Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 25 December 27 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Fankhauser[edit]

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

Journeyman actor. Has been deleted twice before. Nothing done of note since last AfD. Fails NACTOR and GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:10, 12 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) 22:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable secondary sources covering the subject in a significant way. If he had more roles like the Newsies I might be more inclined towards WP:NACTOR but, he hasn't. Suggest SALT too. Missvain (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Lom[edit]

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

Random police chief, for a while. Fails WP:BIO. Might be WP:BLP1E. Possible UPE campaign FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 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. Consensus appears to have solidified in favor of keeping it based on coverage identified during discussion Star Mississippi 02:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Christian School (Tampa, Florida)[edit]

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

This old stub about a small local (Tampa, Florida) private school has multiple problems, most importantly that it doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (organizations and companies) as it has received pretty much zero significant third-party attention over the years. I discovered this when I set out to rewrite the blatantly promotional text but found scant souces, leading me to list it here. Zeng8r (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR'S ADDENDUM: Upon further review, it might meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but I'll leave it here for discussion anyway. Zeng8r (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Enough sourcing available to satisfy WP:GNG, as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the mission section, as it was poorly written and non-encyclopaedic. The school is currently receiving some local coverage due to a legal dispute, so perhaps this could help establish notability.[1] [2] JonnyDKeen (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cltampa.com/news/judge-weighs-pregame-prayer-lawsuit-involving-tampas-cambridge-christian-school-12580954
  2. ^ https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/judge-weighs-pregame-prayer-dispute
  • Delete I did some research on this and the legal dispute a few days ago. From what I can tell the case is still going through the courts and while it has some coverage, there's zero indication that it will be notable long-term. In the meantime Wikipedia isn't a news source. If the legal case does ever become notable though there's reason an article can't be created about it specifically, but that wouldn't automatically mean the school is also notable on it's own outside of the legal case IMO. So there doesn't seem to be anything to justify keeping the article at this point, if at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a Native American school? If so, which subcategory of Category:Native American schools would it belong to? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply No, nothing to do with the Seminole people; the church that founded the school (though not the current school campus) is located in the Seminole Heights neighborhood. As a small, independent, non-denominational private school, I can't think of a good merge & redirect candidate. :shrug: Zeng8r (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions13256: Law suites are a dime a dozen. Especially with religious organizations. To the point of being extremely run of the mill. Did the legal case go anywhere or is it just more controversy for it's own sake like the current one seems to be? If the first case didn't go anywhere then I don't think it's worth having an article purely about a couple of law suites that never led to anything. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid or gossip website. We can't just make unsubstantiated, controversial claims about organizations any more then we can people either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Okay, I will find more sources. Also, how are lawsuits "run of the mill?" Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you go. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/91338551/short-article-on-florid-christian-school/Here are two] more controversial examples. I haven't even used Google yet. Also, the fact that including the information may be a WP:BLP violation does not mean the sources don't count toward notability. It just means they can't be included in the article, hence why I didn't add any content to the article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions13256: According to WP:MILL a run-of-the-mill topic is "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." Going by the statistics there are about 40 million lawsuits filed every year. So the question would be what makes these law suites un-ordinary compared to the 39,999,999 (times however many years you feel like going back) other ones? You can't go purely on the exitence of coverage in those cases either. That's why I drew the comparison to tabloids. Maybe tabloids have articles about what celebrities eat at which eat at which restaurants, but there is nothing un-ordinary or un-common about celebrities eating at restaurants. So we don't include such information in Wikipedia. Even if there's coverage of it in news outlets.
Also, there is no instance that I'm aware of where an article would be notable/keepable but completely void of information because we can't cite the references we have access to. Otherwise, we would just have an indiscriminate database of external links. Which isn't the purpose of articles. The fact that you can't add the information to the article or it will be removed just goes to show there shouldn't be an article on this school. Especially if that's all we have. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage as identified in this discussion so deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - RS for this has now been identified. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we have had four keep !votes and no non-keep !votes since relisting, which would normally be sufficient for all but the most deletionist closers to close as keep. However, while the original proposer of deletion now seems ambivalent about the delete rationale, we do have the other delete !voter vigorously arguing that the coverage is not of the sort to pass the notability bar.
I think this is (yet another) AfD where the notability criteria, which essentially are the peace treaty between the inclusionist and deletionist tendencies, are failing to provide useful guidance on what is best for the encyclopedia. Could we try to bring the debate around to whether the sourcing is of a nature that allows a reasonable article to be written and, if not, what should be the fate of the verifiable, potentially useful material in the article? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chalst: It could always be merged/redirected to the education section of the Tampa, Florida article. That's usually the direction that is taken in cases like this where there is a few sources, but nothing that would work for a useful article. I doubt your going to get any kind of meaningful debate from anyone at this point about if that's the best option for the encyclopedia or not though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the general preference for ATD outcomes over delete outcomes, that merge/redirect result would be preferable to delete, wouldn't it? Is there an actual reason to put aside SCHOOLOUTCOMES and delete? I see no exceptional problem with the article that would justify TNT. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The way I see it, there is an overwhelming consensus here in this discussion for this to be kept. The overall opinions are One weak Keep, Three Keeps, and one strong keep vs just one delete... and even the nominator is having second thoughts on his own nomination. Personally, I wouldn't waste any more editor's time on it and just put it through as a keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the numbers, a delete close of the discussion as it stands would get overturned at DRV. But DRV is needless fuss and bad closes are a thing, so I prefer crystal clear AfDs when they are not too much work to achieve. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Newspapers.com yielded some articles that contribute to its notability and verify the multiple name changes. I've left the urls on the article talk page. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reliable sources identified in this discussion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:45, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four international beauty pageants[edit]

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

The four pageants are themselves notable, however the "big four" or "big league" grouping lacks in-depth coverage, since the references are largely WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:02, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ameripolitan[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH, WP:NEO. Sources are either self-published (e.g. Saving Country Music) or do not use the term at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:11, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Island Boys[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND Xclusivzik (talk) 21:44, 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. There is no doubt that some of the sources are trivial mentions or otherwise fail to provide "significant coverage" of the topic. However, many of the profferred sources remain unchallenged, and there is divergent opinion on some sources as to whether or not significant coverage is acheived, with most participants agreeing sigcov is present. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nnaemeka Ikegwuonu[edit]


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

Promotional article on a non notable business man who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources, a before search turns up nothing concrete for example see this, this, amongst other unreliable sources yet to develop a reputation for fact checking. The award they one isn’t significant that it rises to satisfy WP:ANYBIO so in all they fail to meet our notability threshold. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hi, I commented on the talk page, but maybe I should have done it here, sorry, this is my first time having an article nominated for deletion, so I'm not sure if commenting here or the talk page is correct. On the talk page I pointed out that he has been covered in CNN twice as well as in Nigerian, British, and Ghanaian news, which seems to satisfy the general notability criteria to me. I see the comment about the awards, and I don't feel confident enough in the rules to argue, obviously I thought they were notable, which is why I included them, but the crux of my argument is the two CNN and other news sources make him notable. And I'd say for both his radio and his solar energy work. Regarding it being "promotional", I don't agree - if anyone wants to point to any promotional language, I'd be happy to edit, but I think I simply and neutrally wrote what he did - obviously he did good things, so writing about them seems likely to read positively, I can't really avoid that. CT55555 (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC) (and edited a bit after I thought about it more. CT55555 (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Comment — The editor above is the creator of the article which is now undergoing scrutiny to check for possible COI. Celestina007 (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure what sources you were looking at? Since there's reliable sources represented in the article itself already. But i'll compile a list of those and others as an example:
It looks like he's notable for two separate things, at minimum, the agricultural radio show and then the agricultural cold rooms company that he won a lot of international awards for, including the World Innovation Summit for Education awards. SilverserenC 22:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of which do not discuss the subject of the article with significant coverage so I’m afraid I don’t see how WP:GNG is satisfied when WP:SIGCOV isn’t satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Growing up in Nigeria, Nnaemeka Ikegwuonu spent his after-school hours raising poultry and cattle. After high school, as he participated in youth and citizens' associations helping farmers, Ikegwuonu quickly became aware that the rural community had little access to information about farming practices and environmental issues. In 2003, he founded the Smallholders Foundation to provide the rural community with information - via the radio - on contemporary agricultural techniques and environmental conservation. Ikegwuonu, who has a bachelor of arts in history and international studies and a master's degree in cooperation and development, is becoming known as a change-maker who fights poverty using new interactive technology"
This is just an example of the personal information about his life in just one of the sources. They are not just about the companies at all. SilverserenC 02:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why exactly is this listed as USA and Texas-related? --SVTCobra 23:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have much to do with Europe either. CT55555 (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does, the subject spent a considerable amount of time in Germany, and I believe Germany is a European country. Celestina007 (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Celestina007, but you did not answer my question. --SVTCobra 11:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra, an error on my part, apologies, i intended to put Germany and Europe & not Europe, US and Texas, sorry for the confusion. Celestina007 (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain' I'm not sure about notability, but the CNN story is to some degree a promotional interview. No news source is free from doing that. A relatively responsible source will print a promotional article only if they truly think it's newsworthy enough to be worth promoting. In many cases there is no really sharp divider between news and promotionalism. We, however, do have to make a sharp decision between having or not having an article. Most of the time, it's obvious; this isn't obvious. The cumulative effect of the many sources can mean either notability, or a very active PR representative. What I am trying to figure out is whether this is a proposal or a successful product. That's not a formal standard for notability, but if it is not yet in significant use, the sources are much more likely to be PR. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
changed to Delete--see below DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The product is definitely in significant use per the CNN source that says "Officially launched in 2015, ColdHubs now has 54 units in 22 states across Nigeria. More than 5,250 smallholder farmers, retailers, and wholesalers use its cold rooms and in 2020, the company stored 40,000 tons of food, reducing waste and increasing farmers' profits."
Princess of Ara 10:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG, you are very correct, please check below for my source analysis. There is literally 0 significant coverage about they themselves. Celestina007 (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/23/africa/coldhubs-nigeria-food-supply-chain-hnk-spc-intl/index.html Yes Subject of the article has no influence on the piece ~ Reads like a promotional opinion piece No The piece is about his organization and not the subject himself ✘ No
https://yen.com.gh/167277-genius-african-man-invents-giant-solar-powered-refrigerators-farmers-photos.html ? The source is yet to develop a reputation for fact checking so if or not it is independent of the subject is questionable No No presence of an established oversight team , neither is there a reputation for fact checking. ~ They describe him with relative in-depth ✘ No
https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/22/africa/cold-hubs/index.html Yes Subject has no influence in the publication of the piece Yes The source has a reputation for fact checking and a clear presence of an editorial oversight team No Yet again the organization owned by the subject is what is discussed primarily and not the subject himself ✘ No
https://editor.guardian.ng/features/agro-care/danfoss-tackles-cold-room-best-practices-and-importance-of-refrigeration-in-nigeria/ No OP-ED Promotional piece No Guest editor, so it didn’t pass through the scrutiny of the editorial oversight team No There isn’t any in-depth significant coverage. ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/dec/28/fighting-food-waste-in-africa Yes Subject has no influence over the publication of this piece Yes Reliable sources No Once again the subject isn’t the primary focus of this piece, invariably SIGCOV cannot be met. ✘ No
https://www.rolex.org/rolex-awards/applied-technology/nnaemeka-ikegwuonu ? Subject may have an influence on the publication of this piece. This is an award show with puffery statement. ~ Bother line unreliable No They do not discuss subject of the article with in-depth significant coverage ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Just to reply to the above, the CNN articles both talk about the source before they talk about organization he set up. Also you deleted two sources that do talk about the subject this morning. So the analysis seems like opinion, rather than fact and it doesn't assess the two sources you deleted, while none gave him extensive coverage, it seems unfair that you nominate this for deletion and then remove valid citations from the article, that is going to make the article inferior, I request you revert these edits. CT55555 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the analysis ignored all of the sources I originally linked in my vote above. SilverserenC 02:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With edit conflicts with Celestina007, I have just checked the references and used them to expand the information in the article a little bit (such as adding his middle name), tightened up the wording somewhat, and removed information not in the refs—exact year of birth (2 refs give his age), where he was born. I found only 2 somewhat promotional sources: the "apply now for the award!" one, which I replaced with their article at the time of the award using the Internet Archive, and the Guardian Nigeria, which I reluctantly kept because it references some specifics about his foundation. The rest are news coverage and in a couple of cases awards coverage. He's been covered over time—some articles from 2015, some including the other CNN from this year—in multiple reliable sources (with the Guardian plus the 2 CNN, we are already at the rule-of-thumb 3) and received several awards, which, while none is the Nobel, are a cut above the "Forbes under 40" stuff. In short, he meets GNG, and the article is not promotionally written. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — As is customary, this would be my last comment whilst I let the community decide for themselves, I have given a source analysis above which I hoped to prove that the subject doesn’t meet WP:SIGCOV as it his organization that is primarily discussed and not they themselves as the source analysis shows and anyone can check to confirm this. If there isn’t significant coverage then GNG isn’t met as a major tenet of GNG is SIGCOV, but like I earlier stated, this would be my final comment here and let the community do the remainder. Please if anyone wishes to directly ask me something, please do ping me. Celestina007 (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The units are best indicated by the photo in yen.com.gh. It consists of an assembly of. 3 standard items: solar panels, an insulated room, and the refrigeration unit to run it. The second Guardian item indicates what he actually does: He didn't invent any of them. He didn't even assemble them. Danfoss, a international refrigeration company, did. What he does is some combination of selling them as a distributor and buying them himself and renting space in them. Selling/renting 54 refrigerators in a country the size of Ghana is worth doing; but it is hardly significant enough for an encyclopedia . References making a big story out of something trivial are a sure indication of PR. There's nothing wrong with that--it's how people develop companies . But we shouldn't be part of it. If anyone is notable here , it's his PR agent. It helps to actually read at the content of the references DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does any of that have to do with his agricultural radio work that had coverage of him spanning a decade before the refrigeration company was ever a topic? SilverserenC 02:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reluctant to get into a debate about our personal opinions of the merits of a business model. I have opinions, I'll briefly say them here, but I think our job is to focus on if he meets the notability rules. To say 54 refrigerators is technically correct, but they are building sized refrigerators. I did read the sources, I did note the same impact that user:Princess of Ara spoke of above, it's quite big, but again, if that is notable or not should be about the CNN etc, not our personal opinion on business models and or human impact. And this is taking place in Nigeria, not Ghana. I think the reason we consider CNN and The Guardian reputable is that people presumably can't just persuade them to run articles, they have an editorial team. CT55555 (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: please look again. Even if you consider the size or independence of his business as relevant to determining notability (I can't quite follow the logic there with respect to notability guidelines, since that's presumably taken from one aspect of the special guidelines for businesses, and GNG trumps all special guidelines; and in any case impact can be measured by other criteria), I agree that ColdHubs is probably not notable in itself; this is the article on its CEO, not the draft article on the company. And you appear to have misinterpreted some of the cited sources. The "second Guardian item" is guardian.ng, and is about an event held by Danforth. It neither states nor implies that Ikegwuonu's coolers are produced by Danforth. See my edit summary: I went back and forth about removing that source, but it has valuable information about his Small Holders Foundation. And as CT55555 points out above, Ikegwuonu is Nigerian, not Ghanaian. I did not consider stats on the uptake of the coolers to be germane in an article about him, but if that is important to you, look again at the 2021 CNN source, which I believe is where you got the 54 units number from; the passage reads: "ColdHubs now has 54 units in 22 states across Nigeria. More than 5,250 smallholder farmers, retailers, and wholesalers use its cold rooms and in 2020, the company stored 40,000 tons of food". Whether this represents franchising or licensing of the technology in addition to ColdHubs' own units, or just the local circumstances that a large number of individual farmers and traders make shared use of each unit, 5,250+ and 40,000 tons are big numbers. I disagree with you on their relevance in an article about the person, especially since he has been written about for other things than being a successful business owner. (And I note that while I was scrutinizing the existing sources and reworking the article to expunge unsourced information and to make it as visibly unpromotional as possible (slowed by edit conflicts, but I'm slow in any case), Silver seren found a treasure trove of additional sources, including more information about his education and who knows what else, I or someone else needs to look at them and further improve the article.) But if the stats are relevant, then presumably they should be added in that form, and his notability should not be judged based on assumptions that 54 is not great penetration of the market? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The success, failure or reach of his business has nothing to do with the GNG. I also doubt his PR expert lobbies a 1 million dollar innovation prize or the 1.5 million dollar AYuTe challenge. Princess of Ara 05:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The 'source assessment' table is a flashy way to try to sway votes. It looks an attempt to make it appear as if someone other than the nominator asserts a lack of notability. I really hate to say this, but this does not appear to be about the article, but rather some other drama (for lack of a better term). --SVTCobra 04:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SVTCobra, It's most likely a pointy attempt to justify this failed report at ANI. Princess of Ara 05:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I honestly share the same opinion with SVTCobra, this source assessment table is just to misguide. The article clearly passes GNG. I feel this AFD/Source assessment table is just to prove a point that does not exist... Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I mean, he is (either partially or prominently) featured in Deutsche Welle, CNN and The Guardian articles, so..yes, not to mention he has received a bunch of awards for his contribution to the field. Looking at the sources provided by Silver seren (thank you!) Passes WP:GNG. I'm sure the editor has the best of intentions, but I'm a bit wary of the provided source assessment table and its conclusions. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per keep votes. I admire the diversity in the origin of the sources. (Nigeria, Ghana, UK, Bangladesh, Switzerland, etc.). While I appreciate the source analysis above and agree with most of the first and second column, I do not entirely agree with some entries for the last column. This is without prejudice to the author because I have seen even administrators disagree on what is truly "significant coverage". HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:41, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Escarment[edit]

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

Promotional article on a non notable politician who fails to meet any criterion from WP:NPOL and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search reveals self published sources, user generated sources and a plethora of other primary sources. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a possible candidate? That's two removes from notability. At least be a candidate, and preferably get elected. Also withdrawing from a PhD program doesn't get me all that excited, certainly not enough to want to know the title of the thesis that didn't get written. It's way WP:TOOSOON. Elemimele (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much WP:TOOSOON, fails to meet WP:NPOL. Also article is heavily promotional, most refs do not mention the subject.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NPOL. The article is promotional too with unsubstantiated claims that the subject will be running for Governor in 2026....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NPOL, and perhaps, WP:TOOSOON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, A potential candidate is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The funniest part is the fact whoever wrote this just copied the Political positions section from DeSantis's article, removed the parts he disagreed with, and then added "Escarment supports" to the beginning of each sub-section, while leaving the rest verbatim. Curbon7 (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, potential or otherwise, in future elections that they have not yet won — Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for aspiring future notables to advertise themselves, and the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just standing as a candidate for one. In order to qualify for an article now, Escarment would have to show that he already had preexisting notability for some other reason independent of his candidacy — such as already having attained notability as a writer, a musician, an athlete or a holder of another WP:NPOL-passing office. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2022 if he actually wins the seat, but he's not entitled to use Wikipedia to promote his candidacy for the seat in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:21, 2 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 keep. MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im Sa-hong[edit]

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

The current version didn't show his notability...fails WP:GNG. He may be a court minister at the Joseon Royal Court, but source not given. If sources are available, I'll happy to withdrew. VocalIndia (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the article is under-sourced but I dispute that it fails to show his notability - someone who is coming up that often in historical dramas is obviously a well-known historical figure in Korea. I don't read Korean so I can't add anything to this article myself, but I'm confident the sources exist. -- asilvering (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSING NOTE: The title initially listed here, Im Sahong, is actually a redirect. The discussion is clearly intended to apply to the main article, Im Sa-hong, and I have changed the title of this AfD to reflect that. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 6 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 keep due to expansion of the article with relevant sources during the AfD discussion. RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia–Spain relations[edit]

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

Neither of them have an embassy for each other, yet they have enough relations for a separate article? Philosophy2 (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sorry but none of those sources discusses Somalia-Spain relations directly or in detail. Yilloslime (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. I'd be curious to know what you mean by "directly or in detail". Just as a reminder, WP:GNG is clear in stating that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Coverage of relations from different angles (security, debt agreement, aid), on aggregate, helps this article meet the GNG. Pilaz (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to remind me what WP:GNG right after I just quoted it: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Reasonable people can have a reasonable disagreement about what direct, detailed coverage of a topic means--that's why we have deletions discussions and rather than just allow admins to delete whatever they want. I don't think those citations cover the topic directly and in detail, but clearly you do. Yilloslime (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Just as a note, the article has been significantly updated since your original !vote. It's still unclear to me why you think Somalia-Spain relations are not discussed "directly or in detail" by the sources I provided or the ones present in the article, but you're free to leave me with the impression that your !vote is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:VAGUEWAVE if you wish. Pilaz (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist, because the article has been significantly expanded with the addition of threefold new sources beginning on 19:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have voted to delete a lot of these inconsequential bi lateral relationship articles, *however* this one has valid content and discussion of note, and I think adds worth to wikipedia. RS seems ok. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. While I appreciate the work of LibStar, in this case their deletion rationale no longer applies. Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 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: speedy or snowy, take your pick. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadpanu[edit]

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

This seems to be about a 21- year old member of the Pakistani military without any real notability. MB 17:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax. Highly doubtful the Pakistan Army would enlist 8-year-olds, let alone give them positions like SSG Commando. Dl2000 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a hoax. Claims e.g. to be director general of the "Federal Criminal Intelligence Agency". No such agency appears to exist, with the closest match being Federal Investigation Agency which the subject most definitely is not the director general of. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dl2000 ビッグツリ64 (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete via WP:G3 as a hoax.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated image for deletion on commons.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3. snood1205 22:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons already listed. Adding this comment to point out for the closing admin that the main editor's username is.... Ahmadpanu. Do as you will with that. -- asilvering (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that as well. There's a note on the author's talk page about have a WP:COI, but there was no real acknowledgment of that by the editor. snood1205 03:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Though one can hardly be said to have a COI when the article is itself a hoax... -- asilvering (talk) 04:29, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Nicholson[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sammi Brie that makes sense but I think that it isn't necessary and not only clogs up the afd page but also makes it harder to actually make comments about the nominations, most of which are very similar to each other anyway. ビッグツリ64 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Block evasion Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't make it hard to comment on the subject. What makes it harder is when someone derails the discussion. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia needs to be based on independent sources. We do not keep articles sourced only to the website of the team someone played for. For the record the sourcing here is totally different than in the case of the other first name not known rugby player deletion nomination I have seen, so I see very good reason to have them as seperate discussions. I have also seen too many large scale nominations of this type become a trainwreck that forces them to be redone to see any reason to do things that way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can see totally fails GNG. I have not checked everyone of these routine mentions but I cannot find a single mention for the subject playing first grade for Eastern Suburbs. Seems to be mostly second grade. Aoziwe (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His lack of notability is such that, 15 years after the article's creation, nobody has yet been able to determine his first name, the position he played, date/year of birth, date/year of death, how many games he appeared in, or anything else other than that he reportedly played during the 1911 season for the "Eastern Suburbs" team. Fails GNG for lack of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 13:56, 2 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

F Moran[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and also based on search results presented by Aoziwe. Cbl62 (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lol, yes as noted, we don't even have enough information that we know what his first name was!Odd - could be redirected to a suitable football related article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fails WP:GNG, with no information , no sources. Alex-h (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:35, 2 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R Maher[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G. Payne[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and also based on search results presented by Aoziwe. Cbl62 (talk) 14:28, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E. Russell[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and also based on search results presented by Aoziwe. Cbl62 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia requires independent sources. The website of an organization someone played for is not indepedent. Large nominations lead to true messes, there is no reason to suggest we should have done that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG lacks independent sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:00, 2 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H. McNamara[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. Oates[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. Lyon[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and also based on search results presented by Aoziwe. Cbl62 (talk) 14:26, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

V Kennelly[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, subject was a winger.[3]

References

  1. ^ https://www.roosters.com.au/history/timeline/1920-1929/
  2. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=kennelly%20league&keyword.phrase=eastern%20suburbs&date.from=1923-01-01&date.to=1923-12-31&l-state=New%20South%20Wales
  3. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119161687?searchTerm=league%20eastern%20suburbs%20v%20kennelly#
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H Keane[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.roosters.com.au/history/timeline/1908-1919/
  2. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=keane%20league&keyword.phrase=eastern%20suburbs&date.from=1918-01-01&date.to=1918-12-31&l-state=New%20South%20Wales
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

F. Foran[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butler (rugby league)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep There are alot of nominations for deletions for articles on rugby league footballers where there first name isn't known, I think they should all be nominated in the same AfD. ビッグツリ64 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Block evasion Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely fails GNG with no realistic possibility of ever passing it. Nigej (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports,[1] (there are other butlers playing league too) but nothing anywhere near in-depth. BTW, the subject's first name is Paul.[2] Aoziwe (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His lack of notability is such that the article creator was unable to determine his first name (Aoziwe may have figured that part out), the position he played, date/year of birth, date/year of death, how many games he appeared in, or anything else other than that he reportedly played during the 1914 season for the "Eastern Suburbs" team. Fails GNG for lack of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, subject was a reserve forward.[3] Aoziwe (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?date.from=1914-01-01&date.to=1914-12-31&l-state=New%20South%20Wales&keyword.phrase=eastern%20suburbs&keyword=butler%20league
  2. ^ https://www.roosters.com.au/history/timeline/1908-1919/
  3. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/15562666?searchTerm=eastern%20suburbs%20league%20p%20butler#
Nice work digging up the position, but 13 years after the article's creation, and still lack even basic information or any hint of SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 15:40, 2 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

F Denholm[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling them altogether would just be a WP:TRAINWRECK so, no. I also fail to see how that would be 'speedy keep' grounds. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can see totally fails GNG. Subject does get a few very routine mentions in match reports (but, if the same person, for another club?), but nothing anywhere near in-depth. Aoziwe (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and also based on search results presented by Aoziwe. Cbl62 (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing here is inadequate. My search for sourcing turned up nothing. As Aoziwe was only able to find a few passing mentions in rugby coverage, there is no indication of more coverage. Sport notability guidelines and other special notability guidelines are meant to approximate GNG, and only presumtptions of notability. If people do exhaustive searches and find nothing, it becomes the burden of those who want to keep to show sources that would justify doing so. On the issue of merging the nomination, that is not advised. Since we have people here doing searches about the one person, merging with other nominations would just make the nomination overly long and messy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. Burton[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: Did you find anything on Burton that rises to the level of WP:SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62. No. I suppose I might be being a bit generous, but the representative mention is a bit out of the ordinary and I think was a big deal at the time being post WWI. Sorry I should have provided the routine match reports too.[3] It is rather difficult trying to sort out who was who in the match reports because so often only the family name is used and sometimes an initial if you are lucky. Two teams might have persons with the same family name but initials might only be used if the two teams play each other, etc., so I have have tried to limit my assessments to be only when I am reasonably confident that I have got the person correct. It is very likely that all of "this batch" have more to be found, but only if you "know" what you are reading based on other sources (which given the time are essentially impossible to find on-line). However, I am also reasonably confident that unless I could see something non routine then everything else will also be routine. Aoziwe (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/168499744?searchTerm=burton%20league%20eastern%20suburbs
  2. ^ https://www.roosters.com.au/history/timeline/1908-1919/
  3. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=burton%20league&keyword.phrase=eastern%20suburbs&l-state=New%20South%20Wales&date.from=1919-01-01&date.to=1919-12-31
  • Delete. I'll note that so far all !votes here, including the keep, argue this individual does not and is not expected to meet GNG, so... JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 2 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L. Brown[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the rationale for this keep vote. Are you saying that they are all the same and equally worthy of deletion? But you vote keep simply because nominated separately? Doesn't strike me as a valid reason to keep. Cbl62 (talk) 14:11, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R Adams[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. Allman[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Allen[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:41, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L. Abbott[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found one here. Aoziwe (talk) 12:07, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani snooker players[edit]

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

May be a Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. (See WP:NOTDIRECTORY) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Downton Brewery[edit]

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

Unfortunately this delightful little microbrewery seems to fail WP:GNG. A BEFORE search isn't turning up anything more than occasional passing mentions, and, since it had all its ad-fluff removed, its down to 2 sentences. Coup-de-grace? Mako001 (C)  (T) (The Alternate Mako) 16:20, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Uddin[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 15:50, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée français Albert Camus[edit]

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

The article seems to have been un-referenced since it's creation in 2006 except for a link to the schools website, I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would work for notable or really at all for that matter, and secondary schools are not inherently notable. So as things currently are I'm not seeing a guideline based justification to keep the article. Maybe someone can find references that I missed though. As I don't speak French. Although it's more likely they just don't exist then it is that I missed them since the French article isn't referenced either. Adamant1 (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:snood1205
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.africaguinee.com/articles/2020/09/14/la-fondation-smb-winning-signe-avec-le-lycee-francais-albert-camus-de-conakry-un Yes Guinee7 has no known association with LAC Yes I do not know Guinean media particularly well, but there is nothing there that would make me question its reliability Yes The article is about the school expanding so it is the primary topic of the article. ✔ Yes
https://www.africaguinee.com/articles/2020/09/14/la-fondation-smb-winning-signe-avec-le-lycee-francais-albert-camus-de-conakry-un Yes Africa Guinee has no known association with LAC Yes (See above) Yes Another article about the school receiving funding where the school is the primary topic of the article. ✔ Yes
https://guineematin.com/2014/09/25/procession-funebre-de-lufdg-la-france-ferme-le-lycee-francais-ce-vendredi-et-deconseille-laxe-hamdallaye-bambeto-cosa/ Yes Guinee Matin has no known affiliation with LAC Yes (See above) ~ The article mentions the temporary closure of the school by France in response to possible violence in the area. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MapCore[edit]

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

Incredibly poorly sourced, with several being by websites that do not have obvious editorial staff, like Faceit, published through websites like Medium. The WP:VG search engine retrieves very few possible sources. Anarchyte (talk) 14:07, 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. The WP:JUNK / WP:SYNTH arguments have persuaded all but one participant. This does not preclude an encyclopedic recreation of an article about the interaction between comedy and terrorism. Sandstein 13:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad satire[edit]

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

This article appears to be a mixture of original research, conflation and POV thinking. The title of the article is, from the outset, original research. The phrase "Jihad satire" is not a term that has ever been referenced in any tertiary sources, and it is little more than a passing mention as a phrase in secondary sources, such as in the name of this conference talk and used once in this article. The conflation comes in with the article making no apparent attempt to distinguish between Jihad and Terrorism and freely interchanging between satire related to jihad and satire related to terrorism more generally. The POV is apparent, for example, in the "As healing" section, which is just about the therapeutic role of humour and satire for victims of terror attacks - and where the article doesn't even attempt to draw a direct link between its supposed theme and the material or sources. Again, in "as political stategy", we have Humor can be a counter to the environment that breeds fanaticism and terrorism - more quotes with not even a mention of the word jihad. All in all, it is a jumbled mess, and conflating jihad and terrorism without context or appropriate segue is entirely unencyclopedic. There are other places on Wikipedia for discussing the relationship between Islam and humour, not least on the Islam and blasphemy page. This page is not the way. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • NB: It is worth adding that the article's creator AMuseo is a blocked sock, and that the previous deletion discussion also touched upon WP:NEO and WP:SNYTH as relevant guidelines, noting the complete absence of reliable secondary sourcing supporting "Jihad satire" as a neologism. Ngrams similarly turns up nada: [7]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Humor and Islamic terrorism or something similar. Many people at the first AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad satire agreed that the article should probably be renamed. I would suggest the same outcome here. It's been 10 years, just WP:BEBOLD and move it and nuke the unencyclopedic cruft. But many sources cover the topic of humor based on islamic terrorism and it'd be hard for me to believe that since the Charlie Hebdo shooting there aren't even more. It's hard for me to endorse a wholesale deletion here given that a report covered in a major newspaper endorsed the necessity of using humor to combat Islamic terrorism, there's the source "Comedy as Counter-Terrorism", etc etc. I'll throw in this newer source [8] too as proof that the general concept of humor making fun of Islamic terrorism is a subject that has been analyzed enough by reliable sources to deserve its own article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess: I am definitely not saying that the interaction between comedy and terrorism isn't a valid subject: it's probably several subjects. My motion for deletion was more based on the fact that this article in particular, in its present form, doesn't really do any justice to any subject in a coherent manner. Given the neologism, the conflation, the specter of original thinking, and the clear lack of invested editors interested in improving this sock creation, my thinking is more that it is WP:JUNK. No material on comedy/satire related to terrorism, the therapeutic nature of comedy/satire or any of the examples above are even mentioned on the main pages for Comedy or Satire, so perhaps the subject should start there before birthing a spin-off article. Re: the sourcing - your newer source appears to be a reprint of an opinion piece from the Sun-Sentinel, while the "Comedy as Counter-Terrorism" piece is also an opinion-style post on a page categorised by the website it is on as a "blog". More generally, the sources appear to be a collection of opinion pieces and review-style articles. We have the one unlinked "Pasquali" source from the Journal of Holistic Nursing, but that is about terrorism is general and it is from 2003, so pre-Iraq War, pre-Charlie Hebdo, etc., so not sure how useful or relevant that is likely to be. Actually, the more I look at the sources, the more I see WP:JUNK. The one half-decent source, a Reuters piece on a report by Demos, would be much more specifically useful on the page for Jihad Cool. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as neologism and synthesis without available sources, this isn't how we construct articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm with the WP:JUNK argument here. In order to keep this or even merge it, it would need to be rewritten completely, using basically nothing that currently exists in the article. (And I'm skeptical that could be done with wikipedia-encyclopedic NPOV.) Just WP:TNT it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 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 per consensus on article removal and discussant concerns that the redirect could create confusion. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ringo (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND; I can find no significant coverage of this band or any other indication of notability. I suggest redirecting to Tim Keegan, its only notable member. Lennart97 (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the nominator is suggesting a redirect, why is this at articles for deletion? This should have been handled with a merge proposal, because clearly making a redlink here is not the right way to handle this. Chubbles (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not proposing to merge, because there is nothing to merge. I am also clearly not proposing to create a redlink. I am proposing to blank and redirect, which is essentially a form of deletion and for which AfD is the appropriate venue as confirmed by this RFC. I hope that clears things up for you. Lennart97 (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I would have been in the minority vote in that RfC, but there it is in black and white. Chubbles (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 03:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Admins can consider the above argument about redirecting as an alternative to deletion, but I recommend against redirecting because we would end up with a confusing situation in light of the much more famous Ringo out there. As for this band, there is nothing to say about them except for how they changed their name due to (ironically) confusion with someone else, and that is something that nobody ever reported on. I can find no reviews of their solitary album either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That Ringo never started a band under that exact name, and even if he had, responsible knowledge organization would require suitable disambiguation (as with, e.g., blues guitarist Robert Johnson). The redirect could well be to Ringo (disambiguation) instead, perhaps better than a direct redirect. Chubbles (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming unnecessarily bureaucratic. A redirect procedure of that nature assumes that anyone would ever search for "Ringo (band)". And even if someone does, I see no benefit in having that person land at a disambig page that features an unlinked (no blue or red) entry that says "an English alternative rock band" because there is literally nothing else to say about that band. And redirecting to the band's one member causes unnecessary confusion with the famous Ringo (as I already noted). This could have been a fairly easy discussion about deleting an unknown band, but now admins get to figure out arcane redirect procedures. Whatever happens, get rid of this band in one way or another. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get from someone searching "Ringo", interested in the band, to Tim Keegan. That is a niche search, but it is a search we should support, since we have an article on Keegan, and Keegan released music as the frontman of that band. So that means Keegan should be mentioned on the Ringo disambiguation page. If "Ringo (band)" isn't going to link directly to Keegan, it should link to where people can find things called Ringo that are music-related. That's not bureaucratic; it's scrupulous. Chubbles (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - And now we have yet another relisting that may doom this AfD to "no consensus" purgatory, due to nothing but bureaucracy. Do something, anything, with this article other than allowing it to survive, because the band is not even close to notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you and I are the only ones who care about this subject, and I'm willing to commit to completing the merge and setting redirect/piping targets. Chubbles (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or if you must Redirect but get rid, obviously; we simply don't need articles like this, least of all when they have been marked as unsourced for 11 years. RobinCarmody (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it obvious that we should get rid of information relating to Tim Keegan? This whole conversation seems to have been predicated on the presumption that he's not notable enough to merit mention, as well. Chubbles (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, as the nominator, I stand by my suggestion to redirect to Tim Keegan. The band and their album are mentioned there and I don't think any confusion with Ringo Starr is likely to occur. Lennart97 (talk) 21:41, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Gardens[edit]

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

no references except property listings on real estate guides, and advertisements DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Judging by the sources, it is not a genuine neighborhood ,but a property development constructed by a single firm,It is one of the biggest and most popular master communities of property developer Nakheel, (ref 5),; that's the reason I Iisted it here. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that it is a genuine area in Dubai, on maps (e.g., see Google maps) and with its own Metro station. It is the nature of Dubai that whole neighbourhoods are developed by large companies there. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:03, 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) 12:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – note that the area features in a novel and other books (added as references). —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – note that I have now added historical context to the article, with references. I think the WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCLEANUP policies apply in the case of this artlcle. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been significantly expanded since the deletion nomination and doesn't come across as an advertisement. Referencing appears to be sufficient. NemesisAT (talk) 16:44, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antha Scene Ledu[edit]

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

No reliable sources of use. The film was previously proposed for deletion and nominated for deletion (result was delete).

  • 1. First source - is an unreliable source confirming post-production
  • 2. Second source - is an unreliable source confirming actor dubbing.
  • 3. Third source - confirms actor dubbing.
  • 4. Fourth source - mentions the film once.
  • 5. Fifth source - mentions the film twice and is mainly about the actress and not the film.

The main issue is the lack of reliable sources. And in the sources that exist, it is not mentions enough to write an article about it. Also, had trouble finding any reliable reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:46, 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 13:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slate the school[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 10:27, 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 13:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pebble Creek High Montessori School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 10:26, 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 13:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diksha School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 10:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Couldn't find a single source with proper coverage, no claim to notability either, fails WP:GNG. Bingobro (Chat) 13:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find a single source with usable coverage either. So this is clearly a fail of WP:GNG. To bad the PROD process is essentially worthless at this point, because this article would have been a perfect PROD candidate. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 11:57, 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 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 13:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhyudaya High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 10:24, 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 13:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhaya School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 10:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • SCHOOLOUTCOMES explictly favour merge/redirect over delete. You're citing a policy in favour of deletion when that policy argues for alternatives to deletion. Do you want to reconsider this delete rationale? — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:07, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack James (fencer)[edit]

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

Not a medal-winner and thus not automatically notable under the new WP:NOLY. No sports-specific notability guide for fencing. No evidence of notability by a WP:BASIC pass and nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. The edit-history is longer than it needs to be due to the creator's trade mark null-edits where they made pointless edits to remove information that did not appear on the page or replace descriptions with exactly the same description made apparently just to assert that they were the "owner" of the article (see, e.g., this, this), and this) but I've done my best to review it so see whether any other sources were ever present here, but it seems that Sport-Reference.com and Olympedia (essentially the same source, since one is a copy of the other) are the only sources that have ever been used with this article, and these are "database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion" and excluded from showing notability per WP:SPORTCRIT.

Can accept a redirect to Fencing at the 1928 Summer Olympics but since this Jack James is only one of a number of Jack James's on Wikipedia, and is non-notable, I am not sure this redirect makes sense - people are not likely to search for "Jack James (fencer)", are they? Shouldn't we simply direct them to the Jack James's who are actually notable?FOARP (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Competed as one of a team of 6 in the foil team event. GBR lost 16-0 to Italy and 13-3 to Austria in the preliminary round. James didn't play against Austria and lost his 4 matches against Italy, two 5-0 and two 5-1. All indicating he was probably one of the weakest competitors in that event. Coverage in the press was minimal: see https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DE0_AAAAIBAJ&pg=5699%2C4142687 - difficult to read but near top of right-hand column on page 6. No names mentioned. Won the British amateur foil championship in 1929. This from the guardian https://www.newspapers.com/clip/91167080/the-guardian/ although it get his name wrong. Worth searching for "Evan James" or similar if looking for sources. Nigej (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing is not here, and people have done indepth searching and not come up with more adequate sourcing. The old olympic guidelines have left us with a huge number of minimally sourced articles, many of which I suspectcould be expanded and given better sourcing, and a good number of whom are in the living people category even though they are dead. The automatic pass lead to lots of low quality articles. We need to be not hasty in nominating them for deletion, but in this case there is no sign of actual notability, and considering that the modern pre-playing inclusion criteria for the olympics were not fully adopted until the 1990s, and as you go back inclusion was more loose, there is no reason to suppose that James meets inclusion criteria. This will be an even bigger issue with pre-WWI olympic competitors, but it does apply in some cases after WWI. There is no sign of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; found half a dozen articles on BNA but coverage is limited to passing mentions so insufficient to meet the SIGCOV requirements of GNG. In addition, per Nigej, he seems to be most often referred to as "J. Evan James", due to being the son of the seemingly far more notable H. Evan James. Suggest such people would be best included in a List of British Olympic fencers if anyone cares to create such a list. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above. SIGCOV isn't there, the subject fails the revised NOLY, and all that's left are casual mentions and namedrops ... including in his father's article, which constitutes all the mention the subject merits here. Ravenswing 07:09, 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 deletion (Author requested deletion in good faith). Mwiqdoh (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Harps F.C. 1–0 Waterford F.C. (2020)[edit]

Finn Harps F.C. 1–0 Waterford F.C. (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per this AfD, this one and this one, we have a very, very high bar for notability for an individual football match and I'm not seeing how this match meets those standards. I'm certainly not seeing WP:GEOSCOPE - was this game so remarkable that it was covered across the globe in significant depth? Are we likely to see WP:LASTING notability? The game was a game that Finn Harps absolutely had to win to avoid a relegation play-off scrap but, apart from that, I can't see any claim to notability. We have hundreds of 'must win' league games every season across the world where one of the clubs needs to win to avoid relegation/avoid play-offs/secure qualification to a continental championship/secure the league title. Why does this one warrant a separate article? We are not a Finn Harps almanac here and the coverage offered is just a routine match report in Extra Time and some stats reports in Soccerway and SofaScore. Is there anything else notable about the game? It doesn't appear that it broke any records regarding goals scored, red cards received, attendance or any other records that usually justify a stand-alone article. The sentence mentioning this match in Finn Harps F.C. seems enough. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 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. A quick google search revealed a lot of sources to me as well as it was recently in the news. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 02:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Nadine Lott[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this crime. It is a routine homicide and fails WP:NCRIME. It does not warrant a Wikipedia article. WWGB (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. This was an extremely high profile case in Ireland, with a lot of media coverage. It drew comments from the Taoiseach, and resulted in lots of discussion about femicide in Ireland. Also, reading WP:NCRIME, it seems to go against the message you’re purporting that it says. It says that while breaking news is often the subject of deletion discussions, “media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act”. The page currently is incomplete, but still has 14 different sources dealing with the case, comprised of national newspapers and the national broadcaster, which were released over a period of four months. I think this page very clearly meets the WP:GNG. I’m essentially going to copy and paste this to the other article you nominated, the Murder of Anne Colomines, because these cases were both very high profile in Ireland, drawing lots of media attention, and are often linked together in media in discussions of femicide in Ireland. Discussion of Lott’s death is still ongoing in Ireland, with a new article having been released by The Irish Times only a few hours ago, two years after her death. Xx78900 (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sourcing and additional room for expansion. Per WP:NCRIME: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." Passes WP:GNG - the coverage is national and not hyper local. Missvain (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 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 13:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Briggs (footballer)[edit]

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

Briggs has never played a professional game (see here) as Durham have never been in the FA Women's Super League although they have come close on a couple of occasions. A quick WP:BEFORE shows that there isn't a great deal of independent coverage for Briggs and that the creator has done their best with the limited coverage available. As per my source analysis below, I don't think that the coverage is enough for WP:GNG. She does not currently meet either criterion under WP:NFOOTBALL either. Only WP:ATD would be to draftify until her WSL debut, however, there is no guarantee that Durham will get promoted or that she will transfer to a professional team so, in my view, deletion is better for now. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After having read WP:NFOOTBALL and as the one who accepted Lauren Briggs at the AfD I also agree to delete or at least to draftify the article. I only checked whether there are other team members with a Wikipedia article in the team but not if it was second or first tier in which the other players have played. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krellan456 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this deletion on the grounds that Durham are as of last seasons standings the 14th club in England and Briggs has played over 70 times for the club. She has played in quarter finals of the league cup which is a major trophy in England. I think her consistent appearances over the years for the club warrant a Wikipedia page.WOFOeditor325

The only relevant guidelines are WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. It doesn't matter how many games Briggs has played, if she hasn't had significant coverage from independent WP:RS then there shouldn't be an article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen many similar and lower level players have dedicated pages created. I agree with the first instance and the objection that L Briggs is a worthy addition to the women's football wiki and should not be deleted User:Krellan456

That would be down to a separate AfD about them - you are more than welcome to put those lower level players up for deletion if you find any. Either those footballers meet WP:GNG or they simply haven't been noticed. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/19539272.lauren-briggs-reflects-development-durham-women/ Yes Yes ~ The article is mostly one long quote from Briggs herself. The article contains very little information or analysis relating to Briggs. The 4th and 5th paragraphs contain small bits of info on her. ~ Partial
http://www.esfa.co.uk/news/?2011/03/23/204216/u16-girls-county-final-durham-3-2-kent Yes Yes No Squad list mention - U16 game ✘ No
https://durhamwfc.co.uk/player-statistics/ No This is her club No No Stats only, no prose ✘ No
https://durhamwfc.co.uk/2021/06/27/news-briggs-here-to-stay/ No Her club No No Routine club announcement with a long quote from Briggs ✘ No
https://womenscompetitions.thefa.com/en/Article/Championship-wrap-212908 Yes Yes No Passing match report mention ✘ No
https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sport/19549201.watford-fc-women-beaten-durham/ Yes Yes No Match report mentions ✘ No
https://womenscompetitions.thefa.com/en/Article/durham-coventry-20210502 Yes Yes No Squad list ✘ No
https://durhamwfc.co.uk/player-statistics/ No Her club No No Stats ✘ No
https://rokerreport.sbnation.com/2021/10/10/22715455/match-preview-sunderland-ladies-host-durham-women-in-north-east-derby Yes No Sunderland fan site No Contains two sentences about her playing style but nothing more ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:28, 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 per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 00:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in literature[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced list that may fail WP:LISTN and even if it doesn't, requires a WP:TNT. As a navigational aid, it fails since almost most listed on it appear notable. As for TNT, I started a proper, referenced analysis of the topic at Christmas in fiction where this could be redirected to. As an additional problem, List of Christmas novels is a similar, unreferenced, fork of the 'novels' section here and should probably be merged here, or redirected to the 'in fiction' article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix as per Goldenrowley's comment on Piotrus's AfD of Secular Christmas stories. It'd be silly to throw away the work of many editors over many years in these two (mostly-list) articles merely because an individual editor has unwittingly created a third article covering the same ground. The correct approach is to merge Piotrus' work into whichever of the two existing articles it fits best, and delete the most recent, third article Christmas in fiction which currently consists of a single three-sentence paragraph, with very little information to move. Piotrus' paragraph would make a good introduction to one of the existing lists, and might attract further general improvement. Elemimele (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not convinced that "unreferenced" is an argument for deletion in this case, since it's a list of stories that have something to do with Christmas. Who would we cite? That these have something to do with Christmas is just a basic fact -- often revealed in the titles of the works themselves. If any of the individual works are in dispute for whatever reason, someone can just have it out on the Talk page or boldly remove them. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid navigational and information list. References are found in the main articles. Anything that doesn't have its own Wikipedia article proving its notable can be removed of course. List of Christmas novels can be redirected here. I don't see any point in the article Christmas in fiction though. Dream Focus 00:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is a harmless list and potentially useful as a navigation aid, since (unlike a category) a list can provide classification. "unreferenced" is not a ground for deletion (except BLP cases). The articles listed will have the requisite sources (or should). A mass of referencing is in fact unhelpful in a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a list of notable Christmas works. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As a purely navigational list (i.e. all entries have links and there are no plot summaries or similar) it's okay, I suppose. For a navigational list like this, references are only strictly speaking necessary for entries whose inclusion is disputed. So the argument for deletion is weaker after the list was turned into a purely navigational one. That being said, I don't think the argument for keeping the list is particularly strong either, hence weak keep.
    The suggestion to merge Christmas in fiction here is a bad one; it would change this from a navigational page to an informational one, and then we would need way better sourcing—specifically, the kind of sourcing that MOS:POPCULT mandates. The same thing would apply if descriptions were added to the individual entries (thus turning this into a TV Tropes-style list), see e.g. the recent WP:Articles for deletion/United Nations in popular culture (2nd nomination) which resulted in deletion. TompaDompa (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think WP:LISTN is in serious dispute—simply putting "Christmas books" into a search engine turns up quite a few lists such as this one] from Reader's Digest. The point about lacking clear WP:LISTCRITERIA is a stronger one, but that should be WP:SURMOUNTABLE. All this being said, deletion would be preferable to merging if those are our options; this list has no place whatsoever at Christmas in fiction, a prose article about the topic. Redirecting without merging any of the content would on the other hand be an alright option. TompaDompa (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or merge to Christmas in fiction - At the time of this writing, nobody has addressed the nominator's valid concerns with WP:LISTN, and therefore non-compliance of this list with WP:V, and likely WP:OR. This list has no clear selection criteria (WP:LSC), fails to define what constitutes a notable Christmas literature work, and is therefore in violation of WP:IINFO. As for MOS:POPCULT, I'm not entirely sure it applies to stand-alone lists given that nothing in the guideline explicitly mentions them as the scope of the guideline (it mentions "trivia sections" only). Even so, if it did apply, this list would certainly fail the second and third paragraphs of the guideline, given that it is more stringent than WP:LISTN, as it mandates references to secondary or tertiary sources for all cultural references, and that it explicitly recommends prose over list for cultural references. Pilaz (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (with history merge) into Christmas in fiction - Rescoping and moving this older title would've been preferable to starting a new article and then nominating the long-existing one for deletion. But yeah, now that "in fiction" exists, this one finds itself unnecessarily separate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites Please reconsider. The 'in fiction' article I started has a proper analytical, non-list form, and its a totally different beast from the unreferenced, navigational(?) article discussed here, which if kept should be renamed to List of Christmas-themed works or such. Any merge will result in removing any possibility the article I started can be expanded into a DYK/GA or such, since it will be saddled with unreferenced, ORish list (that has no known inclusion criteria). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's accurate that it would be "saddled with unreferenced, ORish" material. Regardless of where this material winds up, and in whatever form it takes, it needs inclusion criteria and anything that relies on OR should be removed. The ideal, whether for "Christmas in literature" or "Christmas in fiction" is to incorporate it into prose. I appreciate that's easier said than done. Another option would be to draw a clear line by renaming this one something like Index of Christmas-themed media and load it up with bluelinks to books, albums, movies, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NLIST (navigational aid, references available), this listicle should be expanded (which i've done a bit), not deleted, and just because a book doesn't (yet) have a wikiarticle it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be included. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's to be a purely navigational list, then a book not having a stand-alone article on Wikipedia does indeed mean that it shouldn't be included. TompaDompa (talk) 22:24, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Schmidt[edit]

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

A former mayor of a community with the population of 27K. The first reference is a scan of the death/funeral note card, the second is local coverage. I do not see sufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I conducted a full review of this article, and have come to the conclusion it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN, and is therefore not notable for Wikipedia. ––FormalDude talk 01:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability test for mayors is not automatically passed just by minimally verifying that he existed as a mayor, and instead requires the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. That's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 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. ✗plicit 13:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste De Luna[edit]

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

I PRODed this earlier, with the reason: "none of these sources are independent; doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST (even the recent press releases celebrating her art can only say that one of her prints is on the cover of an academic book)". It was dePRODed by the original writer of the article with the note "will be changing sourcing style", which I can't really make sense of; at any rate it's still mostly the same article. The image is probably unintentional copyvio.

The San Antonio website in the external links has a 2021 copy of her CV, which presumably does not omit any major exhibitions or work in permanent collections. It doesn't look to me like there is enough here to justify having an article on her at this time, though it looks reasonably likely that there will be in the future, later in her career.

(WikiEdu student editor; please be as unbitey as you can in arguments for deletion!) asilvering (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sadly I think the proposer is right; it's WP:TOOSOON at least. I can't find anything much on De Luna, and WP has quite exacting requirements of artists. I personally like her work, but there are a lot of good printmakers out there, and we really need some independent writing about her, or some outstanding, major exhibitions if we're to have a good article. Elemimele (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. The user who created the article is a single-purpose account. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LSGH article creator is a student who created the article as a WIKI-EDU assignment. It is doubtful that SPA applies to this article in relation to having a COI or to PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST (work(s) not in significant exhibitions/permanent collections of wikinotable galleries/museums, WP:RS reviews) bitey ggrrrrss not at article creator but at teachers/tutors of the course who should be directing students to wikinotable peeps/topics. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coolabahapple I direct my ggrrrrss at WikiEdu's training materials... here's what they give students on choosing topics (pg 6): [9]. I appreciate that notability guidelines can be pretty arcane but not even mentioning the concept is setting both students and instructors up to fail. -- asilvering (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the Wiki_edu training materials may need updating to include more in-depth descriptions of what constitutes significant coverage, reliable sources, notability criteria in specific fields for example WP:NARTIST, etc. It seems like there have been a lot of these student-created articles with marginal notability (or no notability per WP standards). What I also find perplexing is that the professors don't seem to be actively involved, but maybe (?) that is how WikiEdu is structured? It seems many of these creations waste the time of the students who could potentially become good editors, as well as those who participate at AfD. Anyways, that's probably a discussion for another venue. Netherzone (talk) 19:09, 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 delete. Unnecessary forking of information already included at French Open (badminton). RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of French Open Women's Singles champions in badminton[edit]

List of French Open Women's Singles champions in badminton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same concerns as of List of French Open Men's Singles champions in badminton, incomplete list, no references to support the list of finalists and list of winners of all five categories is already given in French Open article. zoglophie 06:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 02:05, 3 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 keep. Consensus is that improvement is needed, not deletion. Star Mississippi 22:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Open Women's Singles champions in badminton[edit]

List of German Open Women's Singles champions in badminton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources of reference, no interwiki articles and most importantly it is an incomplete list and has been like this since it's creation years ago. List of champions can already be seen from here German Open. zoglophie 05:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While an incomplete list currently, the subject is a discrete list that can be filled out completely. Any issues of lacking interwiki articles or references can be fixed through improvements, as there is certainly no question of those being available. As for having a separate list page, I decided to check some other sports tournament articles, such as the Australian Open (tennis) or the LEN European Aquatics Championships (swimming), and it is incredibly common to have separate list articles for male and female champions and then split into singles or doubles lists as well if the sport has that. So, there's clearly precedent for having this sort of list. Overall, I don't see the problem here. Clearly both this article and the main German Open article need some improvements, but that's not an argument for deletion. SilverserenC 01:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As Silver seren states, this is a very common way to reduce the size of the top-level article on sports tournaments. There's no requirement for "interwiki articles". What's unreliable about the source from www.german-openminton.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Statistiken/Winner_1955_2006.pdf ? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The fact that the list is incomplete is no justification for deletion. If it was, there would be very few lists on Wikipedia. The source given seems reliable enough. This said, further work is required on the list.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Ipigott, Espresso Addict, Silver seren Article needs additional independent sources, the source given in the article has list of winners for limited number of years (upto 2005) something, and if that is what this article is about (List of winners), it is exactly the same as German Open (main article). Only thing separating both of them is list of runners-up which is incomplete and need sources for each of them for verification. If the argument is further work is required than why not the concerned party is doing so? I personally think individual lists is just a burden upon other editors to fill them up, if they are actually eager to make those additional lists they have to have sources for each year which could possibly provide the distinction from the main article. And lastly if one is not even serious about making a good-looking complete list, they must spend more time on pursuing references.zoglophie 10:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Zoglophie: Thanks fist of all for the tremendous efforts you have made to improve coverage of badminton and badminton players on the EN wiki, including many biographies of women. My response above was specifically in connection with your proposal to have the list deleted. Suggesting that it needs to be improved does not mean I intend to work on it myself as I am no expert on sports and have little knowledge of badminton. It is to be hoped that editors more familiar with the subject will make the necessary additions if the list is maintained. I also note from your comments that you seem to think it would be useful to merge this list with the article on German Open. This might be a sensible suggestion but should have been proposed separately and not part of AfD. Maybe you can return to it later.--Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Kumar (director)[edit]

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

Pankaj Kumar

The article Pankaj Kumar (director), which appears to be an autobiography, represents its subject as the director of four films. In fact, the subject was the cinematographer, and not the director, and we already have an article on Pankaj Kumar (cinematographer). The four listed films have other directors. This article should be deleted as failing verifiability. The article identifying him as a cinematographer is verifiable, should be left alone, and is not involved in this AFD.

Because the assertion that he is the director is demonstrably false, this is a borderline case for G3 hoax, but is a clearer case for AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There isn't much direct discussion of notability here, in terms of sources covering the topic. Valid concerns over the definitions used are met with reasonable arguments about the potential for improvement (and at least one !vote that is entirely devoid of substance). It's been long enough that I do not think a further relist will be helpful; if the problems of definition prove intractable, they will have more weight at a subsequent AfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings by United Kingdom settlement[edit]

List of tallest buildings by United Kingdom settlement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a mixture of Wikipedia:Synthesis and Original Research. Eopsid (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Another problem with the article is its lack of definition for settlement. There isnt really a formal and consistent definition in the United Kingdom anyway. Eopsid (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -couldn't this be added to a general list of tallest buildings in the UK, as a sortable table column? to this page List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_Kingdom Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems a perfectly valid list to me. No synthesis or OR here. Possibly rename to List of tallest buildings by town or city in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is with the lack of definition for town or city or settlement in the UK. The list makes no attempt to define it rendering it meaningless. Eopsid (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see why this is a problem. The terms town and city are very clearly defined in the United Kingdom, probably more than most other countries. I agree that there's no real reason to restrict the list to settlements with more than 100,000 people, hence my suggested renaming. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list defines it as anything over 100K. In practice cities in england and wales are extremely well defined. Scotland slightly less so. Town is again well defined if perhaps not entirely logical due to local politics (there are a number of oversized villages but since no one has tried to add Cottingham this doesn't appear to be an issue).©Geni (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment: can you explain how English towns are well defined. Just thinking of Bournemouth as an example it has no good definition. It's part of a district with other towns but there is no formal definition for Bournemouth Town. The problem is that there are some well defined towns which are civil parishes but there are lots of towns which are in unparished areas and hence have no good definition. Eopsid (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • While Bournemouth appears to be one of the messier cases the Borough created by the 1890 Royal Charter continues to maintain a legal existence through the charter trustees.©Geni (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Exactly. You have to look at history as well. Any settlement that used to be a borough or urban district or which currently has a town council is without doubt a town. Although there are indeed others which are commonly referred to as towns but which have no legal basis for that claim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • The issue is that we are discussing the definition of settlement because the article in its current format leaves that open to interpretation. Crowsus (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, the issue is that AfD is not cleanup. The issue of whether the article needs editing or not is completely separate from the issue of whether it's a notable topic or not, which is what we're discussing here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That's a fair point, but if it can't be explained how one of the two axes has been derived, then it does sway into the realm of Synth and OR as the nomination asserts. Crowsus (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: agree the definition does not make much sense in relation to any similar list. There are 65 entries, but the link used to define what is referred to as a settlement, ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom, defined only 46 areas; that had a higher cut-off of 150k rather than 100k, but then there is no source to define the 'missing' 19 - I haven't checked if the first 46 entries on the Tallest Buildings list matches, possibly not. There is also the fact that the ESPON list is now 20 years old. List of urban areas in the United Kingdom is more recent - published 2013 based on the 2011 census - and that has the same 100k cut-off, but has 76 entries! So based on that, we are missing 11. I feel that could be used to adapt the list and apply it more consistently than deleting outright, but it's not really something I'd be keen to volunteer for. Crowsus (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support moving to largest buildings in urban areas in the United Kingdom that has a better definition. I can do the work to move it too. Eopsid (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support this idea, it would hopefully be fairly straightforward to align the entries here with the entries there, and 11 to be 'found' and added. I suggest using Emporis as a reference for the list of each area to demonstrate which is the tallest in each (particularly where no list of its own exists) but I'm not sure they work on any 'urban area' categorisation similar to the existing list here. So that would be verging into OR again to calculate which towns are in which area in a few cases (e.g the likes of Oldham, Wolverhampton and Bradford on the list would not be the tallest in their respective area)... Crowsus (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are actually hundreds of towns and cities in the UK, but only a few of them have buildings high enough to be worth recording. Every settlement on this list has town or city status. But clearly it's a work in progress. That does not make it an invalid list, as the whole of Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The criteria needs to be properly defined. As the nominator has pointed out, the term settlement is used but not clarified, and as I have highlighted above, neither the link used nor a more recent related list corresponds to the number of entries on this list. I would agree that it is something that can be overcome rather than evidence that it's fatally flawed and should be deleted, but the 'work in progress' doesn't wash. The article dates from 2010 and as only had minor adjustments and corrections since then. As you say, there are hundreds of cities and towns in the UK, so why does the article have 65 entries? There is no evidence that there are specifically 65 places of over 100,000 residents so why has that number been arrived at? There are 69 designated cities but several of those are ceremonial/historical with populations well below 100k, so again that doesn't tie in with the entries on this Buildings list. And where is the evidence that each of these buildings is the tallest in each place? Most have a ref simply for that building, and there are only 24 'List of tallest building in City' articles, so even assuming those are all correct and can be used as a guide, still 40 to be fixed. Again, not an insurmountable problem, but here we are at a deletion discussion so it's something that does have to be remedied because as things stand, the quality is poor. Crowsus (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a very useful article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please expand, I'm actually curious to find out how it's useful... Crowsus (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - One of the for AFD today I have seen I definitely think ought to stay. Granted it is a list, but this is precisely the sort of random fact one may enjoy learning about in a 'random article' pop-up, or may be useful of its own accord. May warrant moving if someone can decide a more useful place, but it should definitely stay!Such-change47 (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and comment - I have some concerns about this, but on balance think it could be a useful article. I do however wonder about the name - settlement is very vague I think. Something like towns and cities with populations of over 100,000 might be better, though I am not sure what the best wording for that in a title would be without making it too long. Dunarc (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm happy it's kept, as the sort of interesting-trivia stuff that one expects to see in an Encyclopaedia, but I'm more concerned about the definition, taken from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which excludes church spires. Since nearly all churches in the UK have some sort of tower or spire, this stricture basically excludes all ecclesiastical buildings from the list, which seems very arbitrary. Why should a clock-tower on an otherwise rather short town hall qualify it as a tall building, while a substantial pointy bit on the end of a church, similarly equipped with a clock, doesn't? I personally feel that our readers, given an article on the tallest buildings, would expect to find the tallest buildings (not a somewhat shorter building that doesn't happen to be a church). Since the article is UK-based, and the Council is North American, perhaps the Council's definition doesn't really fit the UK's historical architecture. Or perhaps we should rename/move the article to Tallish-but-not-the-tallest-buildings by vaguely-defined area in the UK? Elemimele (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The arguments for keep largely rely on the article being useful or the article being random information that might be included in a pop-up encyclopedia. Both of which are true about this article; however, none of that means that this is not a result of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I also am concerned about what the cutoff for this article would be, as in why is it at 100,000 specifically? I think that the indicated issues combined with wikipedia's standard for inclusion not being utility, but notability which lead me to my argument for deletion. snood1205 22:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I too am having problems with the qualifiers being tossed into this. First off, I must correct one misconception: the CTBUH criteria specifically and explicitly include spires, so I have to question whether the exclusion comes from. Second, there is the population limit, which, as others have noted, seems arbitrary. But besides that, half of this is like one of those clickbait things, and half of it is a database query. I do not see us have having a mission to satisfy either. If our point is to satisfy bar bet questions or slice up statistical data so, well, writing separate articles for each of the possible inquiries is a poor approach; but I do not think an encyclopedia as we have been writing it can address that mission in any case. Mangoe (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Mangoe, based on that, in case this list survives, I've replaced Norwich's city hall with its cathedral, a much taller building. Elemimele (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More follow-up, my cathedral replacement got reverted on grounds that the lead excludes spires. Since, as Mangoe pointed out, this is an arbitrary exclusion that doesn't come from the purported source, should this list survive AfD, the lead needs to be changed either to distance itself from the Council on Tall Buildings criteria, or to adopt them properly, rather than misquoting them. The Council has three different criteria, basically height-to-architectural-top-excluding-antennae/flagpoles, height to highest occupied floor, and height-to-very-tip-including-twiddly-bits. I'd suggest we use (1) or (3), both of which include spires, as the highest occupied floor is unlikely to be documented in many cases, and even if it is, the Council haven't determined whether they mean the floor or ceiling of the highest occupied floor. If the list decides to go its own sweet way and ignore all "official" definitions, embracing arbitrary exclusions, then it should be deleted, as that would cross the line from encyclopaedic to random synthesis. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How accurate is the list? Is it kept updated? Altus House, Leeds doesn't yet get a mention, though its article asserts it to be the tallest building in Leeds / West Yorkshire / Yorkshire. PamD 16:59, 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 keep. While two of the keep comments were self-described as "weak," the participants in the discussion do agree the subject meets WP:PROF and no one besides the nominator advanced a delete position (even after a relist). (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melsa Ararat[edit]

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

So I stumbled upon this in the summer when I was reviewing Draft:Corporate Governance Forum of Turkey, of which she is the founder of. Back then this was a draft and was later speedied for having copyright violations. The user who created the draft has "SU" at the end of his username, which stands short for "Sabancı University", and this being re-created right after deletion probably means that they have a conflict of interest.

Anyway, this activist/scholar/academic is not close to meeting GNG. The sources are mere mentions of her. The media section is filled with refbombs of her appearances on TV, which in an WP:INTERVIEW style repeat her words, and nothing is actually about her. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 11:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:00, 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 13:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Rathakrishnan[edit]

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

Minor, unremarkable director, a lot of pr Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Packistani/Archive Maged El Sadat (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Asian Academy Creative Award. matt91486 (talk) 08:07, 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. Keep arguments are a variation of WP:Clearly notable, but there hasn't been any demonstration of notality prior to his death (per the first relisting comment), which makes the BLP1E arguments far stronger. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Biacsics[edit]

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

A recent death from COVID is the only notable thing here, BLP1E and RECENT HouseOfChange (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: I do speak (some) German, so I tried looking for German coverage. Notice that if you search for his name in "News" you get results in many different languages. So I tried coupling his name with German terms like "bleichen" (bleach), "Impstoff" (vaccine), and "Die Basis" (his political party." I found coverage only of his death, except for one YouTube video. I searched Austria's Die Presse, no mention, including no mention of his death. I found no sign in German sources of independent notability. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing this HouseOfChange Sgerbic (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @HouseOfChange: there were several hits that came up from Google Books as well, that I could not identify. Gronk Oz (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gronk Oz: The source in Italian is very recent, a 2021 "yearbook" talking about JB's death and briefly his Covid militancy in that context. This Italian "book" introduces itself as follows; "Si nasce senza volerlo. Si muore senza volerlo. Si vive una vita di prese per il culo." Hmmmm. The Club Carriere "Encyclopedia of Success" (Club Carriere - Enzyklopädie des Erfolges) published several editions 2002-2005 where they interviewed him about his success as a gardener--as they did hundreds of others who probably paid to be listed. For example, there was a small display ad for a hairdresser named "Franz Reichel", and sure enough there is a short interview with FR in the text, in exactly the same format as JB. Such mini-interviews don't meet WP:BASIC anyway. There is a book by JB himself, published in 2018. Other "results" seem unlikely to relate to his influence as an anti-vax advocate, maybe just errors in Google. For example, searching this book for "Johann Biacsics" gives no results. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC
Thanks for that, @HouseOfChange: is exactly the sort of information we need. Gronk Oz (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Country-specific info: Austrians are particularly sceptical about internet, Wikipedia, modern technology etc. They are way behind the Anglo-Saxon countries in this. Just because there's no German page, does not mean there should not be one. It just means no Austrian has written one.-- shanparfitt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as he was clearly notable before his death.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia definition of "notability" requires " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." What we have instead is multiple one-shot human interest articles about the death of a very minor political figure. I tried to find coverage of his activism or leadership but found none. Please cite some sources to support the idea that his life was notable in some way, not just the irony of his death. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The claim that he was a notable antivaxer before his death needs to be backed up by sources that predate that event.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: Per re-listing admin Spinningspark, The claim that he was a notable antivaxer before his death needs to be backed up by sources that predate that event. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is fair. I am having significant difficulty finding such articles, even in german language sources. So I will change my vote accordingly. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:44, 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 redirect to Royal Society Range. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner Peak[edit]

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

Mass-produced import from GNIS; if only the name and elevation is known it doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND4, and I cannot find further details. 1,300 m is not a significant prominence in high-elevation Antarctica. Search results are mirrors or WP and GNIS. Mere existence (and a resume of the namesake) is not notability. Reywas92Talk 18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per name. We've all been there. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? This is not a policy- or guideline-based argument to keep. Reywas92Talk 22:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Royal Society Range#Features, an article section which already includes Stoner Peak, per the long term significance of the feature; predating human existence itself. And WP:NGEO#Named natural features which says that a feature which cannot be developed into a stand alone article using known sources should instead be included in and redirected to a more general article on local geography, not obliterated by deletion. Many have argued that "article development" means development beyond stub class but I do not ascribe to this position nor am I aware of any policy or guideline supporting the notion. I believe a well written, well sourced topic is worthy of "stand alone" inclusion even if it could never be developed beyond stub class with the only valid metric being whether or not the article meets the general notability guidelines which I feel that Stoner Peak does. That is why my first choice is to keep the article as is (subject to improvement). Since wp:gng has a subjective threshold with no exact bounds for what "significant coverage" is or how many independent reliable sources are needed to satisfy the plurality specified, I'll accept redirecting as the appropriate deletion alternative.--John Cline (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC) I have refactored my original !vote by striking vacated text and inserting underlined text for clarification as of the following timestamp and signature:--John Cline (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is wrong. Mere existance is not significance. There are over a million named mountains, and it is not our practice to have articles without further details. Expansion of List of mountains in Antarctica is welcome. Reywas92Talk 16:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if there were over a million Wikipedia articles on mountains, all sourced, as this one is, then we'd have a massive encyclopedic mountain range afloat in the net. There aren't a million mountain articles on Wikipedia, but there are quite a few that someone took the time to write, and this is one of those. Key word in the above: sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for recognizing the Matterhorn placeholder, good eye. There seem to be dozens of deletions per day, there are Wikipedia editors who spend most of their time here trying to delete things and having a fine time doing so. Lots of delete people populate the discussions and god bless the few editors who try to keep a daily check and balance on this practice (even as some of the more dedicated ones have been banned/censored from AfD discussions). This Antarctic peak has a good governmental source, and in a fair world of good sources that should be enough to keep it around. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The GNIS has over 14,000 place names from Antarctica, almost 6,000 of which are class "Summit". Of course many are notable, but that's a fallacy to suggest that because it's published by the USGS they're automatically notable. They need more depth and sources than a name database entry for stand-alone articles. Reywas92Talk 01:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Reywas92, I agree with you that mere existence is not a measure of notability and struck my initial assertion of long term significance which was inadequat as a rationale to "keep". I have inserted a more fitting rationale but ultimately will accept converting the article to a redirect as suggested by FOARP. I feel it would be collegial of you to refine your own delete recommendation to include the deletion alternative of redirecting the page which would actually mean a consensus was achieved. And perhaps Randy Kryn will consider redirecting as well. Merry Christmas and be well.--John Cline (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect/merge to Royal Society Range - there’s just nothing to write about this mountain, being as it is just a small part of a mountain range on an uninhabited continent. The article itself is simply directly copied from GNIS. FOARP (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDATABASE. Avilich (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the ping, which I'd forgotten about. Yes, redirecting to Royal Society Range seems fine if the governmental source isn't adequate to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Royal Society Range. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Royal Society Range with no prejudice against re-creating in the future if a substantial article can be written. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deformed Hermitian Yang–Mills equation[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion because of lack of notability. It has the character of an academic review article on very recent works, which may or may not become notable in the future. Two of the references have not appeared in journals yet.

In terms of the subject of the majority of the article, there are hundreds of mathematical research fields which are similarly active and notable. The subject matter is already discussed, to an extent and manner which I think is perfectly appropriate to its notability, in the last paragraph of Gauge theory (mathematics).

A year and a half ago (at the time, one of the references was only listed as being "in preparation," reflecting its academic review nature) I added a notability tag and comment on the talk page, with no updates since then. Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The original articles introducing the dHYM are 20 years old and have hundreds of citations (MMMS Nonlinear instantons from supersymmetric p-branes has 350 citations and LYZ From special lagrangian to hermitian–Yang–Mills via Fourier–Mukai transform has 150 citations according to google scholar). The equations are mentioned specifically in the Clay Mirror Symmetry book as a concrete mathematical prediction of mirror symmetry (obviously not the main focus of the book, which is 40 chapters long, but it has 900 citations). They are also discussed in the context of string theory in Clay Dirichlet Branes and Mirror Symmetry 10 years later, including the relation to Bridgeland stability (an equal aged and very notable topic). The mathematical study of the equations themselves didn't see much progress until 2014 for technical reasons (Jacob and Yau proved the equation is elliptic) but that paper has 50 citations. Of the two articles not yet published on the page, one is a survey of published work, fair enough the other is not peer-reviewed yet.
I think the subject is clearly notable enough for a page (especially in comparison to many other pages on the maths wikipedia) and one just needs to add in a few more sources which mention or discuss the importance of the equations (such as the Clay books). If this is the standard of notability being applied to mathematics articles, I fear we will need to delete half of the WikiProject.Tazerenix (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the wikiproject is not about research from the last couple years. Anyway, your page is mostly about recent research and you can't justify the notability of that research by pointing to reasonably notable works from twenty years ago. If recent research is notable, then the notability should be reflected by new sources; otherwise I think it's considered ok to wait some years before its notability becomes clear. Besides, the Leung-Yau-Zaslow paper is already referred to on the Gauge theory (mathematics) page in a way which I think is perfectly appropriate (although unnecessary). And it would be perfectly reasonable to also add a mention of the "Nonlinear instantons from supersymmetric p-brane" paper there as well. It is not at all clear to me that the mathematical research of Chen, Collins-Xie-Yau, Collins-Jacob-Yau, Collins-Yau, Collins-Shi, Jacob-Sheu, Jacob-Yau (i.e. the majority of the page as written) are notable by wiki standards. There are some other reasonably well cited papers (Freed-Witten, Douglas et al) that, as written, only have a tangential relation to the material. Gumshoe2 (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is clearly notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page. This discussion about whether content should be included based on peer reviewed research from the last 5 years is besides the point (WP:ARTN). Notability does not refer to specific pieces of content within a Wikipedia page. That is covered by verifiability and relevance of those specific pieces of content to the topic of the page. In this case the recent work is peer reviewed, verifiable, and relevant to the topic, without giving undue weight to any part of the theory. Just based on the general notability of the topic "dHYM equation" it would be perfectly valid for this page to exist even as a stub if you wanted to insist on removing all the content that is based on work from the last 5 years. By the way only half the content of the page is based on recent work ("Local form" and "Solutions"), the rest being implicit or explicit in the original and highly cited descriptions of the equation 20 years ago. I don't see how the age of peer reviewed references for some of the content on the page are relevant to the notability of the topic overall. I also wouldn't class the references to the dHYM equation appearing in the Bridgeland stabliity literature or the Clay books (or indeed in the physics literature) as a "trivial mention." Research is often conducted by presenting motivating questions or equations and then discussing work tangentially related to them, or inspired by them. In this case the dHYM equation has appeared in this context in enough work to clearly indicate "significant coverage" or at least "not insignificant coverage". Given the leeway that the Maths WikiProject gets with the general notability guidelines already, I really can't see how this page can be considered significantly less notable than most other topics.Tazerenix (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't so clear to me. Theoretical physics and mathematics have very different citation standards, so since MMMS and LYZ are at the interface, google scholar numbers are not easily interpretable. According to INSPIRE-HEP (cataloguing high-energy physics citations), about 700 other papers from the year 2000 are more cited than MMMS paper, and Strominger himself has fifty other papers more cited in his career. And the LYZ paper is around #5000 for papers from its year. On MathSciNet (centered on math citations) MMMS has only 20 citations and LYZ has 55. About forty other papers in the particular field of differential geometry were more cited from that year than LYZ. So arguments based on citation numbers for those papers aren't, for me, convincing. Also, there are a lot of things discussed in the Clay book (900 pages as you say) and I don't think it's reasonable to say that everything that's discussed for a couple pages in it is automatically notable. Looking through the top citations to MMMS on google scholar, it seems that most citations only refer to it in a passing way, but I'm not an expert on theoretical physics.
As for comparison to other math articles on wikipedia, looking at e.g. the papers in Category:Differential geometry, it seems very clear to me that dHYM is in the lowest tier of notability, so I'm not sure what you have in mind. There are a few articles particularly around systolic geometry which I think are comparable in some ways to your dHYM article, e.g. Filling area conjecture. In fact it seems that when those systolic articles were written, they were similarly about then-recent research which the author found significant. In my opinion they haven't aged very well, and I would be cautious about the possibility of repeating the same phenomena here. (Although in the case of those articles, the parallel to MMMS and LYZ, namely Gromov's Metric Structures book and "Filling Riemannian Manifolds" paper, are notable by any possible standard.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, looking at the topics of all other articles you've written, I think that similarly by any standard they are all notable beyond reproach. I don't think this topic is comparable to those.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I see 12 references currently with some but not unreasonably much overlap, so I'm not sure I understand the point in the OP. The age and citations mentioned above also point to notability. I think standards for notability are also a bit less for a highly technical topic like this (sometimes only needing 2 or 3 good sources), but I will let domain experts comment more on that. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We're not talking about a grandiose Theory of Everything proposal posted online three months ago, but a topic that entered the peer-reviewed literature in the year 2000, and which attracted attention rather than vanishing into obscurity. I think we're OK holding onto this page. Was Mariño et al. (2000) the most influential paper of the year? No, but it doesn't have to be. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my own position, I agree with your (Xor easter) characterization. My sole caveat is that I would estimate that such a standard applies equally well to at least tens of thousands of math papers (and I think this is a conservative estimate). And to Caleb Stanford, I don’t understand what point you thought I was making; I didn’t have anything about overlap in mind. Gumshoe2 (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable, multiply sourced content written up without puffery. I see no value in deleting this kind of content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:04, 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 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 13:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medalists at the BWF Super Series Finals[edit]

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

There is no article linking to to this article, no interwiki, and wrong information since there is no bronze medal awarded at this event. Stvbastian (talk) 02:36, 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 01:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I-recycle[edit]

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

Unclear notability since September 2010; Article itself notes that as of February 2011, the domain had become parked, and I'm struggling to find any reference to it, though this may be muddled by it's rather generic name.

Either way, it appears that this website never seems to have gotten off the ground, and hasn't received any notable coverage from outside sources. Pokemonprime (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, never heard of it and I'm not finding any references either. Mujinga (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article describing the proposition of an initiative which appears to have existed only briefly. Searches are not finding coverage needed to establish notability (WP:NORG / WP:NWEB / WP:GNG). AllyD (talk) 08:17, 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 11:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of submerged places in France[edit]

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

A somewhat odd list that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. There are no sources at all in the article, which makes the current contents WP:OR. None of the actual "submerged" places listed seem to be notable enough to have their own articles. A couple of them are briefly mentioned in broader articles, but most don't even have that. I tried to locate sources on the overall topic, using a number of different search terms, and was unable to find anything. I was originally going to PROD it, but then figured it would be a better fit at AFD, in case someone would be able to find French language sources on the topic I could not during the discussion period. Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this it was partially submerged or perhaps partially demolished in order to build the dam. https://www.envie-de-serre-poncon.com/guide/rousset Mccapra (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 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 no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 00:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doom9[edit]

Doom9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The forum fails WP:N and WP:WEB - especially on the term of WP:INHERITWEB. Notable information about projects they helped developed such as Media Player Classic, x264, ffdshow, VirtualDubMod should be kept to their respective articles. – The Grid (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 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 redirect to Jakks Pacific#Plug It In & Play TV Games. ✗plicit 00:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atari Plug and Play TV Game[edit]

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

Article consists of a game listing for two entirely non-notable plug and play consoles, which just repackage existing games. Only references are a store page and a dead Cnet link, which looks to have just been a specifications page. Pokemonprime (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-HenryMP02 TALK 01:09, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_26&oldid=1064647258"