important and notable in Cambodia. But as of right now, the sources in the article don't seem to demonstrate that. Do you know of any sources in Khmer which speak in-depth about the foundation? -- 07:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More sources are available in Khmer, thank you for enquiring.

"ឧកញា គច មេងល បរចចាគបរមាណ២០មនដលលារ កនងមយឆនាពយាបាលអនកករករ". Cambonomist (in Khmer). 2017-08-23. Retrieved 2021-12-14.
ឧកញាកោះករប (2020-10-23). "មកដងបរវតត លោកឧកញា វេជជបណឌត គច មេងល" (in Khmer). Retrieved 2021-12-14.

I hope this helps. Willuconquer (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried in French, I can't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using google translate on the links supplied by gave this and this. The former only mentions the education company as something founded, so that's passing and even though its in the Khmer article lede, perhaps this is not significant coverage. This latter one looks to be "Published Mengly J.Quach University Press", so arguably doesn't qualify. What would be WP:THREE? Chumpih. (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mengly Jandy Quach. It doesn't seem the nominated article is a fit for English Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Missvain that a redirect to Mengly Jandy Quach seems to be the best option here. Quach is likely notable, but that doesn't mean that each of his charitable endeavors requires a separate article. In this case, this particular foundation doesn't seem to have received significant coverage from reliable sources. Redirecting to Quach's article, where the foundation is already mentioned, is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Missvain and ExtraordinaryWrit. Ingratis (talk) 01:12, 27 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 The Philosopher Kings. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Levine[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, cannot find any evidence of Levine receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Joh Levine is not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Not much reliable sources as well. HelpingWorld (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There are quite a few references here, which appear substantial *however* they aren't primarily focussed n Levine - they are about other things, and he is just mentioned. I don't know if there is actually one reference that actually discussed his notability. Fails WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:AUTHOR criteria. -GorgonaJS (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, as above. In addition, he satisfies the awards criteria at WP:ANYBIO. He was the producer and writer for a band that was nominated for five Junos; they won one. He's also the producer and co-songwriter for Alessia Cara, who won the Juno for songwriter of the year last year. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People do not pass ANYBIO by virtue of working with people, or in bands, that won awards — Levine himself has to be the nominee before an award might potentially pass ANYBIO. Just happening to be in a band that was nominated as a band, or working with somebody else who got nominated for stuff where Levine himself was not personally named as a co-nominee, does not secure passage of ANYBIO at all. Only awards where Levine was personally the nominee, in his own right and not just by indirect association, do that. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I may have crossed wires with the artist "major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". In this case I suppose it is a partial merge (a lot of this article is that big list, not useful)...? -- asilvering (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a change to delete or delete/redirect? —valereee (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirect makes the most sense I think. Probably worth merging a little bit of the content in first but most of it is that list. -- asilvering (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The case presented by asilvering - co-writing and writing songs for Juno winners is surely enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. Missvain (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain, awards were won by people this guy worked with on other stuff, not for the stuff he worked with them on. He does not have a writing credit for a Juno. —valereee (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Asilvering User:Missvain Levine does not pass WP:ANYBIO, this requires the award to be received by the individual which doesn't appear to be the case. Refer WP:BANDMEMBER - members of notable ensembles are not inherently notable themselves, individual notability needs to be demonstrated. I'm happy to support a redirect to The Philosopher Kings. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Philosopher Kings. Everything in this article is about other people. I'm sure the guy is good at his job, but none of these sources seem to be saying he was co-writer on a Juno-winning song, just that he worked with people who have won the award? That's textbook not-inherited notability. —valereee (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I caved on this one and retracted my keep. I agree - it's not inherited and re comments about the Juno awards. Missvain (talk) 16:58, 25 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 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SGH-A167[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#Samsung SGH-A167. The article is about a model of phone. It was created in 2010, and now – eleven years later – its creator and only substantial contributor believes it's not notable and would like it deleted. There were no notability-based objections to this, but nevertheless several editors did not favour WP:G7 deletion. There was one suggestion to merge the article (along with other articles on non-notable Samsung phones) into a list, partly so that {{R from file metadata link}}s (like the one here) could continue working. – Uanfala (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging RfD participants: 1234qwer1234qwer4, Thryduulf, Knowledgekid87, EurekaLott, Tavix, Lenticel, Joseph2302. – Uanfala (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and original author. This is not a notable phone by any metric. There's no news about the phone that I can find. It does not pass WP:GNG. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 02:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G7, the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith. I also see a misapplication of WP:BLAR to get the rather silly situation that we currently find ourselves in—that an article has been restored, but no one explicitly stated that they thought there should be an article on the topic. WP:BLAR prescribes the course of action when there is disagreement on whether article content should be redirected or not, but in this case the redirector is the same editor as the author so there is no such disagreement. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - As I said before I am fine with deletion per WP:G7. If anyone wants to recreate what little of this article there is then there are always future drafts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is deleted, it should be recreated as a {{R from file metadata link}} redirect to an appropriate target (e.g. a list). With non-trivial edits and suggestions to merge, this does not meet the requirements of G7. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 23 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. The discussion did not establish a consensus for policy basis to keep or delete. No prejudice against speedy renomination if one can be formulated for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Refugee Forum[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable organization. SL93 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Small but notable organisation which is still operating. see http://thevoiceforum.org/

I will add more sources and info to the article - PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve definitely notable.Leutha (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable significant coverage has been added yet. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

reliable and notable sources added including journal and published books PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention how indepth those sources are? The sources I can access have trivial coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say limited rather than trivial. The issue is that these movements are very difficult to document and make in depth studies on since they are fugitive and transient in their make up and participation even if the groups last many decades. However I would maintain that the wide coverage, journals, news, magazines, books and blogs as well as the influence on other movements eg the refugee caravans and the Oranienplatz occupations, does show the significance and notability of the VRF without doubt. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article for the majority of its existence had no references. I'm a bit conflicted with the edits by Leutha providing no edit summaries and commenting above with no explanation on the keep. It's a bit odd to at least not state your own worth of what you researched. 1st edit the source does not provide much detail and 2nd edit provides some insight but looks like a WP:SPS (looks like this edit provides more context). The ResearchGate source in this edit is questionable and I do not see mention of the refugee movement. It's actually used twice right now in the article. I can at least verify the Revisiting Gramsci’s Notebooks source through Google Books and see the group is mentioned on page 233. I think the issue here is seeing self-published sources. – The Grid (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

u need to download the whole pdf for "this edit". on p 218 u will see:

"In the 1990s, groups of non-citizens organized themselves in shared accommodation, in particular in Eastern Germany. For example, the Voice Refugee Forum was founded in 1994 in a camp in Thuringia (Odugbesan & Schwiertz, 2018). In the 2000s, the occupation of Oranienplatz (O-platz), a square in Berlin, which non-citizens activists transformed into a protest camp, provided visibility for their struggles against border regimes (Landry, 2015; Langa, 2015; Bhimji, 2016)."

PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough SIGCOV from multiple reliable, independent sources. Multi7001 (talk) 01:12, 23 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. Sandstein 11:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Foley[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Appeared in 15 shorts, none of which have an article; this doesn't constitute notable performances or a prolific contribution. Only adult appearance seems to be a 1-2 week run in a play in a small theater in the 1930s. I also find next to zero coverage. Star Garnet (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added a couple of mentions of her stage career. Italian Wiki has an article on her but it seems sourced only to imdb. PamD 14:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the films she stared in, A Tale of Two Cities (1911 film), does have an article. Her entire filmography has articles in Italian but they all seem to be sourced to solely imdb Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. seems to have had major roles. Sources in this area is generally difficult, as the industry was not taken seriously by most news sources of the period. This is in the acceptable range for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would require the films to be notable. In A Tale of Two Cities, she has about 30 seconds of screen time, about five of which she's walking away from the camera, and the rest she lies limp in her parents' arms. That certainly doesn't qualify. She had significant screentime role in Playmates, moderate screentime in In Northern Forests and The Diver, and the rest of her filmography doesn't seem to be available online (and the three mentioned were extremely simple roles, even for a child actor of the time). I don't see indications that any of those, or the 11 shorts not mentioned, are WP:NFILM-worthy. Star Garnet (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The standard is not significant roles, but significant roles in notable productions, and we do not seem to have any roles that were significant in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like an interesting bit of film history to me, backed up by three good sources from the time period. Ficaia (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING, WP:TRIVIAL coverage of non-notable roles. A better-grounded argument is of course welcome. Star Garnet (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject is at least somewhat notable, as a very early child actress. She appeared in at least one movie which has a wiki article, mentioned above, albeit in a small role. She also appeared alongside this famous dog [1]. A little piece of history from the early days of film, worth preserving imo. Ficaia (talk) 02:10, 28 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. محمد ألصالحي added sources which nobody discussed. Would need a renomination if still deemed not notable. Sandstein 10:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alahad TV[edit]

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

No notability and fails WP:GNG, all source aren't reliable and just links for online streaming, no sources about it in Arabic too. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 03:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq and add a mention of it there. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don not know if I can vote or not. But This is TV Channel since 2010 and known here in Iraq. I added more notable sources to this article. Thank you wikipedia Team / Regards--محمد ألصالحي (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:31, 23 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, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dom O'Grady[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO notability criteria as he does not have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he been ranked inside the top 10 of his division by Sherdog or FightMatrix. Also fails GNG, primary coverage is through routine sporting report. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for MMA fighters (highest ranking was 88th) and none of the coverage looks sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 29 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 Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#Correct handling and wearing of masks. Content can be merged from history if deemed helpful. Sandstein 10:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect mask usage[edit]

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

Mostly a content fork of Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic that tags varying sources together to create a loosely tied list-like article. While there is some coverage of this, it is all in the context of the COVID pandemic (anything before would likely fall under WP:NOTMANUAL anyways). Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is lots of coverage about this topic over the past year-and-a-half, clearly meeting the GNG. This article is not intended to be limited to being about COVID, but masks in all types of settings like healthcare and in other times in history when masks were recommended. And it is not a fork because it goes into details about different types of incorrect mask usage, with room for more. It is a stub now because it is a new article, but articles grow as they are edited by many people, and being a small article now is not grounds for deletion or merging. PatriceMO1 (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. I don't doubt that a good article can be written on this topic meeting GNG, but the article at hand reads as a how-to guide with a good deal of non-encyclopedic content, for example, "public education campaigns can be used to help instruct the public on how to wear a mask correctly". Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Redirect and Selective Merge to Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#Correct handling and wearing of masks now that I am aware of this page. But please don't copy everything over and make it more encyclopedic. Caleb Stanford (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#Correct handling and wearing of masks. "Incorrect mask usage" isn't really a separate topic from that but rather a failure to comply with correct handling and wearing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#Correct handling and wearing of masks. I believe the information is worthy of being kept, but it doesn't need a separate article. It will need reformatting and a little condensing to be successfully merged. The "#Correct handling" section currently doesn't mention everything mentioned in this article, and it should. Fieari (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#Correct handling and wearing of masks per above. Topic is significant enough to be WP:PRESERVED but it doesn't need to be a separate article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. It's perfectly fine to include the information in the context of the Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge per above. PianoDan (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of the merge suggestions here are based on the assumption this article exclusively is and is intended to be about the COVID-19 pandemic, which is recentism. Masks are not only a part of life in the COVID era, but also in many healthcare settings, in some countries where they are commonplace even when there is no pandemic, and they have been used historically during other pandemics. And wherever masks are a thing, improper usage is as well. Nursing textbooks go into it. PatriceMO1 (talk) 07:10, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embarazada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a failure of WP:NOTDICT and does not meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT. If the topic is the Spanish word, there is no evidence of significant coverage in non-dictionary sources. If the topic is the false friend with the English word "embarrassed", I do not find significant coverage of that either (besides some passing mentions in listicles and language learning books). (t · c) buidhe 02:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Philosophy2 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pregnancy in popular culture. What's that, you say? There is no article on Pregnancy in popular culture? Then create one. We have a Category:Pregnancy in popular culture, so there is plenty of material (plus this article). BD2412 T 23:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the article's content is about language usage, not popular culture, so it would not fit in the proposed merge target. (t · c) buidhe 23:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of the content would not be merged. The aspect that is of encyclopedic interest is the English/Spanish confusion. BD2412 T 01:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Perhaps soft redirect to wikt:embarazada (or wikt:embarazado, which seems to be the main entry)? I don't think the word qua word is notable, per the nom, and I don't think much of this content would be useful in any of our other pregnancy-related articles either. Sending readers over to Wiktionary – which is actually designed to provide information about definition, grammar, etymology, etc. – would surely be better than nothing, and it would also preserve the history in case it was ever needed elsewhere (e.g. at the title BD2412 is suggesting). The four criteria at Template:Wiktionary redirect seem to be met, so it's a reasonable alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wikt:embarazado. ––FormalDude ^talk 08:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary - Epinoia (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the WP:NOTDICT grounds already mentioned. I don't follow the merge/redirect suggestions - I really do not see what of value is lost in a deletion here. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 31 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. Daniel (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vestfoldsk language[edit]

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

This is not a language. It's an unsourced puff piece about a dialect of Vestfold, totally failing WP:OR. The list of words is rubbish, with nearly all of them found in one or more of the counties Telemark, Buskerud, Østfold or East Oslo. Geschichte (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a made up language. This article has no sources to provide proof this language is and this article is poorly written. HelpingWorld (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know if it a real language or not. If there were citations, then keep.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is a matching article, with sources, on the Norsk Wikipedia: no:Vestfoldmål. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, there is a matching article about this language, on the Norway Encyclopedia, which has RS. Also ....I'm going to assume that Norwegians themselves would know if a Norwegian language was made up!Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Delete OK, I have changed my vote, based on user Such-change47 argument that its only a minor dialect, and given the number of them in the world, it doesn't warrant its own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Norwegian, otherwise I wouldn't have nominated it. Also, how do you surmise that the sources on the Norwegian Wikipedia are RS? None of them are academic or linguistic. Also, please note that even the sources on the Norwegian Wikipedia describe this as a dialect ("dialekt", ref 1, 4, 5). It is not a language. Geschichte (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be, but from my viewpoint, I'm sure you would understand, it would seem unlikely there would be a longstanding page on a country's wikipedia about a made up hoax dialect/language that didn't exist... unless no one reads/vandal patrols Norwegian Wikipedia? I think it would make sense for you to speak to the Norwegian editors and have the wikipedia.no page deleted first, then we can simply follow along with the decision made there, if they decide to delete it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has no notability, is poorly written and would need WP:TNT to even come close to being suitable even if it were notable. There are 160 dialects of English alone, and I certainly would not be voting to keep all of them around. This Norwegian dialect does not warrant its own article, few dialects would. With 7000 languages in the world, most of them having dialects that might be spoken only by a handful of the population, I do not think this article has encyclopaedic value. No independent sources are included and there appears to be few sources at all on Google, even fewer in English. Such-change47 (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, article is improperly sourced and doesn't meet notability. JonnyDKeen (talk) 11:08, 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.

^ El-Nsour, Basma. "Translation of title: The Woman Who Lost Her Mind". Al-Araby. Al-Araby. Retrieved 25 December 2021.

[Al-Araby-1] El-Nsour, Basma. "Translation of title: The Woman Who Lost Her Mind". Al-Araby. Al-Araby. Retrieved 25 December 2021.

[1]