Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 06 December 08 >

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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hills Beauty College[edit]

Black Hills Beauty College (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)

"Schools are notable", except when they're not. While this is called a college, it's really a for profit cosmetology school, and therefore would need to meet a higher standard than a secondary school. A BEFORE indicates no such sourcing, with many results being limited to "X is a graduate of the school". Speedy declined, which I agree with (courtesy @ElKevbo:), but I am not finding any significant, in depth coverage to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 23:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The institution is not listed in IPEDS which is not a good sign. The institution's website claims that it's accredited but the link on the website doesn't work. In fact, none of the links appear to work. I'm not sure this institution is still in business and it doesn't appear that it made much significant impact in reliable sources, a plight likely shared by many career colleges. ElKevbo (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all discussed above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a for profit, focused course, tertiary educational institution. The default notability for tertiary education in the US for starters is meant for things that have regional accredidation, national accredidation in the US is basically cases where regional accredadation is being avoided because the place cannot get regionally accrediated. Beyond this, we intend it for full course tertiary instutions, not ones that are narrowly focused on preparation for one specific career type. The later can be notable, but they have to pass our notability guidelines for organizations, which this does not. Whether it currently operates should not be notable, because notability is not temporary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Early last year, the Department of Education eliminated the distinction between regional and national accreditation; they're all institutional accreditors now with no geographic restrictions for the previous regional accreditors. ElKevbo (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with all above comments and voters. Delete it. Jaxarnolds (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per a BEFORE, there's really nothing adding to notability whatsoever; given the lack of appropriate sourcing, this article should not have been created. --Kbabej (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In creator's defense, March 2010 was a very different time for school notability, although I'm not sure this one was ever notable. Star Mississippi 17:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - nothing to show notability here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, isn't notable enough for an article. Suonii180 (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramcharan Bharali[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ramcharan Bharali (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:BIO and WP:SIGCOV scope_creepTalk 15:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am always slightly reluctant to directly vote delete since I feel there can be local regional sources that could prove notability. So if someone who can read Assamese and find more, will be valuable. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is more or less the same argument that was given the last time and nothing was provided. scope_creepTalk 22:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. None of the sources in the article provide Bharali with any sort of significant coverage, and my searches (including in Assamese, which Google Translate seems to understand reasonably well) find only more trivial mentions. The GNG thus isn't met, and I don't see how any relevant SNG could be satisfied: the awards mentioned are not the sort of "well-known and significant" ones that could qualify under WP:ANYBIO #1, and the WP:NARTIST/WP:NACTOR criteria aren't met either. While I'm certainly willing to reëvaluate if additional sourcing can be identified, the fact that nothing has come to light in the aggregated 10 weeks that this article has spent at AfD leads me to think that there's nothing to be found. (On that note, I hope closers will consider !voting instead of closing: we really ought to avoid having three "no consensus, no quorum" closures in a row if at all possible.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above thanks for your work looking at that Extraordinary Writ - nothing to show notability here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agreed, not notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shravan Kumar[edit]

Shravan Kumar (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)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The article also reeks of original research as the references being used don't support most of the personal information. Some of the references don't even mention him. Those that do only mention him briefly or quote him. Taking part in a protest, hacking into a university website and absconding from an ongoing investigation.. Unable to see how any of these is encyclopedic or makes him notable. M4DU7 (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is cleverly disguised. The hacking thing, [1], source doesn't mention him so he is taking credit for it for no reason. Same goes for the protect. The scandal does mention him but even if we would consider that notable, it is WP:1E at best. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article need not to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:61AD:9998:3814:D0E7:E0CB:AB15 (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 7 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 that souring concerns have been addressed. Star Mississippi 03:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malefic planet[edit]

Malefic planet (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 very low importance article with absolutely unsuitable sources. The first appears to be a self-published work in the style of a children's textbook (complete with garish clip-art). The second appears to be a sort of self-help book which purports to teach readers how the stars can give "real world" answers. The final source is an "encyclopaedia", and therefore a catalogue of concepts in astrology and also not something we can use to establish notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (redirect) The Brill link (book from series on Magic, is an in-universe source) quoted above talks about its mention in a tablet related to Babylonian astrology. This has a mention on the article on Babylonian astrology, as is expected. 2nd link is an out of universe source but only gives a one line passing mention (not indepth coverage) while talking about Babylonian astrology. The third source Times of India, is an unreliable Indian newspaper that should not be used as reference. (See WP:TOI). Overall in my opinion, this topic fails WP:NFRINGE and WP:GNG due to the lack of reliable sources independent of the subject discussing it in detail. WP:FRIND states, quote:" In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. A similar action is needed on its twin article Benefic planet. Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing at all in-universe about the Brill link, which is to an academic work on the subject written by Francesca Rochberg, and it is an eight-page book chapter titled "Benefic And Malefic Planets In Babylonian Astrology", i.e. about this very topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Phil Bridger mentions, the book linked above is written by a respected academic, on Babylonian astrology. I disagree that the recurring treatment in works of astrology is not something that hints at notability: It is obviously a concept that a) has been relevant for thousands of years in astrology, b) is still referred to in books of astrology and c) has been the subject of serious academic attention (as shown above) outside of the in-group astrology books. /Julle (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So articles can be created on the basis of just one source that can decide the notability? Venkat TL (talk) 08:12, 4 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) 23:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of reliable sources itself is a good indication that this is not notable. Unable to find WP:GNG supporting sources, all these keep votes are based on a single source a letter about Babylonian astrology. Even the Babylonian astrology page only gives a passing mention. This page should be redirected to Babylonian astrologyVenkat TL (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a letter has been mentioned, but the main source that has been offered in this discussion is a chapter in an academic book. And there are plenty more sources available from searches of books and academic papers even if we ignore the "true believer" ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth[edit]

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

Russian film with no real coverage in reliable sources.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shyster (fishing lure)[edit]

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

This is a specific trademarked product, not a general "kind of lure". Notability not established with substantive sources (links are mere passing mentions), nor can I find any about it, fails WP:NPRODUCT. Reywas92Talk 21:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep widely used lure and well documented in third party sources, passes WP:GNG. I felt compelled to add a few more sources. Any trademark issues can be handled in editing--although I find it hard to beleive that the Rapala company holds that trademark since it was started in 1971 and the lure was reported used as far back as the 1950s and there's no link on the company page to this lure. That could be an oversight. Some confirmation may be in order.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is risible. "These include some of my favorites like the Mepps Aglia, the Panther Martin Spinner, Worden’s Rooster Tail and the Luhr Jensen Shyster." and "'My favs from the 1950s include the Glen Evans Co., Shyster, Fred Arbogast’s Hula Popper and the Wood Mfg. Co. Deep-R-Doodle.' Doug went on to say: 'The Shyster caught schooling fish, the Deep-R-Doodle caught anything with scales in Keg Creek and other secret areas and the Hula Popper caught largemouths feeding in the shallows far back in the coves.'" This is not adequate for an article; why is the concept of significant coverage so difficult?
      Glen L. Evans Inc. had the trademark 1972–1982, and Luhr Jenson has owned it since 1987. Rapala appears to just be the retailer here. Reywas92Talk 23:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing#Articles For Deletion as requested by the project.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On WP:SIGCOV: For me, I just go to directly to the guideline and read it. The gideline is clear: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There are mutliple sources that have provided the detail so the article can be created without any original research. The standard WP:SIGCOV is met and quotes in this discussion prove that. I don't know, maybe you think that the detail provided are only "trivial mentions" but that's not the case (certainly not for every source provided), There's enough to create the article from multiple sources.here's enough to create the article from multiple sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell is "I quickly caught several using a 1/8-ounce Luhr-Jensen Shyster, a small spinner." significant coverage?
How the hell is "These include some of my favorites like the Mepps Aglia, the Panther Martin Spinner, Worden’s Rooster Tail and the Luhr Jensen Shyster." more than a trivial mention?
How the hell does "I’ll bet a week’s wages that the perch will strike a 1/8-ounce spinnerbait or an inline spinner, such as a white or chartreuse Roostertail or Shyster" address the topic directly and in detail?
How the hell is "My favs from the 1950s include the Glen Evans Co., Shyster, Fred Arbogast’s Hula Popper and the Wood Mfg. Co. Deep-R-Doodle." significant coverage?
That is it – zero significant coverage, just mere passing mentions. Sheer insanity. Reywas92Talk 05:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it meets the standard in WP:SIGCOV by provididing the detail to write the article without original research. I'm sorry that you don't like it and that it makes you angry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those quotes are the epitome of passing mentions -- it is difficult to mention something while saying less about it. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The word is used once or twice, but the articles are about fishing and fishing lures so there's no real need to keep repeating the word in the source articles. If the article was (as a "made-up example") about the life of an attorney and it mentioned that at retirement one client gave him a gift of a "shyster" then that would be a passing or trivial mention. That's not the case with these articles. And there are many more (both online and offline), these are just a few that happen to be put in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Reywas92Talk 15:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree. Editors are free to disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald: I hope you will pardon this long and personalized comment, because I think it would be good to be clear about why your behavior here is so incredibly frustrating. Here is how the discussion went: R says, "I have found all discussion in all the sources about this topic, here it is: [list of a bunch of passing mentions]." You contradict, with no argument (just assertion). I say, "Those are obviously passing mentions." You now say "The word is used once or twice, but the articles are about fishing and fishing lures so there's no real need to keep repeating the word in the source articles." Please observe that this is a completely different assertion from your earlier (plainly false) assertions: you've shifted the goal-posts from "those trivial mentions are actually substantive" to "the articles contain separate substantive content on this topic, beyond what was quoted". However, even in the shift, you haven't made any attempt to provide an argument that could possibly be convincing to another person. If you are right that there is substantive coverage of this particular lure in one of those articles, you should be able to say what is the substantive thing it says, either by quoting or paraphrasing. The fact is that all you've done is make assertions without evidence, and moreover you've changed what you're asserting without acknowledging that. Those kinds of behaviors are deeply frustrating to anyone trying to have a discussion with you. --JBL (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 05:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fishing lure. If there were significant coverage in the four sources used in the article, one would expect the article be longer than one-two sentences. As an WP:ATD, this can be merged into the Fishing lure where there is a list and the redirect would enable anyone looking for info on this lure to find what we have. Not enough for a stand-alone article. MB 14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a single specific product, not a type of lure, and does not belong in the list on the main article. It seems to fall under the spinnerbait type, among of course dozens of other products. Reywas92Talk 14:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above as this is just a brand which is NN. MB 15:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, wouldn't a rename, redirect, and edit be a better solution?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (came here from ANI) - not a notable product due to lack of significant coverage. One sentence is not significant coverage. Not even worth a redirect - we don't create pages about brand name products and redirect them to the generic category because Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO. Levivich 15:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Good freaking grief. Those aren't merely casual mentions; those are bloody namedrops. Any editor who not only looks at those sources and claims that they constitute WP:SIGCOV but takes it to ANI needs both a serious lesson in what constitutes SIGCOV -- of which these brief mentions are the very definition of trivial mention -- and a troutslap into the bargain. Ravenswing 17:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources included in the article are simply passing mentions with no actual coverage that could be said passes the WP:GNG. Searching for any additional sources turns up nothing more substantial. As it is just a non-notable product, merging or redirecting it anywhere would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others; if there was more to say than just the very general text of this article, it would probably be here already. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I urge Paulmcdonald to bring their understanding of significant coverage into closer alignment with community norms. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Shyster lure by the Glenn L. Evans Company does get ample reviews in places, but they are rather short mentions. Just not a lot to write about for a fishing lure it seems. Seems to have been a rather popular item. The New York Times says the company was a major lure manufacturer once. [2] Maybe someone can find enough information about them to make an article and mention their popular lure there. Dream Focus 14:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what's provided above and what I found through further above does not rise to the amount of significant coverage required for a product. Not a Directory also applies. Star Mississippi 21:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Count per Liter[edit]

Count per Liter (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)

Just a dictionary definition - and a quick search shows that blood tests generally use "Cells per liter" rather than "Count per liter". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointed out elsewhere, the fact that a unit is USED does not make it NOTABLE. Secondary coverage of the unit itself would be required for that. PianoDan (talk) 21:46, 7 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 23:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Jabar (Bagram detainee)[edit]

Abdul Jabar (Bagram detainee) (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 role in WP:SINGLEEVENT secondary to Dilawar (torture victim). Would suggest a redirect. Star Garnet (talk) 20:46, 7 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 23:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Serum[edit]

Reality Serum (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. They released two albums on a non-notable label. I cannot find any significant coverage or other indication of notability. This 2018 peer review of the article came to pretty much the same conclusion. Lennart97 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Chatur Lal[edit]

Shruti Chatur Lal (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 first Hindu article is written in a promotional tone, the last line in the article "The Euphonic Yoga show will be taking place on April 1 from 4pm till 5:30pm at MCR-HRD Institute of Telangana in Jubilee Hills" just confirms it, the second Hindu Article doesn't talk about the subject in detail. The New Indian Express doesn't look like a reliable source, not to be confused with the Indian Express, which is a reliable source. The Times of India, which is a reliable source doesn't cover the subject in detail. Fails WP:GNG QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 19:44, 7 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 non-notable promotion per unanimous consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viddyad[edit]

Viddyad (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 page should be deleted because it seems to be an advertisement for a small and non notable company with pr type articles supporting it as a concept. It seems to have a very small number of employees and a very very small turnover.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Financefactz (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP and related guidelines. In terms of SIGCOV, a WP:BEFORE search in the Irish newspapers of record return largely passing mentions. For example, of the 9 results in the Irish Times, only one example mentions the subject in anything other than a passing mention (and at that it's a "pen pic" of the CEO related to an award run/sponsored by the Irish Times; not independent coverage). And, of the 20 or so results in the Independent News & Media stable, only one is substantively about the subject company (and at that only the same kind of "press release as journalism" we see for any other startup funding round/efforts). Otherwise it's all trivial mentions where the company's name receives a passing mention in articles about other topics/awards/etc. Not in-depth coverage of which the subject is the primary topic. In terms of NCORP, it seems that the subject is a relatively small company (with perhaps between 3 and 30 employees?) which received the same type of limited coverage many tech startups receive in the early/funding/growth-spurt days. Nothing beyond WP:CORPDEPTH that would allow for much more than the "brief, incomplete stub about the organization" that we already have... Guliolopez (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not a notable company, fails WP:NCORP. Spleodrach (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have just realized the page seems to have been created by their old digital marketing intern Tatiana Frantsuzenko and further cleansed by another digital marketing intern Aoife Hanlon who deleted the notices saying it was an advertisement. Financefactz (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORPJuggyevil (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the news sources are weak. Jaxarnolds (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:09, 9 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 23:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Alexeeff[edit]

Victor Alexeeff (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:ANYBIO. A before search found nothing on Google News and very little on Google Search. CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 7 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. Consensus is that she is not yet notable. Star Mississippi 14:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione Way[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hermione Way (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. Dubious sources JMHamo (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorting/California|list of California-related deletion discussions]]. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've done some work on the article and I think it now shows significant coverage in reliable sources. Mujinga (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivial coverage is not enough to show notability JMHamo (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say the two Megan Rose Dickey articles in Business Insider and the VentureBeat article are trivial mentions. Mujinga (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Appreciate the work being put into it by Mujinga, but I just don't think this person is notable. ~Junedude433(talk) 04:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not notable per WP:GNG. WCMemail 08:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having just one small part in a show does not make you notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Article is poorly formatted and not much reliable sources. HelpingWorld (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Thanks for your efforts, Mujinga, but considering that her brother's page is an example of the goal of a Wikipedia article (WP:WHYN), this fails WP:SIGCOV. A Google news search does not generate enough information to write a full article about the subject. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of chocolate[edit]

Outline of chocolate (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)

Duplicates information already found at chocolate articles and other related articles. I have read Wikipedia:Outlines, and that specifically says that outline articles are "Not merely an item list", which is what this article is. All of the heading correspond to sections of the chocolate article and other related articles, so much better to find the information there, instead of duplicating it in a bad way in this outline article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, The article appears to comply with the specifications in Wikipedia:Outlines and is not merely an item list. It has an appropriate structure and provides links which are mostly appropriately annotated for the reader's convenience. Outlines on Wikipedia are stand-alone lists designed to help a reader learn about a subject quickly, by showing what topics it includes, and how those topics are related to each other, is exactly what this article is and does. Regular articles (which are prose arranged in paragraphs) are intended as introductions to their respective subjects. They make for a good read, but they aren't all that effective for browsing or navigating an entire subject. An outline is intended to provide more direct access to Wikipedia's coverage of an entire subject via linked branches.
    Wikipedia's coverage of a subject goes far beyond the scope of the prose article on that subject. (For example, there are over 30,000 articles on mathematics). The arbitrary network of links embedded in paragraphs throughout a subject do not map out that subject very well at all, and they can't because the ability of the prose format to do this is limited. For lists, however, mapping subjects is a strength, especially for outlines.     If it is incomplete or contains errors they can and should be fixed. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not speedy keep eligible, as I believe it does consist just of list items, and therefore is not a valid outline. Which is something that actually needs refuting, rather than people just saying it's fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look closely you will see that it is a structured set of lists of annotated links to relevant Wikipedia articles, which is what a Wikipedia outline article is supposed to be. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You proposed deletion, so the onus is on you to show how this outline does not comply with the currently accepted criteria, rather than just claiming that to be the case. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This outlne is eligible for speedy keep, as all of the nominator's statements are either erroneous, or irrelevant to deletion. The nomination lacks authoritative cause based on the violation of a rule — The nominator has not presented a single rule that is being broken. The point of navigation pages, such as outlines, is to provide article titles organized for ease of access, which this outline certainly does.    — The Transhumanist   02:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is a perfectly fine outline —¿philoserf? (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep - this article is justified under WP: OUTLINE, but I understand the puzzlement, if you will, over the presence of Outlines on Wikipedia as they are at the minute. They're not a stand-alone article Type like lists seem to be, with a little purple badge of 'this is a list article', they don't seem all that used - 17 views on Outline of chocolate on the last day, iirc - and their formatting and layout really does strike me as oddly informal for our current-day standards. If an RfC on reshaping the Outline MoS came up, I'd be in support of a number of changes, as I feel Outlines probably need a revamp for the modern day.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Ineffablebookkeeper, if you have constructive suggestions for improving outlines, there is a WikiProject talk page where it can be discussed. Please ping me if you do, as I would be happy to see improvements to outline utility. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually outlines are stand-alone lists and should be rated as list articles (Which is the case with Outline of chocolare). · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets the current criteria for "Outline" articles. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - All outlines duplicate information found elsewhere in the encyclopedia, as do all of Wikipedia's navigation system pages, including lists, categories, timelines, indexes, glossaries, portals, navigation footers, navigation sidebars, etc. They are, in essence, classification systems (i.e., collections of lists) of Wikipedia article titles, while many outlines and lists also include annotations (descriptive text) to aid topic selection, sort of like restaurant menus do.

    Wikipedia has over 25 classification systems (some stand-alone, some embedded), that organize the subjects of knowledge, and that are at least 3-levels deep.

    The outline system is one of the deepest of WP's classification systems, going at least 15 levels deep in some places, and even more if you consider recursion. Only the category system goes deeper, but is heavily recursive, is decentralized, and lacks descriptions.

    On another point, there seems to be some confusion as to what an "item list" is, as referred to in the outline guideline. The scope of an item list is the members of a particular type of thing. The other type of list are topics lists, such as outlines (also known as tables of contents) and indexes. Outlines are general topics lists including all topics under a given subject. For example, we have the item list List of sharks that presents the various species of sharks covered on Wikipedia, and we have the Outline of sharks, which lists articles on anything and everything about sharks, including shark species articles. While outlines can contain item lists, they are not exclusively item lists, because their scope is all topics under their respective subjects.

    Some chocolate-related item lists include: List of types of chocolate, List of chocolate drinks, List of chocolate bar brands, and List of chocolate-covered foods. Meanwhile, the scope of the Outline of chocolate is all articles about chocolate.

    A fact you might find interesting, is that all item lists on Wikipedia are branches of the outline system (every branch of an outline is a list, and many outlines are multi-page) — they are all components of the tree of knowledge and are extensively linked together as such. Whenever an outline or item list is deleted, a gap is created in the system.

    I hope this explanation helps. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   01:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually there is an opt-in gadget to display short descriptions as annotations in categories, which I find very useful, but the category system also contains a lot of loops and miscategorisation due to bad practice (we need tools to find and fix them) which makes it less convenient for topic searches. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OPs objection is that it duplicates information found elsewhere. I'm not seeing anything necessarily terribly wrong with that. Presenting the same information in two different ways ways and places can be an element of human factors engineering, since not everyone gets information the same way. (There are potential maintenance and synchronization issues tho, true). --Herostratus (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is quite normal and even encouraged to duplicate information on some ways. A summary section when an article is split is an example of where we are expected to duplicate some of the information. Any list with annotated links, such as in a see also section, duplicates information, so objections on the grounds of merely duplicating some information are not valid. Also, and more importantly, information may be duplicated, but it is not all duplicated from the same article, small amounts of information spread over a large number of articles is repeated, and not necessarily in the same way as in the body of those articles, so it is not a content fork.Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per The Transhumanist and Peter Southwood. WikiJoeB (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is a reasonable outline article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quo (software)[edit]

Quo (software) (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)

PROD'ed and tagged twice for questionable notability, IP repeatedly removed [3], [4] with edit summary "(Cleanup)". No (significant) coverage in independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (software) is an essay, not a guideline or policy, but offers no rationale that would support notability and neither does WP:PRODUCT. Vexations (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Clarification: A WP:BEFORE search did not yield any additional potentially usable sources currently not used in the article. Vexations (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds is this page being considered for deletion? And please explain further what you mean by "questionable not ability" Chouette254 (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest reading the Wikipedia Software Notability linked above? The proposed deletion is on the grounds that the software does not fulfill the criteria outlined in that document. PianoDan (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming that I'm not well versed with WP guidelines. Before nominating an unsourced article for deletion, be sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations. One way to do this is to perform a Google books, Google news, or Google scholar search for the app in question if relevant. Simply stating "non notable" and "unreferenced" is not a valid rationale for deletion. Also keep in mind that the number of Google hits itself do not impart notability, it is the quality of each source (or breadth of a search) that influences such numbers. Chouette254 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which source, either cited or not, are you suggesting establishes notability? PianoDan (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is evidence of notability. Might be TOO SOON though... (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.5.99.127 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of stars in Ursa Major. Consensus is the star is not independently notable/deserving of a standalone article. Star Mississippi 14:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

41 Ursae Majoris[edit]

41 Ursae Majoris (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)

Back on March 20, 2019 I tagged this article with a {{notability}} template after a failed search for indications of notability. This was removed on April 24 with the message "notability established by HR catalog number". I performed another search today, but it remains non-notable. All of the sources provided are in the nature of large-scale studies; there doesn't appear to be significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. The WP:NASTCRIT guideline suggests it is "presumed" notable, but it clearly fails to satisfy WP:GNG and thus should be deleted and possibly replaced by a redirect. Praemonitus (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rahim Malazadeh[edit]

Abdur Rahim Malazadeh (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)

Has been tagged without improvement for months. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass GNG or NAUTHOR. Onel5969 TT me 15:29, 7 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. Interesting and well-constructed but neither notable nor encyclopedic. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TOP 10: Most watched - Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

TOP 10: Most watched - Eurovision Song Contest (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)

Unnotable series of YouTube videos about some unnotable internal statistics. All sources are the videos themselves. No reliable secondary sources reported on these videos, let alone the whole series, failing WP:GNG and WP:LISTN (since this is effectively a list). The material is better suited for a FANDOM site or dedicated Eurovision wiki. IceWelder [✉] 15:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @IceWelder: I don't have much to add. I think the article belongs on Wikipedia regardless of these issues, as it is in fact a series followed by tens of thousands of people, and having a place to collect all the data in one place is useful to both fans and people looking into Eurovision and its trends. There are no external sources or coverage as this is a series which relies on Youtube analytics that really only the EBU and YouTube itself have access to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImStevan (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You did put a lot of effort into the page, but Wikipedia isn't the place to put all information that may be useful. The notability requirements are there for a reason. External coverage doesn't have to be reporting on the data itself; it can also be news articles about the series, or as you said people analysing the trends and publishing their findings. The fact that those sources don't exist indicates that this series isn't actually that notable. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    YouTube viewership figures do not indicate notability under Wikipedia's terms. Please make yourself familiar with our notability guidelines like WP:GNG. As I mentioned, you can always transfer it to a more topical wiki, such as Eurovision Song Contest Wiki. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the one who added the notability header on the website as I couldn’t find any external coverage, although the stats are interesting this isn’t worth its own Wikipedia article but could be transferred to fandom Tai123.123 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is definitely an interesting group of stats, however I'm afraid given the lack of secondary and tertiary sources providing coverage of this series it fails the Wikipedia notability criteria for inclusion on this site, and would better fit into a more specific fandom site as suggested above. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very interesting article, but I don't believe it to be encyclopedic for the reasons stated in the responses above. Grk1011 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with the above three editors. Definitely interesting (and props to the editor for putting this much effort into it) but just doesn't pass the notability standards. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I hate !voting for something to be deleted which the editor obviously spent so much time and effort on, but I cannot find any reliable sources which significantly cover this, which is required by all articles on Wikipedia. I suggest that the editor take this article and maybe try to find a relavent Wikia to post it.-- Mike 🗩 21:10, 8 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 13:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Edgar[edit]

Richard Edgar (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)

Former weatherman on BBC, which is of course a prominent position but does not grant inherent notability, and there seems to be a lack of significant coverage for this bio to pass WP:GNG. His BBC profile cited in the article, while probably reliable, isn't independent; this article, about an incident involving him accusing another weatherman of workplace bullying, contains no more than a passing mention of him, as does related coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that the previous entry deleted under this title was a different person.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Literally nothing to see here! Nwhyte (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. No indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 7 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. Consensus appears clear that the sourcing present is not enough, nor has anyone identified further sourcing on which to expand the article. At this time, she is not notable. @Djm-leighpark:, if you'd like this article to work on in draft space, just let me know. Star Mississippi 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Rai Menges[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pamela Rai Menges (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 subject lacks indication of strong notability for inclusion in the articlespace. It also lacks SIGCOV from multiple reliable, independent sources. The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO.

A quick rundown of the sources cited:

  • AAAS: Not an editorial story; just a public membership blog post for any paid subscribers. Does not establish notability.
  • Aerospace Research Systems: The subject had an article deleted and now redirects to this subject. Not reliable and no indication of notability.
  • Springer-Verlag Book: A good source for information, but lacks significant coverage; also, the book itself does not establish notability.
  • Learning with Lowell: Not a reliable source.
  • NIAC: This is a PR booklet with only a few words that mention the subject; no significant coverage.
  • Energy Vortex: Press releases do not establish notability.
  • Star Sailor Energy: Press releases do not establish notability.
  • Cincinnati Public Radio: Two articles from this source are reliable, independent sources and contain SIGCOV of the subject. But this source alone cannot be used to establish if it needs its own article. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
  • University of Cincinnati: It is not an editorial article or news release, only a self-published page from an academic institution where the subject is affiliated with. A conflict of interest.
  • WIIS: Not a reliable source. An article submission attempted for this subject was also deleted by reviewers due to a lack of notability.

There was a previous concern raised over this subject and other articles previously in the articlespace affiliated with it. All of the articles were deleted except this one; and now the rest redirect to this article. Two deletion nominations for this article in the past ended in no consensus, despite the overwhelming majority in favor of deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, nothing additional found for sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure I would buy a used windmill from the subject of the article as many claims are futures and many claims are salespeak and need to be represented as such in the article. I was hoping against hoping for some action from STEM girls at Sante Fe college per the last press release; and I'll perhaps be looking for a STEM girls spinoff article at some time. And this reminds me of a redirect I need to do for underwater flying kites. While the sources can be argued I'm persuaded the likely consensus from that angle is to be a delete. However there is an Wikipedia:NACADEMIC viewpoint. And that certainly makes the University of Cinitati source ok. I suppose we're a "few weeks" since the last nom. an if I spend time on this this week the family will suffer so I'd like a draftify if this goes into a consensus delete, I've worked most of this from memory and I'd have to trawl another 4 hours of audio for other pointers and maybe take a trip to the states. I've also taken the time to fix a technical error in the AfD process. Closer to please draftify if this is deleted to avoid me making a separate request. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator would have done well to avoid the "sour grapes" references to previous AfD's. A brief mention that they didn't reach consensus would have been sufficient. Looking over the sources, only Cincinnati Public Radio and Bentley even approach the level of coverage and independence we need per WP:GNG. The 2015 CPR article reads like a press release and doesn't discuss the subject in any depth. The 2019 CPR article is the best presented so far, but still very weak coverage of the subject herself. The mention in Bentley is trivial. So, weak delete despite, not per, the nom. Happy to revisit my !vote if another independent source is found; if kept this article needs a rewrite to be less resume-like. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Poorly written and unconvincing. Nwhyte (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (unless a consensus to keep emerges): With @Nwhyte'slagging my work off as Poorly written and unconvincing, which to a degree is hardly surprising given the history of this being done under XfD. This on top of in this XfD the nom. almost unbelievably taking an admin (and to a degree myself) to ANI for disruption; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#Disruptive Conduct with that likely causing delete voter's VQuakr here. In the end I feel the nom. is obsessed with winning this one. It is possible Menges might scrape a no-consensus keep with a very good argument; but a further RS is definitely needed. I am personally convinced Menges is clever, and a quotable Subject Matter Expert in some areas. However all her claims, while likely having a basis, may stretch reality to a large degree. And that needs to be carefully presented in any return to mainspace, because this may yet be TOOSOON. As a final point I note the nom's non-notabble challenge about WIIS: Not a reliable source. An article submission attempted for this subject was also deleted by reviewers due to a lack of notability. This refers to Women In International Security which received a CSD:A7 on 15 November 2007 with a version falling on 2016 due to Copyright infringement+G11+G12. Additionally there is a version by myself which I believe possible for article space: and the cherry-pciking of a 14-year old A7 for a sustained current women's organisation might be inappropriate. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajarshi Janak Campus[edit]

Rajarshi Janak Campus (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 private institute does not meet WP:GNG. Previously rejected draft by Aoyoigian. DMySon (talk) 13:32, 7 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. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zannetos Mytidis[edit]

Zannetos Mytidis (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)

Badly sourced BLP either written by Mytidis himself or his agent. He has 2 games of football to his name 8 years ago (with no subsequent appearances) which provides a technical and weak passing of WP:NFOOTBALL but there is clear consensus within the community that such a weak passing of the SNG does not provide protection from needing to pass WP:GNG. A Google News search yielded nothing decent and nor did a Greek language search. Coverage in Sigma Live is weak stuff like this. No detailed independent coverage of the footballer. Even if this is somehow kept, it still needs ridding of all of the WP:OR, which would remove almost the entire article anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Charalambous[edit]

Christos Charalambous (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 sole weak claim to notability is 5 mins of football 5 years ago, after which he played in the lower divisions for a bit then seemingly disappeared altogether. There is plenty of consensus that such a claim to notability can be challenged and WP:GNG can and should take priority in such cases. With that in mind, a Greek language source search and a Google News search returned no coverage about this particular Charalambous. There is a Dialogos journalist of the exact same name which distorts the results. Also, please don't be fooled by articles like this one; this relates to a 45 year old coach so clearly not the same man. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nomination--dashiellx (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom and without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Cypriot/Greek sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Takshashila Institution[edit]

The Takshashila Institution (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)

An unaccredited institute. Does have media mentions that's because the authors from their institute are writing on multiple news portals (mentioning institution's name in their bylines) but besides that there is zero or near about zero coverage on it. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I remember them and their work. Surely do good work but are not notable as per Wiki policies. Not making any waves at Google Scholar either [5]. They can become notable in future if their work (report, strategies etc) is discussed, analyzed and critiqued in WP:RS in an independent way. But for now, they are not notable. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 13:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Medical Licensing Examination[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It's an exam, and that's about it. Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the MCAT is also "just an exam" if that's how you want to look at it. Egypt is a pretty large country so there must be plenty of people sitting this exam, so you would expect some news coverage. And that's what I see in the AR wiki version of the article: 1 2. It's a WP:GNG pass based on that alone, and probably a further search done using the Arabic name would turn up more hits. FOARP (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things: your first diff doesn't work. There's a difference between an exam to get into school and a licensing exam. I would think there's going to be a lot more coverage about the MCAT, the LSAT, or the SAT (broader), than about individual licensing exams. In the US we license professionals by state. Do those exams have articles (just curious)? --Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've fixed the link and it should hopefully work for you now. I don't see any real difference between a university-entry exam and a licensing exam, since both are ultimately just exams, and if you've sat both kinds of exams you'll see how the experience doesn't really differ that much (except that there's typically a lot more riding on the licensing exam and you're often having to hold down a full-time-job when you do it, so they're way more stressful, and often more difficult). In my field USPTO registration examination is a stand-alone article, though the actual exam I most recently passed (a gruelling 4-day pen-and-paper affair with up to 7 hours each day spent in writing in exams) is discussed under a more general article (but would be a WP:GNG pass as a stand-alone article). If you can propose a target for this to be merged to I could consider flipping to merge, but the WP:GNG pass makes this a definite do-not-delete. FOARP (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about 1 2 3 ? All are WP:NEWSORG sources, and all are stories focusing entirely on the exam. FOARP (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per sources presented above. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. North America1000 12:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ariane flight VA254[edit]

Ariane flight VA254 (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)

Contested blank-and-redirect to List of Ariane launches (2020–2029)#2021. This isn't a particularly notable launch, there's no information other than the statistical information (including the manifest) which is better presented as part of a list. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is part of a series being built, deleting it would be inconsistent. I disagree that there is no information in the article, I would rather say that it is concise. Moreover, it is still a sub, could be elaborated, and hasn't reached maturity yet. I also disagree that the article is not notable, several sources (including established international newspapers) have published articles about it. I would suggest further editing rather than deleting. benrem (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral there are sources which suggest there is some independent notability but equally the information presented here would be suitable for the list article, as suggested by the nom. Polyamorph (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Nominator is a sock puppet of a blocked user. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Dirty to Me (film)[edit]

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

PleaseDoNotBend (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Procedural keep No reason for deletion presented. Also, it seems like the nominator copied their userpage from a true adminstrator, and this may possibly relate to this. Nate • (chatter) 10:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Absence of a deletion rationale. Justarandomamerican (talk) If you're here to build a encyclopedia, have a nice day doing so! 13:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator prodded the article with the rationale, "Illegal Content. Promotional." The nom escalated to AfD 2 minutes later. This stub is horrendously sourced, but this is one of the better-known Golden Age porno flicks. Only rationale in sight appears to dubious, as Wikipedia is not censored and the stub is not obviously promotional. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 7 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 give up. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Batternut (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Wolf (lyricist)[edit]

Donald Wolf (lyricist) (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)

Considered only to pass SNG (music) not GNG, to discuss delete / merger with one of his songs. Batternut (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing deletion of this article because, while the subject seems to pass the SNG (Wikipedia:Notability (music)) it seems to fail the GNG, I think merger into another article, ie one of his songs such as Azure-Te (Paris Blues) may be suitable, or possibly a list article itemising his works, per WP:ATD-M? Batternut (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Batternut (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Batternut you originally drafted this article in May 2021 [6], it was declined by Robert McClenon at AfC in June [7], then yesterday you moved it to mainspace [8] and immediately started this AfD nomination, seeking "a focussed discussion"? This seems a strange use of the (already creaking) AfD process to seek a discussion venue for which it is probably inappropriate. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The summary by AllyD is correct - the discussion or advice I was hoping for was from those with merge-and-delete experience to indicate whether merging into a song article might fit WP policy for a composer passing the music notability criteria for composers and lyricists (lyrics credit for multiple notable songs). A more appropriate process or approach may be available, I don't know... Batternut (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Moving a declined draft to mainspace just in the hope that AfD can provide a venue to discuss a topic is not appropriate use of the AfD process (nor has it proved fruitful over the past 6 days). Better to return to draft and contniue the prior use of its Talk page as the discussion venue. AllyD (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh Shukla (journalist)[edit]

Saurabh Shukla (journalist) (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 indication of notability, a WP:BEFORE search doesn't produce much. The citations in the article are primarily where he is the author or interviewer. Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't qualify notability guidelines for creative professionals. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:11, 9 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. Anarchyte (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institutional System[edit]

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

This is a completely unsourced and unencyclopedic stub with dangling sentence fragments and virtually no in-links. Created in 2016 with a title that returns no results in Google books referring to French law (ostensibly what the article is about). Otoh, Gaius' textbook "Institutions" described a system in ancient Rome from which French civil law apparently took some features, but if this article is entitled "Institutional System" then it should be about ancient Roman law (as is the German article de:Institutionensystem, linked to this via d:Q1665194) or else if it's about French law then it should be called "Civil law in France", as is the French article (fr:Droit civil en France) linked to Q1665194. In short, a schizophrenic article with no sources, a mess; just put it out of its mercy and let someone recreate "Institutional system" based on the German article, and Civil law in France based on the French article without having to deal with this. Mathglot (talk) 05:03, 7 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 Kyriacos C. Markides. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Magus of Strovolos[edit]

The Magus of Strovolos (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)

Unnotable book with no significant independent reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason I'm arguing for a redirect is that I am finding coverage for his other books (reviews) and this book has been used as a source. I think that if there are sources, then they're likely not on the internet because of how long ago it was published. Essentially I think that there's the potential for someone to find more and if this happens to occur after the AfD then the redirect can be undone. I don't think that this is at particular risk of being restored without there being sourcing, so there's nothing to lose by making a redirect. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above while keeping the article history as it is not a total lost cause, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per ReaderofthePack is fine, book doesn't meet BKCRIT. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:01, 11 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 University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine. Clear consensus not to retain the article. Any editor is welcome to merge the content from behind the redirect if they so desire. Daniel (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases[edit]

Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases (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 doubt this research institute in notable. It fails WP:NORG by not having independent coverage of its activities. Currently, the article is composed of unsourced puffery about how great CRND is (no mergeable material), with one citation to a website run by the research institute. The best sources that could be found so far was this [9] article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It details that Peter St. George-Hyslop (a director at the centre) made an important discovery relating to Early-onset Alzheimer's disease at the university, more specifically a gene that causes most cases of it. However, the article deals exclusively with Peter St. George-Hyslop, and does not even mention CRND. While Hyslop is certainly notable, WP:INHERITORG makes it clear that the Centre does not inherit notability solely because one person made some important discoveries while working there. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BRANCH-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 05:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this clearly fails WP:BRANCH and other relevant notability guidelines. Since everything about it is extremely trivial and on other things. So from what I can tell there's no valid reason to keep it. I don't even think it would be worth a redirect since the article title is way to general to be a useful redirect term. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking independent sources, evidence of notability, and evidence of the primary claim about research. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 12:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makeyevka, Kursk Oblast[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Plotavets, Kursk Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Popovka, Fatezhsky District, Kursk Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malikhovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kurashovka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mass-created cookie-cutter articles on Russian villages with population <10. These fail WP:GEOLAND due to A) lack of legal recognition and B) no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The sources provided appear to be either government documents (census tables etc) or autogenerated sites that scrape databases to calculate weather, post office locations, distance to nearest railroad, etc with no fact checking. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - The subject of these articles are Russian Selos. Similar to the previous Turkish Mahalle and Iranian ābādī cases this appears to be a term that can be translated both as a "village" and as a "rural locality". The census data therefore should not be taken automatically as indicating that there is a legally-recognised populated place at the location, instead this may simply be a census-taking unit covering a basically homogenous area of land, perhaps even a single farm. Importantly, these Selos are not described as having any form of actual self-governance, not even a head-man or similar figure, but appear to be governed at district level. Evidence of legal recognition per WP:GEOLAND#1 is therefore missing.
Turning to whether a GNG pass can be shown, there is no evidence whatsoever that any reliable, independent source has ever written anything in terms of significant coverage about these locations, much less the multiple instances of significant coverage required under GNG. Instead what we have here are articles stitched together using bare mentions in sources of varying reliability.
There is a clear BOTPOL issue raised here as these articles show every sign of at least WP:MEATBOT-style editing, including the propagating of basic, unfixed errors from one article into another through cutting and pasting. The transport links sections especially smell of automatically-generated content, describing as they do links to roads many miles from the actual location simply to pad out the content of each article. The creator at the very least should lose the autopatrolled bit until they can show that they know how to create clearly notable, well-referenced articles, and if this AFD ends with deletion I intend to raise this on the Autopatrolled talk page. FOARP (talk) 11:31, 9 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 12:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Property Notify[edit]

Property Notify (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 government and various bureaucracies confirming existence does not make the subject notable. Not seeing a single source that would qualify as in-depth, independent, reliable coverage Slywriter (talk) 03:47, 7 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 List of most-followed Twitch channels. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranboo[edit]

Ranboo (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)

Very cool guy. Non notable YouTuber that appears to be internet famous but lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of him making him non notable to warrant an article on mainspace. A before search shows me mere announcements with 0 significant coverage, self published sources and sources not independent of the subject. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b, Oaktree, the problem is, they seem to have hits here and there but two third are unreliable and the remaining aren’t WP:SIGCOV, minor mentions that do not rise to meet GNG, I can’t deny their fame but for notability, I fail to see it. At most, in my unbiased opinion, this is WP:BARE & WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect it somewhere, where exactly I'm not sure. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubbo is an related AfD which might have some redirect ideas. Another alternative is to make an article on Dream SMP members (or make the list directly on Dream SMP, but might be too long for it), they tend to be discussed as group so notability might be able to be established for that kind of article. Jumpytoo Talk 18:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jumpytoo: There are a few contradictions with these.
    L33tm4n (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right on the first point, so if the target is decided to be there it would need to be a merge not a redirect. And yeah, I found it weird that the Dream SMP article has a list of guest stars, but not a list of people who actually are part of the group. Jumpytoo Talk 21:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jumpytoo: Perhaps a redirect to List of most-followed Twitch channels is appropriate in the meantime? He's number 39 on there. Ss112 06:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I guess that is the better target for now. If the cast list does get made with some info about each person, then changing the redirect to Dream SMP could be considered. Jumpytoo Talk 22:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Super Ultra Very Weak) Keep @Celestina007: Did you read these sources when doing your Before search? At a quick glance I found that Ranboo not only received coverage from Dot Esports and Gamepur, but was the main focus of the articles themselves, each discussing specific aspects of his career. The first article talks about his recent milestone of 4 million Twitch followers, describing his following as "on par with some of the largest content creators on the platform" and stating that "Ranboo has grown his platform and online presence immensely." It also contains other biographical info about him (like his privacy and elusive persona similar to Dream). The second article from the same outlet delves into his affiliation with the Dream SMP and a Minecraft tournament he participated in (which may be routine, but the first paragraph seems to establish a credible claim of importance). Finally, the third source talks about his income as revealed from the Twitch leak from last month. You may argue that he hasn't had any significant achievement on his own, like winning some prestigious award or making a viral meme. But clearly these outlets recognize him as a prominent content creator, both as a member of the Dream SMP and a popular Minecraft gamer on his own merits. I will say that I kind of agree he is a WP:TOOSOON subject, but these sources for now have enough content that we can extract in order to make a Start-class page.
As for the outlets' reliability, Dot Esports is considered fully reliable in WP:VG/RS while Gamepur, while inconclusive, is an outlet which Gamurs Group, the same group which owns Dot Esports, also owns. In a post I made a couple months ago I wrote that Gamepur does have an editorial staff, and someone else pointed out that several of the staff had written for other reliable outlets. I believe the outlet should be fine to use and enough to support his notability. There are also other outlets like HITC and Game Rant that have written about him, which are quite fringe outlets, but have some usable content.
TL;DR: I think these three sources are enough to establish bare notability for Ranboo. Also: the Gamepur source was already in the article before this deletion discussion. PantheonRadiance (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT - Also found these sources as well: a Looper article listing him as a Twitch streamer who "blew up" in 2021, and a Digital Trends article in Spanish. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of most-followed Twitch channels or Dream SMP. While Ranboo is the 39th most-followed Twitch channel, apparently the 16th biggest earner on the platform (going by the leaked earnings), and is well known as a Minecraft streamer, there's really not a lot of coverage in news sources that could sustain an article. I acknowledge the few sources there are at present, but I think it's a while yet before we get anything of substance or before he truly distinguishes himself outside of just streaming—then I think we might get something more in-depth. At present, he really doesn't do a lot besides basic Twitch streaming. He's a very private person and talks a lot about ideas for content that never come to fruition, and from a personal standpoint, I think that's one of the aspects that's holding him back from the news coverage that other more open and motivated streamers have gotten. Ss112 06:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a consensus to redirect the article, but we're divided between two targets indicated above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect. Nothing in the sources to suggest significant coverage in reliable sources beyond routine "Youtuber X has Y amount of Followers/How much does this Youtuber make?" churned out articles. nearlyevil665 06:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of most-followed Twitch channels. Once he is covered more widely, the page can be restored. I think it shouldn't redirect to Dream SMP for a few reasons:
    • He isn't even mentioned on the Dream SMP article. Even if a cast list were to be added to Dream SMP (as is being discussed), his contributions to the server aren't mentioned there either. If those were added to the article, then I would say to redirect there. But there aren't any sources for his Dream SMP bits as far as I can tell.
    • While a large portion of his influence and popularity does stem from Dream SMP and the things he does for it, a significant portion also stems from outside the server. It would be like redirecting TommyInnit to Dream SMP - doing his online legacy a disservice. M2r1k5 (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of most-followed Twitch channels. There simply just isn't enough reliable coverage about this individual in reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of most-followed Twitch channels for now. If there's consensus to add a cast list to Dream SMP, the page could also be redirected there if consensus also says so. Could also be a redirect with possibilities per the sources that User:PantheonRadiance found. Also have no prejudice against moving the existing content to draftspace (WP:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity). wizzito | say hello! 00:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of West Virginia Tech Golden Bears head football coaches. ✗plicit 12:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. C. Garrison[edit]

R. C. Garrison (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 significant coverage about coach for a single season for a defunct NAIA team – fails WP:NCOLLATH. This statistical record duplicates the main article, List of West Virginia Tech Golden Bears head football coaches (so a redirect would be acceptable, though I'm not sure why even that list would be notable when there's not even coverage of the team itself, just West_Virginia_University_Institute_of_Technology#Athletics). Reywas92Talk 03:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 03:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the nominator is confused. This article is about a American-style college football coach in 1922. THe NAIA did not exist in 1922 so there is no way that this coach could have been coaching a "defunct NAIA team" -- the NAIA's roots are in basketball in 1937, didn't officially form until 1940, and didn't provide football as a sport until 1956. Additionally, professional football was in its infancy, with the National Football League starting only two years earlier. Admittedly the article needs work, but the addition of sources are an editing issue, not a deletion issue. AFD is not cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WOW you got me, checkmate! Okay, when he was coach it was a PRE-NAIA team! There is no automatic notability for football coaches, and the immaturity of the sport at the time makes it even less likely there's substantive coverage about him. This is in fact a deletion issue because he does not meet our notability standards, and there is not even an assertion in the article that he does. Reywas92Talk 03:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In 1922, College Football was in its 53rd year of play (having started in 1869), so the claim of "immaturity" falls flat. This was widely considered the highest level of the expression of the sport at its time on a national level. The "assertion of notability" (something that is not required for notability) is in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lololol thanks for the correction... now where's the part where there are significant sources establishing notability, not specious suggestions that being a coach during the "highest level of the expression" means he's exempt from that requirement? Reywas92Talk 04:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you would be accurate in your deletion nomination, we wouldn't have to chase this rabbit. Would you like me to write one for you? How about: Subject fails WP:GNG, having only one source from what is considered a "permanently dead link" and no other sources are provided. There, that's clear and correct. And if those issues can't be addressed, the article should be deleted. Do I have to do everything here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My initial searches did not turn up any SIGCOV. Searches hampered by the fact that Garrison is a common name, and we don't have his given name. Will hold off on taking a position for a couple days to see if others are able to dig up such coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I did some pretty thorough searches and came up completely empty. Not only did I not find SIGCOV, I didn't even find INSIGCOV. I'm leaning "delete" unless someone can pull a rabbit out of the hat. Cbl62 (talk) 04:48, 7 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. Sandstein 08:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mayerske[edit]

Mike Mayerske (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 significant coverage about coach for a single season for what was then a NAIA team – fails WP:NCOLLATH. This isn't a biography, it's a statical record that duplicates the main article, List of Pittsburg State Gorillas head football coaches (so a redirect would be acceptable, though that list could be merged as well to Pittsburg State Gorillas football). Reywas92Talk 02:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not the least bit disturbing: to the contrary, it's clearly in line with policy, which allows blanking-and-redirecting and lists AfD as an appropriate next step if the redirect is contested. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A topic does not need to meet NCOLLATH (or any other SNG) if it has met GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, he appears to meet GNG IMO, just barely, by the following sources: [11], [12], [13], [14]. I also found an article on his wedding here. I might expand the article soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see significant coverage here, certainly not multiple significant sources. One is a photo as junior college player, two are routine local clippings about a position at a high school, and one is a local announcement he was named interim coach. This is ref bomb material, not notability-granting. The wedding notice is next to a description of the Whoolery family reunion and next to that, a statement of Mrs. Dale Ray Hall being "one of the lovely brides of the summer season" – not journalism, totally worthless here! Reywas92Talk 19:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This is ref bomb material", what are you talking about? My view of "ref bomb material" would be mass listing refs after a sentence, not using a single ref to verify the information that precedes it. I also didn't say that his wedding shows notability, I was just listing what I found. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Short blurb about being a non-notable junior college athlete plus short blurbs about being a non-notable high school coach plus short blurb about being a non-notable interim head coach for one year still does not add up to notability. There are not multiple significant sources here. A ref bomb is not just "mass listing refs" but short refs that don't contribute to GNG, which can include single refs that verify minor details. Reywas92Talk 21:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well I see we clearly have different interpretations of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, I feel I'd be wasting my time to try to explain my views to you so I will not reply further on this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I cleanup up and expanded the article in this edit. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep additional sources look good enough to pass WP:GNG. While an "interim" head coach does not automatically achieve notability, interim coaches that recieve enough coverage to pass WP:GNG do. Nice work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The sudden, mass of nominations of coaching articles makes it difficult to dig into each on with the depth they deserve. That said, I view this one quite differently than coaches of The Apprentice School. The Pittsburg State Gorillas football program is one of the most prominent smaller programs of all time, having four national championships and more wins than any other program in Division II history. Cbl62 (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would have been better if this user hadn't created hundreds of article with zero sources of any depth in the first place, under the mistaken belief that college coaches are inherently notable. In fact, most of the articles I just nominated were mass-created on the same day, so the issue is there not here. The year he was interim coach, this program was still in NAIA and I don't think the record in DII has any bearing. Reywas92Talk 14:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unture. When the article was created there was one source and not zero. The original source (which is now deleted from the web) contained a good amount of information about the subject, more than enough to create the article without any original research. the article was created in an article creation campaign and had peer review under the college football project. This was a good faith article creation. While I would stipulate that my comments here are not a reason to keep the article, I also believe it is important to state that the nominator's comments above are not a reason to delete. I resent the implication that everything wrong with Wikipedia is somehow "my fault" because I created articles. We've gone through this before: see WP:CFBWEST.--Paul McDonald (talk)
        • Untrue. I said "zero sources of any depth", not "zero sources". The one citation (archived) is good information for List of Pittsburg State Gorillas head football coaches, it is not substantive biographical information about the subject. I did not say this was bad faith, but it was under the incorrect assumption that all head coaches are automatically notable. It is your fault that this article – and hundreds of others – was created without significant coverage from multiple in-depth sources, just duplicating the statistics in the list without notable personal details, but I make no implication that this extends to "everything wrong with Wikipedia". My comments above are a reason to delete, because I do not believe the sources are significant coverage that establishes notability for an interim coach at the lowest level of college play. Reywas92Talk 16:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per expansion and sourcing by BeanieFan11. I see enough to pass GNG. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after BeanieFan's expansion. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I previously questioned the notability of Mayerske at Talk:Mike Mayerske#Notability; this was after expanding the article on Bruce Polen, his immediate predecessor. It was entirely reasonable to redirect the article as written at the time; I noticed and I took no action. While the expanded article is much superior, none of the sources found thus far (and I ran across a number of them in 2020) amount to significant coverage. I think it's a reasonable presumption that such sources do exist though. I reached out to Pittsburg State earlier this year and they kindly provided scans of four football programs from 1984. They do show Mayerske and his staff, but unfortunately do not contain any potted biographies or anything like that. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a close case on the sufficiency of the WP:SIGCOV. In this case, I err on the "keep" side because of the prominence of Pittsburg State as one of the elite smaller-college programs over the last 60+ years. And Mayerske was head coach of that program for a full season; it's not like he was just interim coach for a game or two. Cbl62 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with others that the sources offered are not SIGCOV; and while there may be coverage in local offline archives somewhere, there also may not be, so I don't see why a standalone article based on biographical minutiae and WP:INHERITED notability is in line with our PAGs. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per significant coverage, in my opinion. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As has been mentioned, consensus is against an article. Anybody who is enough of a classicist should find in this discussion the required material for a mention at Pan (god)#Parentage, if they deem that appropriate, in which case this can be recreated as a redirect. The current content by Dave12121212 is, in its entirety: "In Greek mythology, Orsinoe (Ὀρσινόη) was a nymph and one of possible mothers of Pan by Hermes. (Scholia on Euripides, Rhesus 36.)" Sandstein 08:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orsinoe[edit]

Orsinoe (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)

Seemingly non-notable character in Greek mythology. I wasn't able to find any sources via multiple searches. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk19: there is a mention of Orsinoe as mother of Pan in Euripidi Rhesus: cum scholiis antiquis, so it is better to incorporate the name as an alternative of Oenoe (mythology).

Cui eandem, cave, habeas eam, que deinceps lin. 6 commemoratur Ὀρσινόη Nympha. Potius conferendus Pausanias viii, 30, 3. καὶ ἄγαλμα Πανός, λίθου πεποιημένον, ἐπίκλησις δὲ Σινόεις ἐστὶν αὐτῷ, τὴν τε ἐπίκλισην γενέσθαι τῷ Πανὶ ἀπὸ Νύμφης Σινόης
Facili quidem coniectura Siebelis ad Pausan. T.iii. p.295 pro Σινόεις et Σινόης legendum dicit Οἰνόεις et Οἰνόης. Sed ut dubites, efficit scholiasta Rhesi apud quem Pausaniae aut hunc locum corruptum videri. Neque enim dubito, quin eandem matrem et Pausanias et Rhesi iterpres significaverit. Ὀρσινόην verum videtur nomen, et recte fortasse explicat Welckerus (de Cyclo p. 323 not. 532), ita appellatam esse autumans propter τὰ Πανικὰ κινήματα.

--Ah3kal (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ah3kal: This is a comment on the ancient text in a 1832 edition. The name doesn't appear in Euripides' original. There is no reason to reproduce what seems to be a confusion with names of that commentator, by putting down the otherwise untestified name "Ὀρσινόη". ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Chalk19: My latin is poor, but I think the name originates to an ancient commentator, not just the modern (i.e. 19th century). The name also has a lemma in Pauly–Wissowa: de:s:RE:Orsinoe, so it is definately ancient (confusion or not, but in any case ancient) and should be refered at least as an alternative.

Τὸν Πᾶνα οἱ μὲν Πηνελόπης φασὶ [ἢ?] Καλλιστοῦς καὶ δύο παῖδας γενομένους (l. καὶ Διὸς παῖδα γενέσθαι?) (ἀφ ̓ ἧς ὄρος Κυλλήνης)· ἄλλοι δὲ Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ Πηνελόπης, ὡς καὶ Εὐφορίων· ὃν ἔθρεψαν νύμφαι· διὸ καὶ νυμφαγενῆ αὐτόν φησι τραφέντα παρ ̓ ἐκείναις. Ἀρ(??)ῆθος (sic) δὲ ὁ Τεγεάτης Αἰθέρος αὐτὸν καὶ νύμφης Οἰνόης γενεαλογεῖ. Ἔνιοι δὲ Ὀρσινόης νύμφης καὶ Ἑρμοῦ. Ἐπιμενίδης δὲ Καλλιστοῦς καὶ Διὸς παῖδας γεγενῆσθαι Πᾶνα καὶ Ἀρκάδα διδύμους.

— Fragmenta historicorum graecorum IV p.319
--Ah3kal (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, someone commenting (when ? ) on a Euripides' verse writes that "some" unidentified others-writers-poeple name Orsinoe as mother of Hermes. This is all. This is the only time ever that this name appears (it's not mentioned by Euripides). For me this not an alternative story within Greek Mythology. It's just a vague story that the most it might deserve is a footnote stating that a commentator wrote that according to some people Pan's mother was etc. ..., clarifying that this is the only "evidence" of that name. But probably that would be original research. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chalk19: It would be OR if it wasn't in RE. It's not our conclusion but REs (which is none the less a reliable source in greek literature) and most specificaly Gustav Türks , as he is the author of the aformentioned de:s:RE:Orsinoe. I may agree with your conclusions, but these are what constitutes OR. RE may be wrong, or due to the size of the lemma Gustav Türk may not have thought it through, but the lemma exists, and our interpretation of this is irrelevant.Ah3kal (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clear consensus article shouldn't exist. Whether this would be a useful redirect, or should be more properly deleted, feels less settled and perhaps worth doing in this instance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gulshan-E-Makkah, Faisalabad[edit]

Gulshan-E-Makkah, Faisalabad (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 not to be notable, is a small neighborhood location with no sources in the article that reference it directly, probably not necessary here (see WP:N) Redtree21 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My quick search using Google Scholar, Books, and News turned up essentially nothing. Only results aren’t relevant, and are instead talking about Faisalabad as a whole. WikiJoeB (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Using Google only turns up useless sources: several realtor websites[16][17], some map website (which I can’t link to, as it’s on Wikipedia’s spam blacklist), a business directory of questionable reliability[18], and a listing for some organization [19]. Fails WP:GNG and basically every other notability-related policy and guideline: no coverage, reliable sources, or really anything that hints at notability. WikiJoeB (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:12, 7 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. Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Canine[edit]

Henry Canine (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)

Coached a mere six games in the 1938 season at a small school and sourced only to a data listing, fails WP:NCOLLATH without any significant or biographical coverage. Reywas92Talk 02:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree but I think there's enough there to pass GNG.Cbl62 (talk)
@Reywas92: Do you agree that this and this constitute SIGCOV?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KESHER[edit]

KESHER (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)

Relates to an organisation which became defunct in 2019 and is no longer relevant. Danjones365 (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep; Checked over the article and referencing; my guess is that there are far more reliable sources out there, but it's hard to find on Google due to the sheer number of synagogues named "Kesher". I'm personally in favor of keeping it for now at least, as it seems to just about meet WP:GNG (though it's a legitimate edge case based on the current sources cited alone) Yitz (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Yitz. It has improvement opprtunity Mommmyy (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:N doesn't expire just because an organization does. Nate • (chatter) 23:12, 7 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 Black Sea. Merging can occur at editorial discretion. Daniel (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Black Sea[edit]

History of the Black Sea (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)

Content already included in main page Black Sea. Suggest moving any extra details and deleting this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.118.239 (talk) 19:08, November 26, 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf on IP nominator. Above text is copied from the edit summary from when they tagged the article. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 17:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it better summarizing of history section in the article Black sea plus expanding related history article that counts or otherwise?
On side note a) I do not get surprised at such deletion nominations but in general in same amount of time and energy can't Wikipedians expand related topics more?
On side note b) I am surprised at lower interest in Black sea related topic expansion among European Wikipedians
I have nothing more to discuss and add I am bowing out of the discussion leaving fate to other users. Pl. do not ping me for this discussion. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this topic meets WP:GNG ([20][21]).VR talk 05:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I have read the original discussion regarding the split back in March and I can understand some logic behind why it was proposed. I think there is scope for expanding this and its history is a notable topic in its own right. The parent article could maybe be trimmed a little more in this sub-section, but i'd probably favour expanding this as an independent article, than shifting it all back to the primary topic. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Closing a couple hours early per WP:SNOW. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madradeco Village[edit]

Madradeco Village (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)

Notability concerns. Note that this "village" is not a barangay, the smallest administrative unit in the Philippines so it isn't inherently notable. It's within barangay Indangan. I also can't find any sources to its claim. What I did found were several water supply interruption articles where this location is mentioned.--Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 7 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 Procedural close as wrong venue. Deletion discussions of redirects take place at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 00:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dimmsdale, New Hampshire[edit]

Dimmsdale, New Hampshire (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)

Dimmsdale is based in California, not in New Hampshire and redirect serves to confuse rather than help. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 00:22, 7 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. North America1000 02:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Convent School (Ahmednagar)[edit]

Sacred Heart Convent School (Ahmednagar) (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. Just sourced with a related source.Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. The Banner talk 00:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete just another school that exists. The school is old, but existence is not notability. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to identify sourcing needed to verify its existence, never mind notability. Private schools need a higher standard for notability than public secondary schools. Happy to revise !vote if non-English sources can be located. Star Mississippi 15:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 16:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 02:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ladoni[edit]

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

An empty article. There is no clarity on WP:NFO.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long review in Colta, several recent screenings e.g. [22] [23] [24] (which for a 1994 movie shows some staying power). According to the last "The film ... won awards at eight international shows, including the Berlin Festival and the Nika Film Award." Rusalkii (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a film which has received reasonable critical and media attention. The page needs work (I'll see what I can do when I get a spare hour) but that's no reason to delete it. The lack of English language sources should not be an argument for deletion. Akakievich (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per the awards and "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." at WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the above delete voter, passes WP:NF.Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_7&oldid=1060870109"