Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 13	July 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hangman Jury (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Basically WP:PROMO. PepperBeast (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article's text is copied at their Facebook page and several self-created music directory entries like this: [1], indicating a self-promotional effort. They have a few hometown gig announcements like: [2] in which the members supplied some minor comments that are used to fill space in this article. The article and all of its copies claim that the band was mentioned by the non-existent "Metal Examiner" and no original source of the quote can be found (there was once a minor music column called "Heavy Metal Examiner"), nor can I find any reviews of their albums. They got some very minor local notice and that is all. Also, they did not "play with" all the famous bands listed in the article; they were simply on the same festival bills. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable band. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band, and the article reads more like a promotional blurb than anything.TH1980 (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable band. Kevin19781 (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have been unable to find sources to back up the claims in the article. /Julle (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of visual effects in Indian cinema[edit]

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

Basically an essay based on WP:OR PepperBeast (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a disguised WP:COATRACK article designed to mention certain films in the current age without sourcing, and shrugging off any development before the 90s. Nate • (chatter) 02:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR essay. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Curteanu[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a municipal councillor in a small city and non-winning candidate for higher office. As always, neither of these are WP:NPOL-passing roles -- unelected candidates get articles only if they have other claims of preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy per se, and municipal councillors get articles only if they can be demonstrated as having a credible claim to being much more special than most other municipal councillors, by virtue of the ability to write and source a substantial article about her political impact. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and instead is referenced solely to her own primary source profile on the city's self-published website and run of the mill verification that her municipal council elections and unsuccessful run for the legislature happened, which is not enough to make a person notable for this. And no, "first person of her particular ethnic background to do this not otherwise notable thing in her own city" is not a distinction that makes her more special than other small city municipal councillors either. (Note that while four other past or present Whitehorse city councillors do have articles, all four of them have articles because they were MLAs who actually served in the Yukon Legislative Assembly at other times in their careers, and absolutely nobody else has an article just for serving on Whitehorse city council per se.) Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NPOL, coverage is just routine coverage of a city council election. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Easily fails WP:NPOL. Regarding WP:GNG, the little coverage that exists seems to be routine election coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, because there appears to be at least WP:BASIC sourcing distinguishing her from simply being elected to city council multiple times, e.g. The drive to get more Filipino Canadians into politics (CBC Calgary·Filipino Bureau, 2021), In small city Whitehorse, Yukon, COVID-19 poses unique challenges (The Phillipine Reporter, 2020), Whitehorse’s first Filipina city councillor campaigns to become Yukon’s first Filipina MLA (Canadian Filipino) RIDING PROFILE | Copperbelt South — Jocelyn Curteanu, Scott Kent, Philippe LeBlond, Lois Moorcroft (CBC North, 2016), Canada's Language Map Looks Way Different Without English Or French (HuffPost Canada, 2015), Feeling cold this winter? Try living up North! (Times of India, 2014), and multiple independent and reliable sources are reporting "first person of her particular ethnic background" with WP:SECONDARY context, including the political impact, so it is not WP:OR. Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A straight up fail of WP:NPOL. A councillor. What is there is routine election news. scope_creep^Talk 07:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Beccaynr - there does seem to be coverage of her activities outside of routine election coverage. Besides the sources already cited in the discussion, a quick search also finds things like her successfully creating an anti-racism committee in the city and her involvement in climate crisis debates on the council NHCLS (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While her actual accomplishments are nothing special, it appears there are enough sources to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC with sources presented by Beccaynr. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete City council members almost never bass notability. Candidates for public office will almost always get some coverage, but we have consistently decided that this coverage is not in and of itself enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now it's sitting in the no consensus zone, but some further analysis of the sourcing presented by Beccaynr versus policy may be of value. Giving this another seven days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete running unsuccessfully for political office does not lead to notability, nor does being a mayor of a small city--Whitehosue has 25,000 population--the usual figure or which we generaly codier that being a mayor presumes notability is 100,000. Personally, I would liketo liberalize therule about political candidates, but I have proposed it several times over the years, and consensus has always been against me. There are no special factors here--the coverage is routine and does not meet the substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices for GNG. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable politician per WP:NPOL. No other significant posts held nor activities done unlike, for example, Pipoy Silva, who became a councilor of Manila and briefly became the Vice Mayor. He was also an actor which merits him an article.HiwilmsTalk 18:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Istvan Szil[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. PepperBeast (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe there are sources in Hungarian, but I'm not seeing any reliable secondary sources in English. Curiocurio (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find databases, non-independent sites and some auction sites in Hungarian. There are few of these sites anyway, the rest of the results are just the words separately. Therefore he is not notable unless someone presents reliable sources. Also, tagged for notability since 2011 (!). COI also applies, as "ArtManager" (his username isn't very convincing either, imo) only edited this article. Based on his username, István might be his client or something like that. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After... (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately this fails NFILM as it has no reliable coverage aside from a review by DVD Talk. No reviews listed at RT either. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM, I couldn't find any non-user generated reviews other than possibly the DVD Talk one. Hut 8.5 11:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability to pass WP:NFILM. Suonii180 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenXLive[edit]

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

Non-notable software. PepperBeast (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 07:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Missing notability and significant coverage. - Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konark Sarangi[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO, and I failed to find sources indicating otherwise when checking WP:BEFORE. Moved to draft at Draft: Konark Sarangi by Mcmatter and then moved via copy-and-paste to mainspace. A S U K I T E 22:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 22:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 22:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 22:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG this is WP:SELFPROMOTION at this time. Nothing against recreating it should KT's career merit it down the road. Good luck to them. MarnetteD|Talk 22:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AFC is a voluntary process once you are autoconfirmed. If the author decides they don't need to go through the process when given the option then they risk their work being evaluated at the full criteria in this case WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE which this subject seems to fail both and are not notable enough for inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find enough evidence of notability to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable artist and this reads as WP:SELFPROMOTION Kevin19781 (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Passion Conferences. Daniel (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Younker[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. The one award he "won" was because of his involvement in a large group, not a solo award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- unimpressive album history, only three. There is an achievement with Passion: Let the Future Begin, with which, the article claims he won GMA Dove Award. The website, mentions him as the winner along with "Chris Tomlin, Kristian Stanfill, Matt Redman, Kari Jobe, Crowder, Christy Nockels". He was the lead in the song. Most of the references come from thechristianbeat.org. Leaning towards keep, but want to see what others have to say.Chirota (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 03:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This one is borderline. He did win a Dove Award for Passion: Let the Future Begin which qualifies him for passing notability under WP:ANYBIO criteria 1. That album also charted in the Billboard 200 and the Top Christian Albums which passes criteria 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. However, he only contributed one song to that album, and the sourcing here is pretty thin. I'm leaning towards keep but not strongly.4meter4 (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So again, he was one of a group of people for both of those works. He, singularly, has not won any awards. If he had not been working with the most prominent Christian musicians of the day, he would still be unmentioned anywhere, which is the case. Easily fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Passion Conferences, as most of hiss contributions and one award win are in relation to his work for the group. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The comment and !vote to retain are expressed weakly. May help to see if there is consensus for the redirection/merge instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Passion Conferences as suggested. I'll stipulate this is not my field, so I'll trust User:4meter4's knowledge. Nominator's assertion this BLP seems to fail GNG is sound. Looking at the page creator's userpage, they created hundreds of articles and possess quite a few awards for doing so, so I'll AGF. This is not one of their finer creations, but I don't see deletion as the best outcome. Redirect so that if the subject's career generates more independent reliable sources directly detailing, the page can be reawakened easily. BusterD (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yarah Bravo[edit]

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

An apparent promotion attempt for singer/poet whose work is largely in the form of guest appearances for others, while her own releases have not gained reliable notice beyond the standard streaming and retail services. The list of "Press Quotes" at the bottom of the article is revealing. For most I cannot find the citations requested by previous editors (e.g. a search at mtv.com brings up neither her nor the quote about her). The quote from BBC is real, but it refers to an appearance on someone else's album [3]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one, who created this article 7 years ago. First of all – I'd like to make you sure that I have never been affiliated with Yarah Bravo. Back to 2005, I was a fan of One Self – a collaboration of DJ Vadim, Blurum13 and Yarah Bravo – and their hit Bluebird. That's why, I had decided to create this article when Yarah Bravo released her second album – Love Is The Movement. She was the only member of One Self, who didn't have a personal wiki page and I thought that's unfair. For the press quotes, I took them from her old official web, but I also did't find the original sources. My guess – those quotes could have appeared at paper magazines or on TV. Back to 2005-2010, the internet wasn't so popular and common. If the quotes are an issue, I would love to ask delete them and leave the article. Gubaidulin (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the press quotes. They weren't what we call "encyclopedic", i.e. a natural part of a the kind of short biography Wikipedia tries to write; I think the article you created is better without them. /Julle (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not my musical area, so I can't contexutalise the artist or what I've found, but I found enough in the Swedish news archives to convince me that she belongs here. I've added a couple of references to major Swedish media. /Julle (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've read now, at least Swedish media seems to talk about her and her music in her own right, not just because of appearances elsewhere. /Julle (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the press quotes, which weren't very encyclopedic. /Julle (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Following addition of Swedish media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suriname0 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator - I don't have to look at Ms. Bravo's article ever again so I won't fight the eventual consensus, but I strongly suggest considering whether the sources recently added (mostly by Julie above) are reliable and significant. The Swedish interviews might help, but Discogs and MusicBrainz do not. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why you'd want to question these sources? The fairly long profile in Sydsvenskan is not just an interview, and Sydsvenskan is the major newspaper in southern Sweden. The TV4 piece – when she was nominated for an award – is shorter, but long enough on its own, and not an interview at all. /Julle (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for greater scrutiny and discussion on the discovered sources to help reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Artist is definitely notable, but more sources need to be added to the article. Kevin19781 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide more information on the sources that could be added to the article, if they exist. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I based my decision on point 5 of WP:MUSICBIO - Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). - She has had multiple releases with NinjaTune accoirding to her page. Ninja Tune I'd consider one of the more important indie labels, with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable. -- Kevin19781 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reliable source that meets third-party criteria is a BBC review, and that only mentions the subject in passing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie: Why would Sydsvenskan or TV4 not meet the third-party criteria, both being major news sources, neither just mentioning the article subject in passing? /Julle (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or not be reliable, for that matter. /Julle (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TV4 has one paragraph, which is a stretch to call WP:SIGCOV. The other source isn't accessible so I can't readily evaluate it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But since when did we start deleting articles because the sources are offline? (I've found it through w:sv:Mediearkivet, but it's from 2002, and as far as I can tell, it's not online in a more easily accessible way.) It's 933 words long part profile, part interview, definitely significant coverage. /Julle (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yashoman Apte[edit]

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

Non notable actor who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR as they have no taken up lead roles in multiple movies they featured in as required by NACTOR. A before search links me Times of India (which is no longer required as a reliable source anymore) and other primary user generated unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is one prominent role at Phulpakharu. But WP:NACTOR would require multiple. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User who created this article is now blocked for sockpuppetry Princepratap1234 (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete created by sockpuppets (Shp03 Wefffrrr)Ratnahastin(t.c)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to redirect, which can be managed via normal editorial processes. Daniel (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Babbage (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, lacking significant coverage or other indication of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Charles Babbage. This fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge. This is unusually non-notable even as articles on marginal films often go, and it wouldn't be appropriate to promote someone's personal project on the main Babbage article either. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the entry is it be removed, redirect to the section Charles Babbage#In fiction and film where there is already brief mention of the film. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, it's not appropriate for it to be mentioned there and if this article is deleted that entry should also be removed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanita Rahman Samanta[edit]

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

Non notable Bangladeshi model and actress. There are some refs in the article but they all are primary (interview). No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR either. (Also, author blocked on wikidata for promoting) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Afeef (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG and WP:NACTOR. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ballooning accidents. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Albuquerque hot air balloon crash[edit]

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

Local news story fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Weak sourcing and no claim to lasting notability. KidAd • SPEAK 22:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also fails WP:SUSTAINED. News coverage does not extend into July. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some coverage from July: https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/family-friends-say-goodbye-to-couple-killed-in-hot-air-balloon-crash/6165597/ https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/family-of-couple-killed-in-hot-air-balloon-crash-shares-fond-memories-as-they-cope-with-loss/6159604/ {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 02:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As horribly tragic as this event was, it is not the purpose of WP to serve as a news source WP:NOTNEWS. The event has been added to the List of ballooning accidents which is where it makes sense for this content to reside. Netherzone (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's made most major national news outlets and will likely have some fairly major effects on the Balloon Fiesta. Passes WP:GNG with flying colors. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 00:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it changes federal ballooning regulations, that would make it notable. Balloon Fiesta, not so much. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This aviation disaster seems notable enough, plus, to Squeeps10 point, it has been covered by many media outlets. Pyramids09 (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTNEWS.--Paolo9999 (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep similar accident still have article, but this one still short, need more to add.Airline Plane Crash (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC) — Airline Plane Crash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and honestly even international news coverage doesn't demonstrate encyclopedic significance if the coverage is not significant or persistent. If in ten years this turns out to have been a significant event with lasting coverage (and/or impact, but if it has such an impact it will probably generate continued coverage), nothing is stopping anyone from re-creating the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of ballooning accidents per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE. We don't generally have articles on events which generated a short spate of news coverage (even passing the GNG) but which have no lasting significance. I don't think this particular even is likely to produce sustained coverage. If it does get coverage some time from now, or if it has significant consequences for the industry, than an article will probably be appropriate. Hut 8.5 12:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about the accident appears to make it noteworthy for a stand-alone article, entry in List of ballooning accidents is sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Albuquerque is famous as a center for ballooning in general, and hot air ballooning in particular. In addition, Albuquerque is significant to the history of ballooning. The accident was the worst, in terms of fatalities, in the city's history ^[1]. Ballooning is an important part of the city's culture. These contexts make this article worthy of keeping -- it's not just a simple news item, and future readers could very well come looking for the incident here in the future.Greg (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultragod/Greg, then would it not make sense to merge/redirect this article into the the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta article? A section in the ABQ.I.B.F. article could be created specifically about accidents with sub-sections for each historical accident. So if readers were seeking info about the 2021 accident it would point to that page section. Netherzone (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, no, merging it with that article wouldn't be correct, because the accident did not occur at the Balloon Fiesta.

Worth noting that according to List of ballooning accidents there was another ballooning accident in Albuquerque in 1983 which killed four people (only one fewer than this crash) and injured another four. We don't have an article on it. Evidently it doesn't have the same significance years later. Hut 8.5 07:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No substantial contributions to this article other than by Aliaboomar. No prejudice against recreation by a non-banned user. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Tevfik Goksu[edit]

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

BLP of a mayor of a district of Istanbul. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] As someone from Turkey, I can clearly state that he has nationwide presence in Turkey and it's also supported by sources such as but not limited to ones I mentioned. — Pamphylian ● 💬 22:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of regular Turkish language news coverage mentioning him (more often than not mentioning him by name in the headline). Mayor of a sizable district in Istanbul (pop. 450,000+). Uhooep (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that being the mayor of a sizable district makes him notable since Kemal Deniz Bozkurt, mayor of most populous district in Turkey, Esenyurt was considered as not notable through lack of resources, after a tough discussion in trwiki. However in case of Goksu, as you stated, there are a lot of sources so he can be considered as notable. — Pamphylian ● 💬 10:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see whether there can be any further acceptance of the integrity of the sources mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though the article failed to mention that the person is group deputy chairman in municipal parliament of Istanbul, there's so many news about his remarks (which sometimes regarded as controversial or incorrect by some newspapers). Here is also an interview of the person in a nation-wide TV channel (however, please take WP:INTERVIEW into account). A Google news search gives enough amount of reliable news about the person. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was created by a notorious LTA. The account was globally locked on June 21, a few days after this AfD was initiated. If the account had been blocked earlier, the article would have been deleted per WP:G5. With this AfD leaning toward Keep, that's not really feasible. I realize that stub status doesn't mean an article should be deleted if the subject meets notability guidelines, but it is a nothing of an article at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Women's World Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. I am unable to find significant discussion of the tournament in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 16:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - author contested PROD with the message minifootball still not that world wide sport event so its still hard to find articles about its only in the association web site or when an event start which seems to be more of a reason for deleting the article rather than against it, unless I'm misunderstanding what they're trying to say Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a significant event at all. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON as it hasn't happened yet, there's no coverage of it. Maybe in a few years if it gains lots of coverage, it could possibly be notable topic, but right now it is not. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syeda Nipa[edit]

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

Almost certainly fails WP:GNG and does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR either. Could not find any additional sources to indicate notability. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No sign of notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- a non-notable actress or model. --Afeef (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 20:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Elizabeth II (Winnipeg)[edit]

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

No claim made for notability. One of several hundred QE2 statues, no significance. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non notable, lacks significant coverage in sources aside from the toppling of the statue being mentioned. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Apart from the latest incident, there are earlier sources such as this and that. There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with Government House (Manitoba) and so there's no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no content to be merged. The single sentence fits in quite well in the Iconoclasm section of Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries. I'm fine with a redirect, but I knew it would be undone if I was bold. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Floydian: Did you try searching for sources? Or was this a drive-by nomination? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you when you created the single sentence article with no mention of why it is notable? Or was this a drive-by stub creation? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Floydian, You're the one jumping to AfD here, rather than sharing your concerns on the article's talk page or taking a different lesser action. Also, you're answering a question by asking a question (or two). Did you actually try to find any sources before nominating for deletion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing that didn't echo the toppling article, aside from the government description. Seemed like WP:Recentism for the most part, with maybe 2 sentences describing the statue itself. As a featured content editor I'd figure you'd be more behoove to creating something of sustenance. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Floydian, lol ok well whatever, stubs are just fine sometimes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The content of this article suggests the statue of QE2 in Winnipeg is at least worthy of mention on this encyclopedia, but within the confines of another article, such as Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries or Government House (Manitoba). The statue itself appears most notable in association with both topics and appears to have very little if any significance outside of what would be sufficiently described in passing within those articles. Also, Another Believer, it is not entirely inappropriate to immediately establish a AfD with an stub of such brevity that lacks any detail not featured elsewhere. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pbritti, ... not when the nominating editor doesn't even make a case for deletion. Simply saying "No claim made for notability" and "One of several hundred QE2 statues, no significance" reads like an opinion and not an evaluation of sourcing, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another Believer, that's a fair criticism, but the sourcing seems to suggest that the statue does indeed lack notability and is simply one of the many QE2 statues out there. All that said, I would encourage you to at least preserve the material you have assembled already onto a sandbox page in the event of deletion, as it is possible you might be able to produce a substantive article if more pre-protest sources appear. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is probably abundant coverage of the statue's initial creation and installation in 1970 and subsequent reinstallation in print-only sources. The statue is included in the Manitoba Historical Society's list of Historic Sites of Manitoba. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. I've worked to flesh out the article a bit. The Description section needs more detail, but between coverage of the original installation, the rededication in 2010, and the recent toppling, I'm satisfied this subject meets eligibility criteria. The article should be expanded, not deleted. Next time try searching for sources before nominating, and giving an actual reason for deletion... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the significant expansion underway, it looks like there is a decent case to be made for retention on the basis of the statue's historic and artistic qualities. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pbritti, Do you plan to strike out your above vote? Just trying to avoid confusion here. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another Believer So, uh, I don't really know how to do that...I've never changed my mind before in my life. Consider this permission for you to do so for me. Good work, by the way. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pbritti, Thanks again. I'm not comfortable striking out someone else's comments, especially since the deletion nomination is for an article started by me. But striking text is simple: just add <s> before and </s> after the text. For example, <s>Merge</s> yields ~~Merge~~. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - While I still feel this is three sentences and a heaping spoonful of WP:Recentism, it meets the notability criteria at this point. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Eternal Shadow Talk 16:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Farooqui (activist)[edit]

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

Individual does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The sources given only contain a mention of him, or are advertorials. Google search also does not results in significant coverage, he's mentioned in a bunch of articles as the spokesperson for Dilip Kumar family (especially recently since he's just died), but nothing about him in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 15:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable individual with a lot recent new coverage. Connley (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An entrepreneur and is a notable person in India, though the article needs to be improved.^[2] GreatVlaue (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person seems to be notable and this article has many Reliable Sources as references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (of the narrow variety). Daniel (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

École Mgr-Marcel-François-Richard[edit]

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

I PROD'ed the article, but this was rejected with the reason "deprod; most western secondary schools pass WP:GNG". I disagree with this outcome, so I'm bringing it to AfD. I did not find suitable sources in a WP:BEFORE search to satisfy GNG, and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that secondary schools are not presumed to be notable. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Brunswick-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding those references, Eastmain. I reviewed the new source additions from this version: [9] and added thoughts below about if the sources can be counted towards the WP:GNG requirements for a topic to be a standalone article.
  - Ref 1: Ref 1 is the official website. Doesn't count towards WP:GNG
  - Ref 2: Talks about the school in major detail, so counts as a source towards GNG
  - Ref 3: Schools is mentioned in passing as one of 20 schools getting money for renovations. Doesn't count towards GNG
  - Ref 4: This is a piece about two guests who are going to attend a fundraiser for scholarships that are given by the school. It might count towards GNG
  - Ref 5: The Biographi article [10] does not mention the school. I think its inclusion would be WP:OR that the school is named after this same person, although it is highly probable that it was named after this individual. I removed the sentence and the source from the article because of WP:OR concerns.

With one source fulfilling GNG, and one perhaps fulfilling the requirements, I still do not think the school has enough independent covereage to warrant its own article. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How pleasant to read a civil debate. This one is a challenge, the school is tiny and one would not expect a lot of online coverage but all of NB seems to be a challenge. Our (WP) coverage seems underdeveloped and it is articles like this we need to boost that. I am marginally in favour of retain- but this is weighted by personal philosophy. OK- why? We`haven't found the documents that accountants must have published and retained relating to building,and paying the teachers. That is always the logic that generates 'most western secondary schools pass WP:GNG'. I will be interested to see further discoveries- what the kids are taught and what the results are. ClemRutter (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Francophone Sud School District per ATD. Since there aren't enough sources to justify this article and I'd really like to see the various stubby school district articles out there get more attention. There's zero reason they can't contain information about the schools that are in their districts. A lot of them aren't even up to the level of basic lists though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly still more to do here and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". For example, the page does not yet explain who the school is named after. That's Marcel-François Richard who is certainly notable but for whom we don't have an article yet. I'm going to make a start on that now. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG, as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Short article, and not a lot of sources, but enough that I feel we can have an article, agreeing with the editors above. /Julle (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted through G7. Geschichte (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samiul Mintu[edit]

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

The references are all recently created on self-publishing sites (all in the last week). Claim to notability appears to be limited to having an artist account on Spotify. Falling far below the notability standards QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. ~Yahya (✉) • 14:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a non notable musican. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 10:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As suspected by the nominator, the publications are either self-created or repeats of press releases, and reliable publications would not use "top rated" and "best" and "famous" for someone who was otherwise unknown until last week. Good luck to him on his self-promotion effort but Wikipedia is the wrong place for it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per {{Db-G7}} after page creator (see User talk:Singersamiul) requested it. – Athaenara ✉ 07:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novable[edit]

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

Start up that's been trading for a few months. Some comment in the press, but looks mainly like reworked press releases. Not notable enough (and spam like) QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Novable is a fast rising startup that made some good press in the Belgian and Brussels papers that I'm following. The article on this compagny is purly factual and it's in no case spam or promotion. The source are really reliable (L'echo and La libre are major papers and business papers in Belgium) --Xof2328 (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Factual does not mean notable. The comments in the press look like passing references, re-prints of press releases and other non-journalistic content. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems a Chequebook journalism. Fails WP:ORGIND Mehmood.Husain (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing a start-up proposition, sourced to typical announcement-driven coverage of their funding and that they already have clients. Such coverage falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nathan[edit]

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

Secondary character from a small comic, of so little importance to it is is mentioned in our article about said comic once in plot summary and then in 'see also'. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no rationale outside citing WP:DEPROD (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD); I also don't understand why Andrew removed the {{notability}} using the justification of the WP:TAGBOMB essay (since a single template is hardly bombing the article, and the article does not contain any assertion of notability, so the tag seemed and still seems perfectly justified). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very minor character, fails notability guidelines. Delete per nom. Waxworker (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - covered in sufficient detail at Prince Valiant, and anyone knowledgeable enough about the subject to search this term can find that article without the help of a redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Jones Beck[edit]

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

Our one source, which is below GNG levels, is an obitary which literally says Beck was "the best kept secret of Houston." Yes, she donated alot and was a figure in developing the art museum in Houston, but not in a way that made her notable, especially if her own obituary describes her as a secret John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but article needs improving. Details of Beck’s life are given here, here, here and here. We may not like it but I think you can donate your way to notability. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. There's a building named after her, her house is now a designated landmark, there's a book about her art collection, a major newspaper published a bylined obituary when she died, and the University of Texas chose to archive her papers. pburka (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and WP:BASIC. Biographical information is also available from SFGate, 2003, and there is a nontrivial mention in Texas Monthly, 1997). Beccaynr (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand, and add some of the sources now found. I've added one of vladimir's sources, for a start. It certainly appears to convey notability. Was there enough WP:BEFORE? PamD 08:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a constant push to create more and more and more durden on nominatiors. Instead of acceptaing that AfD is a discussion, and so we need to stop making the entry harder and harder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her collection, donations, and patronage of the Museum makes her notable, even if she did live a very private life.WiLaFa (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although a expansion of references is still needed. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is clearly notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 London Fire Brigade as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Fire Brigade appliances[edit]

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

Unnecessary duplication of Fire appliances in the United Kingdom. Anything London-specific could be noted there or in London Fire Brigade. Adds zero value to the encyclopaedia. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to London Fire Brigade. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Ajf773. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After discounting some weak or nonexistent arguments on both sides, we end up with a pretty borderline amount of sourcing, with no clear inclination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Philippos of Greece[edit]

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

This article was salted at its original title after being constantly recreated after a deletion discussion: [11]. A new editor has escaped that decision by recreating it at an unprotected title. This discussion is to determine whether the new material is sufficient evidence that the prince has become notable since the last deletion. DrKay (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Constantine_II_of_Greece#Marriage_and_children (which mentions him). Essentially all the coverage cited in the article is about his wedding, which was covered in lots of gossip/society publications. If that's his sole claim to notability then the article fails WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E. There is some potential for confusion with Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as his birth name is sometimes rendered as "Prince Philippos" and he was also Greek, so we might potentially need a disambiguation page. Hut 8.5 12:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that logic could apply to his siblings as well. The issue here is not whether the monarchy has been deposed or not, but whether the person is notable enough to have an article. For example, we have articles on all of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s children, despite the fact that he was dethroned. Keivan.f^Talk 01:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we have articles on other subjects doesn't have much bearing on whether we should have this article. Possibly those articles should be deleted as well. Possibly there's something different about the circumstances of those articles. For example three of his four siblings were born before the abolition of the Greek monarchy and were therefore actual royals at one point. Hut 8.5 07:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that those articles should be used as a justification to keep this one. I simply said that the monarchy being deposed in a given country cannot be used as an argument to delete a page about a member of that country’s former royal house. And we do have articles on individuals whose family is not reigning at this point. Thus notability needs to be determined case by case and “Deposed monarchy cruft” is not a valid argument. Keivan.f^Talk 16:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSCRUFT is not a good argument. I don't know why you even bother participating when the admins who close Afds are going to ignore what you wrote anyway. StellarHalo (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Constantine_II_of_Greece#Marriage_and_children. Pahiy (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have articles on his siblings, so the fact that his father is not a reigning king bears no influence on his notability whatsoever. I vote based on the sources, and it seems to me that there has been sufficient coverage about him in the press lately in light of his recent marriage. Not to mention that we have an article on his wife as well, and in most references the two of them are covered together, so I cannot understand how one is notable and the other is not. Keivan.f^Talk 01:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the previous discussions, I'm inclined to go for an ATD: if the sourcing is indeed improving, the redirect target could be a place for these to accumulate until this is clear. If you or NemesisAT think keep is the right outcome with the article as it stands now, could you give the best sources per WP:THREE? — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you hadn't pinged me, so I didn't see your message immediately. The article already has references to English and French sources, most of which are accepted as reliable sources here on Wikipedia. Additionally I was able to find coverage in Denmark's Billed Bladet (1, 2) and searches in both Danish and Greek yield results, something that wouldn't have occurred if he was not notable. Keivan.f^Talk 01:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OSE arguments are weak in general, and particularly so in this case. Fails GNG. I would also salt based on the continued recreation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching on Greece and Spanish languages, I see dozens of sources. I'm not sure that qualifies for WP:SIGCOV. I'll leave that to the experts. VocalIndia (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have enough coverage across multiple sources to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage from sources; so far, just his parents son. (And definitely not a prince of Greece, although probably of Denmark.) ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Constantine_II_of_Greece#Marriage_and_children per Pahiy, or altenatively the less specific List of princes of Greece. Given the article keeps getting recreated, we should be considering either an WP:ATD or salting; my preference is not to salt. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark, in accordance with the naming of articles of other members of the former Greek royal family. Appears to have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, and all his other siblings have their own articles. Not to mention there are already articles for him on Danish Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, Catalan Wikipedia, Dutch Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Norwegian Wikipedia, Thai Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, Estonian Wikipedia, and Macedonian Wikipedia. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Willthacheerleader18. Peter Ormond 💬 23:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not a big fan of the deposed royalty cruft, but I'll note that we have been bombarded with thousands of articles on extremely minor, obscure British barons, "sons of barons" and other minor aristocrats (there are over 500 people in the bizarre Category:Younger sons of barons alone!). Compared to them, he's obviously in quite a different league, probably more notable than Archie Mountbatten-Windsor or Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor who don't have any titles and who are merely great-grandchildren of a monarch (as opposed to being son of a king). A cleanup of the nobility cruft should focus on deleting articles on minor, obscure British nobles such as Rupert Law, 9th Baron Ellenborough with absolutely no evidence of any notability or any accomplishments beyond having inherited one of the lowest noble titles in 2013. Most of the thousands of articles on British barons and sons of barons and other minor aristocrats are like Rupert Law, not notable in any way. --Tataral (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Besides all the wide coverage of his marriage and wedding, there are also other sources on him of varying details: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 but they together allow this article to barely pass WP:GNG. StellarHalo (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 09:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isak Hansen-Aarøen[edit]

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

Footballer. This article was previously deleted at AfD, draftified, recreated and speedily deleted. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 6 overturned the speedy deletion and sent the article to AfD, presumably because notability is still questionable. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 09:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 09:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 09:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been tracked by the media since 2014 at least (WP:SUSTAINED): [12], [13]. Some sources: Isak Hansen-Aarøen was selected as Tomorrow's Football Hero by TV 2 with NFF in 2019: [14]; The teen has earned a reputation as "the new Haaland" after his junior performances: [15] and [16]; Hansen-Aarøen is described as a "ballet dancer" with a good understanding of the game and good timing for when he will let the ball go and when he can dribble: [17]; 'the great talent' Isak Hansen-Aarøen: [18]; 'supertalent': [19]; 'the greatest talent': [20]; 'He is a modern Juan Mata type with enormous close technique and good eyesight': [21]; 'The great talent': [22]; 'the story of the boy': [23], 'super talent': [24]; 'Isak Hansen-Aarøen made his professional debut for Tromso': [25]; 'most of Europe wanted to sign Hansen-Aaroen': [26]; 'Isak Hansen-Aaroen showed why he’s so highly rated with some brilliant skill': [27]; '‘unique’ record-breaking forward from Tromso': [28]; 'Isak Hansen-Aaroen has had an impressive first season at the Manchester United Academy': [29]; 'The Norwegian playmaker shone for the Under-18s despite being just 16 years old, winning 15 of 16 fixtures he played in for the team and stood out with a series of top performances in midfield': [30]. His style of play analysis: [31] and [32]. Clearly meets WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in reliable sources (including Aftenposten, Nordlys, Sunnmørsposten, Nettavisen, Aftenbladet, Manchester Evening News, Diario AS, NRK and TV 2) that are independent of the subject. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) over several years (WP:SUSTAINED). Has been the feature of significant articles in almost all major Norwegian media, including NRK [33][34][35][36], Aftenposten [37][38][39][40][41], Aftenbladet [42][43][44][45][46] and Verdens Gang [47][48] - Alvaldi (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Dr Salvus 13:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's not notable. If his career ended today, no one would remember him in 5 years. He's nowhere near the Manchester United first team and at international level, he hasn't even played for the team below the senior team, let alone the senior team itself. Considering the number of publications that exist nowadays and the amount of column inches they are required to fill, it's no surprise that a player recruited by Manchester United from overseas at a young age has had some coverage, but he's literally done nothing of note other than get signed. – PeeJay 15:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The same arguments from the same editor were rejected twice: 1, 2. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @PeeJay: Per WP:NTEMP Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Also per WP:GNG it doesn't matter that he hasn't played for Manchester United or at an international level, he only needs to have significant coverage which you yourself seem to admit he has. Alvaldi (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't consider the coverage he has received to be "significant", I consider it to be the natural result of publications scrabbling around to fill column inches with any old rubbish. I admit nothing with regard to this player's notability; in fact, I deny that quite strongly. Players are signed by big clubs from overseas all the time, and as you rightly point out, notability is not temporary. This player is receiving coverage because he's attracting attention right now, but as I said, if his career ended today, he would be forgotten in an instant. That proves to me that he's not notable right now, because if he was, people would remember him. – PeeJay 16:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @PeeJay: The subject is not receiving a short blurb of coverage like you are alluding to, he has been receiving this significant coverage over a period of several years, dating back to 2014. That more than enough suffices WP:SUSTAINED and quite frankly contradicts your right now claim. I did not claim that you admited that he was notable, something that is obvious that you don't agree to, however I did point to that you seemed to admit that he was recieving significant coverage but you just think it is old rubbish. And claiming that the coverage from respectable publications in Norway are just old rubbish is pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alvaldi (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage given to sports figures is, well, just a bit excessive IMO. My general philosophy of WP:ATHLETE is that if you don't meet it, the GNG bar is pretty high. In this case, it appears that the coverage is well beyond what the GNG requires. keep with a note that it makes me think we should reconsider the overall topic a bit more. Hobit (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Giant Snowman 18:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we are perhaps getting too hung up on the reasons why he has gained significant coverage rather than actually whether he has significant coverage or not. Yes, he is nowhere the first team. Yes, maybe it's all a bit too much hype about a kid. Yes, maybe his career won't amount to much and he will be forgotten by some football fans. Honestly, though, from the sources above, it's easy to pick WP:THREE that are independent from the subject, independent from each other and discuss the player in detail. VG, Nettavisen and TV2. GNG is not a ridiculously high bar. This passes any day of the week. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the amount of sources about him, especially in Norwegian, demonstrate clear significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. This is not just WP:ROUTINE coverage of match reports and signings being announced. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Corwin of Amber. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to redirect. Daniel (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fascination (David Bowie song)[edit]

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

Bowie's biographers don't give too much info about this album track. Nicholas Pegg states that it's notable for being the first published credit of the then-unknown Luther Vandross, but something like that could easily be put into the album article. I could expand it with what I can, but before I start that process I first wanted to see if others think this should be redirected to the album article, as I don't want to spend time expanding an article only for it to be deleted later on. – zmbro _(talk) 23:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Young Americans. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am seeing multiple books with significant coverage of the song, meeting GNG (and NSONG). Rlendog (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To analyse the proposed sourcing by Rlendog.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rlendog If we use the rationale that books have "significant coverage" there could be an article for every single one of his tracks; both Pegg and O'Leary by themselves have info on every track (and Doggett from '69–'80). But the point of this nomination is to answer, "does this have enough info to warrant its own article?" Personally, I don't believe so. Then again, I did expand "Soul Love" awhile ago and that's only at 12k bytes.

I'm just trying to be realistic here. Bowie is one of those artists who could honestly have an article for every song, as he has multiple biographers who cover a good majority (mentioned above). However, if it hasn't been covered, was never a single, never charted, or anything like that, does it warrant its own article? Like I said in the nomination, I could go into "Fascination" and expand it as much as I can, but I'd rather wait and see if others think it should be redirected, as I don't want to spend hours of my time expanding it, only for it to be redirected a year from now. That's my two cents at least. – zmbro _(talk) 17:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with all of Bowie's songs having articles if they all have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Every Beatles' song has an article, for example. I think (though I am not certain) that every U2 song, at least through the most of their career, has an article. Most Bob Dylan and John Lennon songs have articles, and the remainder (at least through 2001 for Dylan) easily can. There are a few artists for whom every song meets our notability criteria and there is no reason that those songs cannot or should not have articles if someone has to write one. If this song meets our notability guidelines (and it does), the fact that many other David Bowie songs are notable is not a valid deletion reason. And if you expand the article and someone tries to redirect it I for one will defend the article vigorously, and will have the sources to demonstrate its notability in accordance with our guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more point. Although it really should not make a difference with respect to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, this song does of course have a degree of notability beyond a run of the mill David Bowie song (even though a run of the mill Bowie song may well be notable). That of course is the Luther Vandross connection. And this song - unlike other Bowie songs - gets coverage in sources that are primarily about Luther Vandross. As a result, even if you completely ignored any sources that are primarily about Bowie (which is certainly not mandated by our guidelines) there may be enough remaining coverage to meet our notability guidelines. Certainly the coverage in Looking for Leroy: Illegible Black Masculinities would qualify. There are several other sources on Vandross I was able to find on Google, but those are less significant, which is why I can only say that completely ignoring Bowie sources this song only "may" meet our notability guidelines, but given that the topic is almost 50 years old there may well be sources that are not accessible on Google. But of course we do not have to completely ignore sources that are primarily about Bowie. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rlendog That's actually a great point I didn't think about. This song is Vandross's first publishing credit in his entire career, and I never once considered Vandross's biographies. If this one doesn't get redirected would you consider expanding it a bit? So it's at least not a stub. – zmbro _(talk) 19:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can make some additions. Rlendog (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't see a consensus to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hudur Durga[edit]

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

One of the infinite local dieties. For inclusion on Wikipedia, one needs to pass WP:GNG and this subject finds no results in Google books.Ratnahastin(t.c) 06:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Sources available online are websites that marginally discuss it, but no significant coverage can be observed. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin, Georgethedragonslayer, and LaundryPizza03: I will be able to add information and references from reliable Bangla language newspapers including BBC Bangla, Anandabazar Patrika. Will this prevent the article from being deleted? ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 05:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MS Sakib, yes may be. I'm waiting your source. IMO, as this deity is real and have source in Bangla language, he is notable enough to have his own article, and there are reason to believe it is possible to expand the article. VocalIndia (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VocalIndia: I have provided appropriate references. See below. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 19:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It is not true that, there is "no results in Google books." [see here]. Moreover, there are a lot of reliable Bengali, English and Hindi sources on this topic. ^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MS Sakib (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/federal-officials-details-what-evidence-theyve-collected-in-hot-air-balloon-crash-investigation/6159554/
^ https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/newsmaker-faisal-farooqui-115032601198_1.html
^ "দুর্গাপূজার সময়ে যেভাবে শোক পালন করেন 'মহিষাসুরের বংশধরেরা'". BBC News বাংলা (in Bengali). 2020-10-26. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ "दुर्गा नहीं महिषासुर की जय". BBC News हिंदी (in Hindi). 2009-09-27. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ পরামানিক, অমিত. "মহিষাসুর ও হুদুড় দুর্গা". www.anandabazar.com. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ "দুর্গাপুজা উৎসব নয়, শোকের সময় যে হিন্দু জনগোষ্ঠীর কাছে! | কালের কণ্ঠ". Kalerkantho (in Bengali). Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ "দুর্গা নন, এই উৎসবে আদিবাসী সাঁওতালদের উপাস্য হুদুড় দুর্গা। শ্যামসুন্দর বেরা". EI Samay (in Bengali). Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ "क्या सच में महिषासुर दलित या आदिवासी था?". News18 Hindi (in Hindi). 2019-10-05. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ Chattopadhyay, Arunava (2018). DURGA: Ekti Obolokon (in Bengali). Atmajaa Publishers. pp. 48, 49. Retrieved 17 March 2021.
^ "Mahishasur Day observed at JNU | Delhi News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ "'दैत्य' को भी पूजेगा बंगाल". Dainik Jagran (in Hindi). Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ "Navratri Special : इनके लिए दशानन रावण कुलगुरु और महिषासुर हैं पूर्वज, ये लंका दहन को मानते हैं पाप". Navbharat Times (in Hindi). Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ "जिस महिषासुर का दुर्गा ने वध किया उन्हें आदिवासी अपना पूर्वज और भगवान क्यों मानते हैं". thewirehindi.com. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ Deogharia, Jaideep (October 11, 2013). "Asur tribals mourn 'martyr' Mahishasur | Ranchi News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ "Meeting the Asurs". The Indian Express. 2016-03-06. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ Dam, Abhirup (2016-09-12). "Dalits Point out How Onam Is the Story of Upper Caste Domination". TheQuint. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ Hansda, Parimal. "Eight melancholic, introspective poems by Parimal Hansda on being a Santhal today". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ "BJP MP Cancels Celebration of Mahisha Dasara in Mysuru". NewsClick. 2019-09-30. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ "দুর্গা নয়, এই উৎসবে তাঁরা উপাসনা করেন হুদুড় দুর্গর". EI Samay (in Bengali). Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ NewsDesk, G. C. "When Bengalis celebrate Durga Puja, Santhals mourn killing of demon king Mahishasura - Goa Chronicle". Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ Service, Indo-Asian News (2016-03-01). "Not just Durga, Mahishasur also worshipped in India". India News, Breaking News | India.com. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
^ Oct 3, TNN /; 2016; Ist, 13:57. "Descendant of Mahishasur to inaugurate puja at an east Kolkata pandal | Kolkata News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-07-16. {{cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ "As You Celebrate Durga Puja, These Communities Observe Mahishasur Shahadat Diwas". InUth. 2019-10-01. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

Most of these sources are discussing about Durga which is a different subject. Passing mentions from random sources is not going to help you in establishing notability. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivkarandholiya12: No, you misunderstood. You have actually confused Durga and Hudur Durga. One is the opposite character of the other. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 17:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks significant coverage. The citation shotgunning done by the article creator fails to establish notability. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivkarandholiya12: My question is, why the reports published in BBC Bangla and Hindi, Anandabazar Patrika, Kaler Kantho and Ei Somoy are not significant coverage? ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 17:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into Mahishasura the Veneration of Mahishasura as Hudur Durga should be covered into the article; the links of JNU or Karnataka are not related to the Hudur Durga of the Santal tribals. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtigerxyz: Although Mahishasur and Hudur Durga are the same but not completely same, the descriptions of the Santals are different and as Hudur Durga has been widely discussed in the mainstream media for the last decade. In fact, Mahisasura and Hudur Durga are two different explaination of same divine power. The same example can be seen in the articles Kali and Mahakali. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 19:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with the AfD. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- @Redtigerxyz:, is a respected and main editor for Hinduism. I tried to ask you for this yesterday. Now you have arrived. I'm also not sure for this deity. I'll follow up to your opinion and research for this. Pls kindly research again for me. The strange thing is many newly created accounts are trying to vote this AfD. VocalIndia (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I want to ping 245CMR for his opinion. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VocalIndia: Stop WP:CANVASSING. What do you mean by "many newly created accounts"? You registered on 30 July 2019 and are much newer than half of the participants of this AfD. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgethedragonslayer hum? how WP:CANVASSING I'm? It is just a only ping to user for opinion! I did not tell them to vote as Keep or Delete for this Afd. The god will know who is impostor. Btw, actually you are a new account who joined on 28 July 2020. VocalIndia (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you are new enough not to understand what is WP:CANVASSING as well as WP:ASPERSIONS. Stop alleging others of being 'impostor' without any evidence and stop sending pings to editors that have nothing to do with this article or AfD, Ratnahastin(t.c) 05:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin So poor how fanny is that?😂 you are only 3 months old on Wikipedia. Pls Stop, you are trying to teach me Wiki ABCD.🥱 As I'm an experienced editor, I've full knowledge on Wikipedia's rules. 🤔humm... who was in freudian slip. There are many WP:SOCK accounts 😂. VocalIndia (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "full knowledge on Wikipedia's rule" has been already much highlighted with the WP:IDHT you are embracing. You are right that I should not be trying to teach you given you lack the WP:COMPETENCE to understand what I said right above. I have just left a warning on your talk page against your disruption, take it seriously. Ratnahastin(t.c) 09:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Lol Who care? I d c ...🥱 i did nothing wrong. VocalIndia (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Agletarang (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the above source significantly discuss the subject but mainly make passing mention of Durga which is not same as this subject. Mukt (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smartless (Podcast)[edit]

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

The article already exists with the name "Smartless" in the main space, I accidentally accepted this. Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 05:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish to withdraw the nomination, and believe a simple redirect would be best! Quantum^Realm (meow • pawtrack) 06:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Symmetry[edit]

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

Fail WP:NALBUM, specifically non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is absent. Polyamorph (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - would say redirect, except for the persistence of recreation. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article, including Spectrum Culture, are reliable. I also found a few more reliable sources, which talk about the article: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] and [54].. It has a brief description in a Pitchfork article. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive coverage is required for albums. Per WP:NALBUM if the article cannot be expanded beyond a stub it should redirect to the artist. There is simply not enough reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. Polyamorph (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polyamorph, criterion 1 of WP:NALBUM states that an album is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. The EP has received coverage from AllMusic, Spectrum Culture, Sputnik Music, Treblezine, Seattle Weekly, Exclain, Blurt and Clash magazines. Therefore, the EP meets the said criterion and there's good enough sources which make it notable. I have explained more than enough. And I won't respond to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUM also states Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography. Polyamorph (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much a question of the sources being reliable (although several are dubious in that regard) and more whether they represent extensive coverage to justify an independent article, per WP:NALBUM. Polyamorph (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph: Who cares what you think? It definitely meets WP:NALBUM with enough sources presented above. SBKSPP (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that the closing admin would "care" about my thoughts. Polyamorph (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the additional sources added by Superastig which establish notability. The article isn't a stub, and passes WP:GNG, so I disagree with the idea that it is too short to warrant a separate article. NemesisAT (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets Nalbum.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wataga, Missouri[edit]

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

This is probably the nadir of the Missouri GNIS entries that I've seen. Ramsay just states that Wataga is a place name in Mercer County of unknown Native American origin, and then starts talking about a place in Tennessee. This name does not appear on USGS topographic maps, and GNIS is sourced to Ramsay, who never actually says what was at Wataga. Searching is cluttered by old news references to an incident involving a Native American woman named Wataga in the 1910s, as well as the town of Wataga, Illinois.

I'm pretty sure this is about the place in Illinois based on the reference to Galesburg being nearby and the fact that there doesn't seem to have been a railroad near the Missouri location.

This refers to Wataga as "a small post office", and I found an 1893 announcement stating that a postmaster was appointed for Wataga and then an 1897 announcement stating that the Wataga post office had been (re)opened. Not in 1877 county history, which makes sense I guess because the earliest mention I've found of this place is 1893. Searching brings up a bunch of the place in Illinois, but basically nothing for this one. I'm not seeing how this site, for which we have a handful of passing mentions to a post office and that's it is notable. Hog Farm _Talk 05:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring any good evidence that the place actually exists, and there doesn't seem to be any. Satellite imagery doesn't show any community there now, so even if there was one once then it's vanished since. WP:GEOLAND only says that legally recognised places have near-automatic notability, even if this place did exist once there's no evidence of legal recognition. Hut 8.5 11:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vimon Kidchob[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability guidelines. While the subject is a relatively high-ranking civil servant and has received a lot of mention in the news, all of them appear to be passing mentions in the course of routine coverage of her usual duties, and there's no third-party in-depth coverage of the subject personally. Paul_012 (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't find an in-depth coverage of her yet. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've done a good deal of searching in English and Thai, but I agree with the nominator: all available coverage consists of nothing more than brief, mostly single-sentence trivial mentions that don't move the needle in terms of the GNG. Her ambassadorship doesn't confer presumptive notability either, and she hasn't received the sort of awards that could trigger WP:ANYBIO #1. Barring something more, she is thus non-notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Young Blood, Old Souls[edit]

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

Non-notable TV episode; should probably be redirected to the list of episodes wizzito | say hello! 21:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per this episode's Annie nomination and the AV Club review. However, those are the only two things that give this topic special notability. The article's other citations are press releases and a review from a self-written blog (Blubberbabber). A Merge into the show or season article is a far more-likely solution here. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep in mind the show does not have an episode list, since the show just started it's second season. It might get one later on, but that probably will not be decided until after the second season. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm with the argument by HumanxAnthro here. I imagine that better sources could be added, and I think a merger into the show or a season article would be a better solution at the present. Historyday01 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we consider merge as an option that may achieve consensus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Daniel, a merger would be acceptable, sure, rather than deleting the page outright, so if someone wants to re-create the page in the future, that's still an option (even though that is very unlikely at this point). The A.V. Club article could easily be added to the Reception section of The Owl House page, and perhaps the Decider article could go somewhere else too. The other sources are three tweets, a BSCKids page (possibly a reliable source), a Futon Critic listing, and the accursed BubbleBlabber. The episode was, as HumanxAnthro pointed out, nominated for an Annie Award this year in the "Best Character Design - TV/Media" category, but that's the only thing, mainly, noting this episode's notability, and that is already listed on the The Owl House#Accolades. Historyday01 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amado Casillas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability_(fictional_characters) Hyperwave11 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure why it's nominated for deletion since there's plenty of coverage over the character, especially since he's the protagonist of the show in Season 7 of El Señor de los Cielos. The character easily passes the four guidelines and a simple Google News search can confirm his notability. Plus under the WP:NCHAR, he fits the criteria for coverage. JayzBox (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:JayzBox claims there above there is plenty of coverage, but the article still sports nothing but a plot summary. If a reception section is added to the article, or quotations showing reception are provided here, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantial coverage can be shown to exist. The current sources are insufficient. TTN (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Raft River. ✗plicit 13:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raft River, Idaho[edit]

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

This one can be perhaps chalked up to the map makers themselves, as it's clear from looking backwards through the topos that "Raft River" acquired its present name recently, I have to guess from the building with the big "Raft River Store" sign on it, the only structure at the site. Earlier topos also show a single building, but call the spot "Yale". I couldn't find anything about it under this name, but aerials also show a single building with a drive pulling off the main road to it, suggesting that the older building was also a store. At any rate I couldn't verify that this was ever a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The interstate exit for this place says "Raft River Area". It seems to be the name applied to this rural agricultural area around the exit.[55] (news report from "Raft River" about flooding in 2017).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that "Raft River area" refers to the Raft River itself. The picture in the article is of the store. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article references "Gangell’s home just off Yale Road in Raft River," (not "near" the Raft River, or "on" it) so Raft River appears to refer to the community/rural area near the exit. Darn Americans and their sprawl.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raft River. I found a lot of hits on Google books, but almost exclusively about geothermal projects around the river, not referring to this particular location. Instead they often refer to the Raft River Geothermal Project (or studies relating to similar projects), which is in a different part of Idaho. Since most results for "Raft River, Idaho" seem to refer to the river itself, it seems like a reasonable redirect target. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raft River, as it is a valid search term. No indication there was an actual settlement. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adel, Missouri[edit]

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

This one appears to have been an old 4th-class post office, not a community. Ramsay states Adel is a country post office, located in the northwestern part of Mercer County. No information could be found about this name Newspapers.com brings up a reference to the postmaster resigning and being replaced, but searching is cluttered by references to Adel, Iowa and a word in German. Not in an 1877 county history, despite apparently having a post office in 1874. The GNIS entry is sourced to something titled the "New World War Chart" from 1919; small-scale topos do not show this name. While I can find quite a bit about the place in Iowa, and a few references to a location in Utah, the Missouri one isn't looking like its notable. Hog Farm _Talk 04:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rattlesnakes (American band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. I can't find any significant coverage nor other evidence of notability. The article itself (sourced only to the band's defunct site and IMDb) doesn't make any claims of notability either. Lennart97 (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I can find through a search are many references to the 1950's band of the same name, and a few mentions of a Bluegrass band, but nothing about this post-punk band. Non-notable, does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:BAND. Netherzone (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SHERIFF[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable fraud detection system. I've found a 1997 newspaper article here and a short press note here, but nothing that would adequately cover our bases. AngryHarpy‍^talk 15:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 15:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 15:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 15:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched for sources and couldn't find anything beyond what's already been presented.Citing (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isikeli Vulavou[edit]

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

Several mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing fails the in depth requirement of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Los Odio![edit]

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

Non notable band. No independent coverage. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has an unsupported statement about reaching #74 in the Mexican charts, which might help a little if it truly happened, depending on opinions about low chart placement. Otherwise I can find nothing in either Spanish or English beyond the band's own social media and some of the usual retail/streaming services. Also note that their name is sometimes spelled without the exclamation point, which may indicate the lack of excitement that they generated. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agnipath (2005 film)[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reviews in a WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking independent coverage and no other indications of notability (awards, national preservation, etc...) per WP:NFO. BOVINEBOY2008 19:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Five[edit]

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

I can only find 1 Critical Review (Common Sense Media, which is a Wikipedia Reliable Source), but WP:NFILM requires 2 reviews. I couldn't find any others in a WP:BEFORE Donaldd23 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could not find another review or major coverage, which is somewhat disappointing as the cast appears notable. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presstek[edit]

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

Notability tag has been on the page for 11 years, and still no notability outside of acquiring someone or being acquired by someone else. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Pauly[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; not enough significant roles to qualify, plus the article itself has incredibly few sources proving the subject's notability. Important to note that a draft on the same subject was recently rejected for article status on the ground of not meeting WP:NACTOR due to a lack of significant media coverage on the subject. Redandsymmetry (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logs: 2021-06 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes Yanes[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker. Article seemed to be a tool for self-promotion of this person. Lots of unsourced cruft was added, and re-added, recently. Benicio2020 (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two interviews and a work from PR news wire are not enough to show notability. Especially since the PR newswire article is about a work that he is just one of multiple writers on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alaiyadikkuthu[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost zero coverage and fails WP:NFILM Nitesh003 (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert II of Monaco, the Unknown Prince[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFILM – from my research I really could not find any coverage or reviews for this film. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff berth[edit]

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

Uncited since 2012, also, there is likely no content for a "playoff berth" article that wouldn't simply duplicate other articles.

The first sentence is itself arguably incorrect: "In a sports league, a playoff berth is a position in the playoffs secured [clinched] ahead ... of the season's conclusion." Clinching/securing is something different. The playoff berth itself is what is being clinched, not the action of clinching. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 01:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 01:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 01:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope. Daniel (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-209[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, has only received coverage in comprehensive astronomical databases. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope. I couldn't find much in the way of discussion about this star. Praemonitus (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope. Nothing special about the exoplanets, and nothing special about the star either. People should realize that we know literally thousands of exoplanets now, notability has become much stricter as a result. Tercer (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Loner (disambiguation). Daniel (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Loner (disambiguation)[edit]

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

All entries listed upon The Loner (disambiguation) page [created May 27, 2012] already appear upon the more-extensive Loner (disambiguation) page [created December 17, 2008], thereby confirming that the entire 9-entry 2012-created dab page duplicates portions of the 25-entry 2008-created dab page and thus can simply redirect to it. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. All of the entries are listed there (after I replaced a cover song in Loner w/ the original in The Loner). I've already redirected The Loners. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I don't recall if this page was a duplicate in 2012. I can't imagine going to the trouble of creating it if it was, but perhaps I did. Seems sensible to redirect anyway. This is Paul (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I've clarified the scope of the dab page (reflecting existing content) to avoid confusion. PamD 16:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Leaning towards keep. People disagree about whether the sources available establish that there is a non-synthetic topic of "totalitarian architecture" that is more than just the sum of the architectural styles preferred by various dictatorships. We can't find a solution to this disagreement here. Sandstein 06:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarian architecture[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to actually be a notable topic in and of itself. Most sources for it are really just describing fascist architecture, and the page appears to just be a bizarre WP:SYNTH attempt to equate the architecture of communist and fascist regimes. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I just posted my thoughts on the article's talk page, but I'll reiterate here. Leaving aside a lack of coverage (most coverage that does exist seems to be using "Totalitarian" as a synonym for "Fascist"), this category is too broad to be useful. It just seems to be "big architecture", with the gallery on the page itself showing a variety of styles from Neo-Classicism to Brutalism to Modernism. Is the Hoover Building totalitarian because it's big and imposing? Is the Arc de Triomphe or the Reichstag? I'd recommend a redirect to Fascist architecture. BSMRD (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or Disambiguate As has been pointed out below this could also direct to a few other terms like Stalinist architecture, so a disambiguation page may be better than a simple redirect. BSMRD (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further Thoughts I was rather cursory with my initial vote, mostly making an argument on my personal view of the uselessness of this as a category rather than analyzing sources provided in detail, mostly because at the time there really were no sources worth evaluating. As the article has grown dramatically since this AfD was opened, and since this AfD is still open a week later, I'm going to give some more in depth reasoning for my !vote(which remains for redirection or disambiguation). Firstly, the Oxford source starts with "Supposedly", which casts some fairly large doubt on this being an actual thing. It is easy to see where Oxford draws their "supposedly" from, as after digging through the WP:REFBOMBING that has occurred as a result of this AfD, you get a few sources that are actually somewhat reliable and actually make some noises in the direction of defining what "Totalitarian architecture" is. Firstly, Marek Antoszczyszyn uses totalitarian as an aditional descriptor for his theory of "Socrealism architecture", a theory which seems fringe at best. Tony Ward's article has been discussed below, however I will reiterate here that it does not advance the theory put forth by this Wikipedia article of a unified style of "Totalitarian architecture". In fact, it says nearly the opposite, that Totalitarianism and efforts towards domination can permeate all styles of architecture. The Golomstock book is a reliable source that does put forth a thesis that "Totalitarian architecture" is real, however one source does not an article make. Moving through the less substantive sources that aren't cited more than once:

Cavalcanti: argues that totalitarian regimes rebuild cities to suit there needs, little commenting on a stylistic throughline.
Sennot: One line out of a very long Encyclopedia describing one building as "an example of totalitarian monumentality"
Prokopljević: Can't be verified, but the text quoted only namedrops "totalitarian architecture" once and provides no definition.
RFE/RL: says nothing about "totalitarian architecture", just that the Soviets were totalitarian and that they made buildings
Christian Science Monitor: Only uses the word "totalitarian" in reference to Communism

I could keep going(there are even more comprehensive examinations of these "sources" below), but more than half the sources are in Russian which I can not verify, the rest continue in much the same pattern as above. I challenge anyone reading this article or these sources to tell me what "totalitarian architecture" actually is. Maybe, if you squint, it would pass WP:GNG, but considering the amount of WP:CHERRYPICKING required to make what is a mess of WP:SYNTH even if this article could exist, it clearly should not. BSMRD (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We now have big separate sub-pages on Stalinist architecture, Fascist architecture and Nazi architecture, but the concept of totalitarian architechutre as a whole is also well known. We have this page on eight other languages where it is much better developed. For example, here is Spanish version. There are book references about this subject, see [56] [57] Here is Google Scholar. There are scholarly articles on the subject, such as this, this, and so on. Web of Science search retrieves 83 refs such as [58], etc. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is even a website by the Council of Europe, specifically about Totalitarian architecture in Europe. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The architecture OF totalitarian regimes is not the same as totalitarian architecture being an academically or artistically recognized form of architecture. We could find hits for "architecture of democratic countries" and make a page on democratic architecture, but that's not what notability is about. Also, I don't think an article existing in another language wikispace is inherently a justification to have one here - most of those seem like glorified lists more than anything, not really the cream of the crop as far as notability for an article goes. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. All these sources and pages are about certain architectural style. For example Stalinist architecture is not just architecture of the Soviet Union which is another and different subject. Nazi architecture is not architecture of Germany. I do not know, maybe democratic architecture is valid subject. My very best wishes (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per My very best wishes 04:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
Delete Agree with Paragon Deku and BSMRD. Seems to be a conflation of totalitarian regimes’ architectures rather than a topic of itself. Even other languages’ pages reference that one 1990 book and just link out to articles on Soviet Architecture, Nazi Architecture etc. Can’t see how this is notable.Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t see the reference it comes from but the article states that these architectures are united through the use of megalomania. This seems bizarre - a building with a personality disorder? Vladimir.copic (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ‘‘Tony Ward’’ reference when read fully includes Alcatraz and Folsom State Prison as examples and talks about “the totalitarianism of ‘Democratic architecture’” which is clearly not what this article is trying to articulate. Clearly this is not a well defined concept. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir.copic, Please see the article I rewrote using academic sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article still draws twice from the (50 year old) Ward article. (Reading the article it would probably not meet today's peer reviewer standards.) Ward clearly has an entirely different perception of the term 'totalitarian' as it is used in Totalitarian architecture. The third chapter of Ward's article is called 'The Totalitarian Architecture of Democracy". He talks extensively about US prisons and their totalitarian nature, calling them 'concentration camps of America in 1970'. Ward even writes that Americans 'are totalitarian because [they] seek to hide [their] guilt in the mythologies and structures of "Silent Majorities" and professional and technological elites.' (Sorry to quote at such length). Ward's entire article is in fact set up as a diatribe against what he sees as totalitarianism in American society (not architecture). It just baffles me that this is being drawn on so often to back up the idea of a style called 'totalitarian architecture'. At best this article uses Nazi Architecture as a segway to talking about American totalitarianism. Yet I see no references to the totalitarianism of San Quentin State Prison in this wikipedia article. This is WP:Cherrypicking. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ward's article may be a bit old, but you are also dismissing perfectly good modern sources, such as Antoszczyszyn (2017), who provides a perfectly fine definition of the topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One final point before I retire from this discussion. If the article continues to exist there should at least be some acknowledgment of those who have pushed against the flattening of various architectural styles by reducing them to their political contexts (eg Totalitarian Architecture). See Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani saying "there is no such thing [as fascist architecture], just as there is no 'communist art' or 'Catholic news'." Instead "there existed architecture under fascism" [59] or this article saying "Brutalism suffered the consequences of communism being transmuted into totalitarianism" [60]. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a recognised concept per the Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture and Council of Europe. Our policy WP:ATD applies "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:BROAD. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important to note that Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture prefaces it’s definition with “supposedly” which seems to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the term. Council of Europe talks about the architecture of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century rather than “totalitarian architecture” as a concept. I think this distinction is what colleagues above are trying to tease out. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty more evidence:

From Casa Scânteii to Casa Poporului and Back. Architecture as Icon of a Totalitarian Regime
Difficult Heritage: Various Approaches to Twentieth-Century Totalitarian Architecture
Endorsement effects and warning potentials: Architecture from totalitarian eras as heritage
Building an EU cultural route across south east Europe: the case of the ATRIUM project to convert the inconvenient heritage of totalitarian architecture...
Tracing Religion and Cult in the Architecture of European Totalitarian Regimes of the XX Century
Signs of a Totalitarian System in Architecture of Socialist Realism
Architecture as Propaganda in Twentieth-century Totalitarian Regimes
Historical Residential Architecture under Totalitarian Regimes
Architecture of totalitarian regimes. USSR, Italy, Germany
Architecture Characterising the Totalitarian Regimes of the 20th Century and Its Economic Potentials

My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compelling but I think the point still stands (or is even proved by your evidence) that there is a tension between the idea of ‘architecture under a totalitarian regime’ (which mostly only includes 20th century Europe) and a concept called ‘totalitarian architecture’. Seems these are works of comparative criticism rather than furthering the idea of a movement or style called totalitarian architecture. Eritrea is certainly under a totalitarian regime - should the article detail Eritrean architecture? Vladimir.copic (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not any architecture or any buildings under totalitarian regimes. This is a specific architectural style typical only for large government-built constructions (not only buildings) in such countries. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Fascist colonial architecture of Asmara in Eritrea is now on UNESCO's world heritage list and so merits a mention. See The Architect's Newspaper. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So again we are just talking about Italian Fascist architecture not anything to do with the Eritrean totalitarian regime. Why can’t this just be covered on Fascist architecture? Vladimir.copic (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to note the Oxford source starts with a massive “SUPPOSEDLY” and the other source says “architecture of totalitarian regimes.” Paragon Deku (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another 10 sources:

Totalitarianism, Architecture and Conscience
Totalitarian architecture and authoritarian control. The place of monumental architectures of totalitarian regimes in historiography
Modern Architecture and the Totalitarian Project
Architecture of the Totalitarian State
Literature-Architecture-Totalitarian Canon
Shortcomings of Political Control on Architecture in Totalitarian Regimes
Totalitarian architecture and urban planning
In Search of Totalitarian Architecture: Art-Deco in the USSR of the 1930s
The Architect as Totalitarian
Totalitarian architecture and its impact on students dormitories

The claims that there's no such thing are ridiculous. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, almost all these sources are referring to architecture WITHIN totalitarian societies. I could also find sources on THING in PLACE and cook up a page about PLACE’S THING (you can find cats in Finland, do we have an article on Finnish Cats? You could find sources on “the art of democratic countries,” do we need an article on democratic art?) There’s a difference between trawling for sources to get hits and actual notability, there’s a difference between “architecture of totalitarian regimes” and a discipline called “totalitarian architecture”, and no amount of WP:REFBOMBING fixes this. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, architecture in totalitarian societies, what else would it be? As that's what the sources cover then that's the nature of the topic. If Paragon Deku has some other vision then that's their personal idea which, lacking sources, should be dismissed as irrelevant, along with their other waxy fantasies. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Architecture in totalitarian societies” is not deserving of its own article if it can’t be proven to be an actually notable and studied style. Otherwise it’s just a list, and no amount of refbombing helps that. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed above prove this this is a notable and studied style. Others have shown that an entire book has been written about this. The Council of Europe actually organises guided tours and this is possible because the subject is literally concrete – you can touch and see the results. In the face of such evidence, it's Paragon Deku that needs to provide some external support for their alternate view because their current argument is inadequate verging on incomprehensible. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence. While multiple RS have suggested a connection between totalitarianism and art/architecture, I'm not sure this could ever be much more than a directory to Fascist architecture et al. Broadening the field to Totalitarian art and architecture may enable editors to bring in more sources and build this up a little, and it's not not useful to note that scholars have drawn these comparisons and imagined all these as representatives of a type, but I also don't know if the practical functions of this page aren't also served by just discussing/linking each of these articles from the other one (eg. "Fascist architecture was similar to Stalinist architecture because they were both large and ugly and made by totalitarians" sort of thing). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Roscelese Few quotes below from my source review as food for thought. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar suggests this is a term used in academia and discussed (" Totalitarian architecture, for instance, utilised specific propagandistic and symbolically loaded icons for its purposes", ""in architecture, a totalitarian architecture suffers from a congenital unwholesomeness". ""Totalitarian architecture was supposed to achieve political benefits thanks to some perceptional codes, consciously hidden in it", "Study and research of this topic is an important link in understanding of the evolution of totalitarian architecture as part of European cultural process, and its professional origin". Would be nice to find a definition and so on, but I think there is enough here to work with. I think the nominator failed in their WP:BEFORE; I'd like to hear from User:Paragon Deku on whether they surveyed sources visible in Google Scholar, and if so, why did they judged them not useful? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already seen and discussed the English language sources you posted above and on the talk page. They’re not useful for building an article about this topic because in reality they’re either talking ABOUT the architecture of totalitarian countries (not claiming it is literally a discipline in architecture) or they are simply talking about fascist architecture. There is not some sort of hivemind that links the architecture of communist and fascist regimes and the articles are just glorified lists and will never be more than glorified lists. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Deku, Hogwash. I have rewritten the article based on what the sources say, the term is clearly defined (ex. [61] " Totalitarian architecture. Generally it might be defined as architecture created in frames of totalitarian State activity & under its strict control, due to its thorough character of the policy in order to strengthen & spread its ideology") and used in academic works. I recommend you withdraw this nomination.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree that definitions beginning 'Generally it might be defined as...' [62] or 'Supposedly the officially approved architecture...' [63] indicate a clearly defined concept. A little reminder to Piotrus about WP:EQ too. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is, frankly, a Synth and OR mess that adds nothing to the encyclopedia that fascist architecture doesn’t already. Just because the page is longer and more fleshed out doesn’t mean it’s notable. I could take sources that use the term “female architecture” or “democratic architecture” and do the same thing, as I and others have said several times before. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Redirect (=delete). See the extended talk page conversation. This is a classic case of original research by synthesis. Yes, the phrase "totalitarian architecture" can be found on Google Scholar, but there are many English phrases with hits in Google Books or Google Scholar that are not remotely Wikipedia article worthy. The question is the notability of the claimed topic of totalitarian-architecture-in-general, which rules out 95% of the hits. I don't plan on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but imagine for a moment articles like democratic architecture (on all architecture in all democracies across the world) or female architecture (on architecture principles allegedly in common from all women architects) or conservative architecture (architecture made by conservatives?) or Jewish architecture (connecting architecture of Israel, architecture of synagogues, and works of secular civil architects who are Jewish). You can find hits on Google Scholar for all of these, these phrases are casually used, and you could make synthesis abominations by quoting the Google Book snippets at random to develop some "theory of conservative architecture" as your bit of original research. Fair disclaimer, the Igor Golomstock book is actually a good source here: he wrote a book that was actually studying and comparing architecture across totalitarian regimes and finding things in common (as well as things NOT in common), and that is the topic of the entire book (not a phrase taken from a random context where it was likely just synonymous with "fascist architecture"). The problem is we need more - a single 1990 book that would fail WP:NBOOK is not really enough, we don't create WP articles for every random book or journal article's thesis. Most of the other sources mentioned in this discussion are incredibly shallow - the Oxford page is two sentences long! And most of the other Google hits are, again, just passing uses of the phrase, not the claimed Wikipedia topic of "connecting principle across all architects we Don't Like". SnowFire (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, all your invented examples, i.e. conservative/female/whatever architecture are WP:OR. But we discuss a different subject, the totalitarian architecture, one that appear as a well defined topic in many RS (see above, and yes, including the book by Igor Golomstock). We also have such page in nine WP projects. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes:: Yep, if the article was reverted to where it was before the AFD, it would be an accurate-if-permastub article IMO that essentially treats it as a one-sentence theory by Golomstock [64]. I'd still rather redirect it, but eh. I think the good-faith article expansion since means it is actually in worse shape now, unfortunately. I wish I had the time to tackle this more but per Deku's enumeration of sources used, I'd want to be a lot stricter in sourcing, only using works that explicitly have this as the main topic.

Procedural note: When I wrote the above !vote, all 4 invented examples were redlinks. Andrew Davidson has since turned two of them into "redirects with possibilities", meaning that he does think that separate articles could be written on them. That's fine, of course, but it goes to emphasize that Andrew has much more radically inclusionist standards than the bulk of Wikipedians. (Which, to be clear, is fine and not a moral failing or anything, but also means that his "Keep" vote here isn't exactly surprising if he thinks nearly any grouping is solid grounds for an article.) SnowFire (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/cultural-routes/atrium-architecture-of-totalitarian-regimes-of-the-20th-century

"Council of Europe values

Studying the architecture of Europe's totalitarian regimes, both the fascist and the communist ones, is a way to enhance the European identity in its unity and diversity. The idea of Europe originated from the wounds of World War II and the fall of Fascism and Nazism. It entered a new phase after the downfall of Communism, opening the way to a broader and more comprehensive idea of a Europe based on fundamental values such as political liberty, freedom of expression and assembly, democracy and the rule of law."

https://www.italy-croatia.eu/documents/109827/162752/Atrium_brochure.pdf/6a9de88b-b591-47b2-f80f-9c532be2177d?t=1562234323595

https://www.fastcompany.com/3063559/hunting-for-the-architectural-relics-of-totalitarianism

Palace of the Parliament

https://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Propaganda-twentieth-century-totalitarian-regimes/dp/8859618355

https://www.netscientificjournals.com/smart-platform/?call_for_papers=totalitarian-architecture-and-urban-planning-history-and-legacy

Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to reiterate that just because sources discuss the architecture of totalitarian regimes does not mean there is a notable “totalitarian architecture.” You can also find sources on the architecture of democratic societies. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if subject X (such as the architecture of totalitarian regimes) appears in many sources, it means the subject is notable. I have no judgement on architecture of democratic societies. Perhaps this is also a valid subject and such page could be created. But we discuss another page here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the point is that, as discussed in the sources, it's a descriptive phrase rather than a proper subject. I could also get hits for looking up any combo of adjective + noun, doesn't mean they all need pages. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As presented by several participants and also as noted in the article's sources, there is enough material for the article to meet WP:GNG. In the Google Scholar, for example, there is vast material, which shows that the topic has been the subject of several academic studies. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the article in question has been drastically altered (and not in a good way, in my opinion) since I started this AfD, I'd like to do a breakdown of the sources to explain why they do not prove this is a notable topic and why it reflects that the article is a jury rigged WP:SYNTH mess

The Antoszczyszyn article is a pet theory of the author comparing Nazi architecture to Soviet architecture (which, by the way, he loosely defines himself as totalitarian architecture, but more often it is written as a descriptor). There's little evidence from the article that this is based on a preexisting concept, especially considering he feels the need to loosely define it.
The Tony Ward article is about his own opinions on totalitariansm and how he feels it is reflected in architecture. It mention numerous American prisons as totalitarian, none of which are mentioned in the article (how convenient)
The Oxford reference casts doubt on the concept's existence, beginning its loose definition with "supposedly"
For some reason, the same Tony Ward article is cited again.
The Igor source is draw a thesis on artwork as a whole, not just architecture. There's no preview so I can't analyze it further, but considering the vague conflation its used to support, I seriously wonder how heavily it was analyzed in the first place.
The council of Europe source only describes "the architecture OF totalitarian regimes." The phrase "totalitarian architecture" doesn't appear a single time.
I can't read Ukranian so I can't vouch much for or against this source, but I will say that there seems to be a single cherrypicked quote and not much else coming from this one.
I'm getting a deadlink on the source on North Korea, but this again seems to just be a cherrypicked quote of the word "totalitarian" being used to describe architecture rather than a reference to an established topic in and of itself
The Sasha S. Lozanova source is a deadlink for me, and the title reads "architecture of European totalitarian regimes," not "totalitarian architecture" as its own discipline
A single mention in a book largely about social media in which the words "totalitarian architecture" appear, which vaguely explains that it used symbols for propaganda purposes. Nice to know all military buildings (and most government buildings, for that matter) are part of the totalitarian architectural tradition, then.
Another source by Antoszczyszyn, this seems to be his topic of study so I'd assume as he defines "totalitarian architecture" it's within the framework of his own works rather than architecture broadly, especially since he continues to define it.
The Esempi di Architettura source may quite literally be one of the only decent sources here, but even still it seems to be describing the architecture of a laundry list of countries grouped together rather than an established and studied field of architecture
I have no access to the Dennis source.
The council of europe source is redundantly cited again
The Schwab source uses the phrase once to describe another organization's calling for photography of architecture in totalitarian countries. It hardly describes it beyond that.

Overall, the article is a complete mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that was (in my opinion) hastily cobbled together to save the article, especially since the repetition of sources and usage of sources that only mention the phrase briefly in passing gives off the feeling of throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just filling in some gaps from above:

Golomstock seems to be the only source that does make an argument for similarities across totalitarian art. I looked at some reviews of this [65] and this seems to hold-up. Important that this source speaks of art as a whole not necessarily arguing for a style of totalitarian architecture. My library does have this book but I doubt I will get it out to prove this.
Extensive search for the Prokopljevic (North Korea) article provides nothing. Not even on the journal's website. Perhaps this was redacted by the journal?
Looks like the Lozanova sourse is written in Russia (or using Cyrillic) or appears in a Russian (Cyrillic?) language journal. Even looking at the English abstract [66] the source wouldn't appear to be arguing for a style of totalitarian architecture but instead is a comparative study of the architecture of 20th century European totalitarian regimes.
Antoszczyszyn does further a weak definition of totalitarian architecture for the purposes of his paper which is mainly how the state architecture of Nazi Germany was viewed after the war. The paper is not furthering the idea of totalitarian architecture. I don't think an obscure paper of one academic that briefly offers a definition is really an RS for this topic.
Tracked down the Dennis Doordan source. No mention of totalitarianism on page 122 of the 2002 edition (it's a chapter about the Lincoln Memorial). Page 120 does use the term totalitarian architecture twice without offering a real definition (other than the strange idea that meglomania is a feature of totalitarian architecture). Seems to be used just to refer to Soviet and Nazi architecture and other than this brief reference the architectures of these regimes are spoken about separately. In fact Doordan even says 'claccicism cannot be identified exclusively with one political ideology'.

It is not that certain people have not used the term 'totalitarian architecture'. We can see many have used this when it is useful to group totalitarian regimes' architectures together. The issue is that no RS seems to clearly define what 'totalitarian architecture' is as a style with examples, traits, its history etc. Instead editors seem to be ctrl+F RS for uses of this term. If this was a real architectural style, wouldn't there be a book or dedicated work about it? Instead we are relying on passing references in works about other things. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780429328435-3 "The Routledge Companion to Italian Fascist Architecture" The chapter discusses analogies, it is about 'something'. If you do like the name 'totalitarian' perhaps 'architecture of European dictatorships of the first half of the 20th century'.

https://uedxx.net/about/ is about 'Urbanism'.

Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources. All or almost all sources currently on the page are good, and they say specifically about the totalitarian architecture as a coherent subject. We can expand this page similar to the French version, i.e. make subsections dedicated to specific countries and include a lot more sources used on pages like Stalinist architecture. I do not have time for point-to-point responses, but the comparative analysis of "architectures of European totalitarian regimes" obviously belongs to the subject of "totalitarian architecture", for example. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I’ll say is there’s a reason pages like pink cat get deleted even though we have plenty of sources that describe pink cats. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that you can call any page you do not like "pink cat" and have it deleted? My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that descriptor + noun getting hits in sources does not make it page worthy. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it does not, and here is an example: [67]. Unless this is an established subject, as follows from the usage in multiple RS. For example, enzyme kinetics qualify as a page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been pointed out, the evolving state of this article makes this discussion quite fraught. Regardless, it seems the ultimate intention for this article is to link out to other pages on state’s architectures (eg Stalinist, Nazi, North Korean etc) and provide a briefer description of their architecture than exists in their substantive article. This will be headed by a couple of paragraphs cobbled together from problematic sources (see above WP:Cherrypicking) that fabricates some kind of unifying theory of totalitarian architecture. I cannot see what use this kind of article is to anyone. I think we need to remember WP:NOTCATALOG. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is common practice to improve a page during standing AfD. No, of course that was not anyone's intention just to link out to other pages. These other pages can be viewed as sub-pages of this page. This is also very common. My very best wishes (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well good luck reducing Soviet Architecture to a subset of totalitarian architecture despite multiple RS describing this style as unique and distinctive (eg not just the same as Nazi Architecture). [68] [69] [70] I do worry that the initial point of this nomination has been buried which I think mainly comes down to WP:BIAS. The article basically tries to make some kind of equivalence between Nazism and Communism. This is not just my opinion but is backed up by critics. See here that critics worry these kind of terms (here totalitarian art) are a left over of western Cold War propaganda. This kind of attitude is spoken about with specific reference to architecture here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, one can not dismiss well known concepts by famous historians (see The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt) as propaganda. Your comment shows your bias. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just need to point out I am not furthering a personal opinion re propaganda. I am pointing towards what critics have written. No one is denying the commonly understood concept of totalitarianism here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning delete (or maybe redirect). The discussion above reminds me a lot of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collapse (medical). Finding WP:Reliable sources about "collapse" in a medical context is not difficult, but those sources do not address a single cohesive topic—not even a WP:BROAD one—and consequently, that article was deleted. XOR'easter summarized this kind of problem fairly well in another AfD discussion: the bag-of-words approach to judging notability fails for technical topics. I think Paragon Deku, Vladimir.copic, and SnowFire have made a fairly convincing case that the same issue applies here. I am however perfectly willing to change my mind if it can be demonstrated that this is, in fact, a thing (where's WP:NOTATHING when you need it?). TompaDompa (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your example defeats your argument. The collapse does exist as a matter of fact. We just have it under a better medical name, i.e Syncope (medicine). This is a hugely important subject. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No actually, that's not it at all. You seem to have misunderstood the very crux of that discussion. Syncope and collapse are not synonymous, which is the reason that the outcome of the discussion wasn't to redirect to Syncope (medicine). That was very much something that the discussion revolved around. The issue is that the term "collapse", in a medical context, can refer to several vastly dissimilar concepts which do not form a collective WP:BROADCONCEPT. Syncope is one of the things it can refer to, but so is overexertion and falling for reasons unknown (both without loss of consciousness). In a medical context, "collapse" is not a thing—and consequently, trying to write an article about it ends up being a WP:SYNTH nightmare because it rests upon what is basically an equivocation. TompaDompa (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course the result was not redirect because Collapse must be a disambig. page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - What are you talking about? Collapse wasn't the article under discussion. The article under discussion was Collapse (medical), and that could have conceivably been redirected to Syncope (medicine). TompaDompa (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Same with Collapse (medical). It can mean syncope, Circulatory collapse, Lung collapse, etc. That would be a dismbig. page unless we already had it on page Collapse. This is completely unrelated to this AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        One could equally well say "Totalitarian architecture can mean Fascist architecture, Stalinist architecture, Nazi architecture, etc." Does this likewise need to be a disambiguation page, then? Well, that would depend on whether "totalitarian architecture" is a thing, now wouldn't it? That's the relevance to this AfD: in a medical context, "collapse" is not a single cohesive subject and we can't have an article like Collapse (medical) because that isn't a topic. Similarly, the argument has been made that in an architectural context, "totalitarian architecture" is not a single cohesive subject and that we therefore shouldn't have a Totalitarian architecture article because that's not a topic. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        No, there is a big difference between different meanings of the same word (like "collapse") and sub-subjects of the same subject. This is the latter. See this page in French WP. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering one of the cited sources in the article refers to prison architecture as totalitarian, and the fact that none of the definitions given that aren’t incredibly vague correlate, I’d say it’s very similar. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        BTW, here is an additional aspect of this that needs to be described on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        An anti-communist outlet discussing how a former Soviet state in passing categorized soviet statues as “totalitarian” does not lend anything to the concept of it as an architectural style. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        No doubts, this is an excellent RS. There are many more on this sub-subject [71],[72],[73],[74], plus our pages like Demolition of monuments to Vladimir Lenin in Ukraine. Now, as this source say, "The law On the Prohibition of Propagation of Communism or Any Other Totalitarian System Through The Names of All Public Buildings, Structures and Facilities has been in force in Poland since 1 April 2016. Since 2017, this law has allowed Soviet monuments to be demolished — all but those standing on soldiers’ graves." Here is a comment by an expert anthropologist: [75]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is all circumstantial and hardly related to the topic, adding this to the article is essentially WP:REFBOMBING. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (1) I am in disbelief that My very best wishes took issue with me pointing to sources that suggest that terms like totalitarian art are a product of western Cold War propaganda then goes and cites a LITERAL western Cold War propaganda outlet to make a point. (2) All the other sources cited above suffer from the same issues that we have previously spoken about. They usually speak about a specific regimes’ architecture, do not offer a definition or description of ‘totalitarian architecture’ and only incidentally use the phrase.Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - There is indeed a big difference between different meanings of the same term and sub-subjects of the same subject. You're asserting that totalitarian architecture is a single cohesive subject with the sub-subjects Fascist architecture, Stalinist architecture, and Nazi architecture. Several other editors are saying that that assertion constitutes WP:SYNTH, because there is no agreed-upon meaning of "totalitarian architecture" and no recognized architectural style of that name (in other words, they're saying that there are different meanings of the same term). What I'm saying is that I'm not persuaded by your assertions that this is indeed a single cohesive subject about a common architectural style. TompaDompa (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You're asserting...". No, I did not assert anything. The cited sources did. My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except a detailed breakdown of the sources proves that’s not the case. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Even a dictionary has such item [76], but you say it does not? My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This reference was already dealt with above. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is just a drive-by comment: maybe the correct title for this article is "Totalitarianism and architecture"? The link between the two is certainly notable and ~~article worthy~~ worth mention on Wikipedia, but if the sources seem to fall short of establishing it as a style, per se, this seems like the appropriate title. — Goszei (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about establishing a link between between totalitarianism and architecture. This is about "Totalitarian architecture" being a sufficiently established terminology and a subject, as follows from publications by Oxford Reference [77] and others. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your best reference starts with "supposedly" this is clearly not a worthwhile topic. BSMRD (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate or delete: architecture existed under totalitarian regimes, but, per review of sources presented in this AfD, a unified style does not appear to exist. The article, as edited during this AfD, attempted to synthesise such a concept, which is not an appropriate basis for an article. So deletion is the logical choice. Alternatively, a disambig page could point to: Fascist architecture; Stalinist architecture; etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, 'no', it was described as an "international style" of architecture in Oxford reference [78]. However, according to some other sources, this is an example of eclecticism in architecture, i.e. a combination of Neo-Classicism and Monumentalism and so on. united by the purpose of spreading the ideology of such regimes (this is their common main feature). Also note that Nazi architecture is included in our List of architectural styles. Regardless, I do not see why not being an architectural style is a reason for deletion. We have many pages that are not about a specific architectural style, but about something else. Synthesis and comparative analysis - yes, sure, but this is done by cited sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are just describing Architectural propaganda - itself a problematic article. I don’t see why both of these articles cannot be merged into architecture seeing as all you wish to describe seems to be basically the function of public architecture. The pyramids, cathedrals, mosques even libraries would fall into your idea here of spreading ideology. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can only say that this page, Totalitarian architecture, is supported by references much much better than Architectural propaganda. ~~I can not exclude that Architectural propaganda might me merged into this page (not the other way around), but it should be a separate discussion. The reason:~~ Of the note, only totalitarian regimes consider the entire culture, including all arts as propaganda. That point was emphasized by some scholars of totalitarian regimes (e.g. "Russia under the Bolshevik regime" by Pipes, etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s certainly an… interesting POV to bring into this discussion. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was suggesting that totalitarian architecture could be merged into the Architecture article if other editors believe there is something of value in this page that should be retained (I do not). Just a cursory look at the introduction to the architecture page clearly shows how architecture has always been used by ruling powers to display political power or ideology. This is simply a function (or result) of public architecture. Without, as you admit, a unifying style, there is nothing tying together totalitarian architecture as the lack of RS demonstrates. It’s not too late to change your vote. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anywhere, the current content should be merged to Totalitarianism#In architecture. — Goszei (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly enough that section mentions quite literally one of the only structures I think could be considered innately totalitarian (the panopticon, although I suppose all prisons count to a degree) and demonstrates how it’s a term extended to totalitarian country’s art rather than a discipline. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the first paragraph of Totalitarianism#In architecture is pretty incoherent (using an example from Orwell’s 1984!!) and should probably be deleted or revised in light of this discussion (further proving totalitarian architecture is not a thing). But Paragon Deku is right re the panopticon. Probably a good topic for a grad research paper though - not an encyclopaedia. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite interestingly, I agree to an extent with the source discussed earlier that prisons would be totalitarian architecture (as in, architecture serving a totalitarian goal), but most of the sources really are just describing architecture within totalitarian countries or trying to draw comparisons between soviet and Nazi architecture. I think if such a phrase would be a notable topic, it would be as a functionally totalitarian structure rather than an aesthetic extension of a totalitarian state. But as you said, that’s most likely more of a WP:FRINGE thesis for a grad paper on sociology or architecture rather than something deserving an entire page. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@My Very Best Wishes: The concept does not appear to exist, per review of available sources: i.e. "supposedly" in the definition. Hence my reference to WP:SYNTH as to what the article (as being edited during this AFD) represents. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, simply the presence of the entry in A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, with references - [79] shows that the subject does exist. But this is not the only source on the subject. There are currently 20+ RS on the page saying that the subject exists. I do not know if this subject qualify as a "concept". I would say yes, but even if not, this is not required. A lot of WP pages are not about concepts, and they should not be. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am doubting about the status of totalitarian architecture as a separate and notable subject, but maybe the article doesn't have be deleted. Perhaps it could be renamed into Architecture of totalitarian regimes or something like that? I also think broadening the topic to Totalitarian art and architecture or similar is not a bad idea. By the way, I am completely opposed to the idea of a "democratic architecture" article. Super Ψ Dro 20:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the first glance, it seems that "totalitarian architecture" and "Architecture of totalitarian regimes" are exactly same thing, hence the renaming would be fine, and it does produce hits [80]. However, Stalinist architecture (a part of this subject) is not the same as Architecture of the Soviet Union. I assume that is why the Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (see above) uses "Totalitarian architecture". My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course 'Democratic Architecture' gets fours times as many hits as 'Totalitarian Architecture' not that I think this is a good metric for notability nor that a 'Democratic Architecture' page should exist. Renaming the page Architecture of totalitarian regimes would not mediate the problems already enumerated at length above and would still ultimate be WP:SYNTH. We have perfectly good individual pages for the regime's distinctive architectures that would be discussed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It well could be that "Democratic architecture" is also a valid subject because there are books about it [81], but we discuss here a very different subject.My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing several opinions - this text [82] seems to be unnecessary in a book about Fascist architecture. Poor Routlege. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there are enough sources available to meet GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not about number of sources but rather what the sources actually say, see WP:REFBOMBING

This not REFBOMBING because the sources are exactly on the subject (see this discussion, for example) and do not duplicate each other. Many sources are scholarly publications. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s funny, because several of the sources are clearly using similar vague definitions and some are quite literally redundantly cited twice. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added multiple reliable sources that directly address the topic. Passes WP:GNG. --Renat 06:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t most of those sources refute that it’s an actual concept? Paragon Deku (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. And it does not matter. A subject might be controversial, but still notable and suitable for a stand-alone article. --Renat 07:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of this WP:REFBOMBING has made this page completely incomprehensible. There is no other text that has described ‘totalitarian architecture’ in the way this article does. More than ever this article is WP:SYNTH. Also amusing to think that a concept that has no commonly recognised definition or usage and has been refuted by critics can be labelled “controversial”. Most people would simply conclude it doesn’t exist. Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the cited sources and other versions of this page on eight other languages describe this subject in the same way. Russian version even makes it more general as the totalitarian architecture being a part of the totalitarian aesthetics. Every definition of every subject in social sciences (terrorism, genocide, whatever) has been disputed, but it only makes these subjects more notable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this page and AfD discussion have left me completely disillusioned with WP. Absolutely no intellectual rigour or reading of sources. Just editors going to different search engines, typing "totalitarian architecture" and then WP:REFBOMBING. The use of the Dalrymple article is just intellectual malpractice. Completely misrepresents the article and the way the term totalitarian is used which - like the Ward source - is completely different to how the WP article uses it. I assume that "no consensus" will be called for this soon and this terrible Frankenstein's monster of an article will live on. WP will be a lot poorer for it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m genuinely hoping whoever has to take up the task of closing this AfD realizes how little effort is put in on the part of most of these Keep votes to actually look at sourcing. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others above. Side-note, this has been in AfD for more than 7 days now. Either keep or make a no consensus call soon please! Dr. Universe (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s proper to implore for a close in your favor just because we’ve approached the 7 day discussion mark. Sometimes the backlog takes time to work through, especially for a contentious discussion like this. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a phrase with meaning reflected by coverage in sources. The meaning may be a bit fuzzy, but we don't shy away from having articles because the subject takes that additional work to clearly encapsulate. This is not an ambiguous term so much as it is a broad one susceptible to different interpretations, but so is "Totalitarianism" itself. BD2412 T 02:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on that 'supposedly' Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture definition that so much hinges on. Seeing as this is a tertiary source I have tracked down the secondary sources it references:

P. Adam (1992) - this is Peter Adam's book Art of the Third Reich. The book is entirely about Nazi art and makes 4 passing references to either 'totalitarian regimes' or 'totalitarian systems'. It never puts forward a definition or idea of totalitarian architecture and the term is just used as a term to refer to other contemporary european dictatorships. The book even pushes back against a unified style of totalitarian architecture saying 'Neoclassicism has long been the language of political power. It was by no means exclusive to Germany or to totalitarian systems. It was the official style of many countries.' (p223)
Council of Europe (1995) - this is a reference to the catalogue of a 1995 exhibition called Art and Power: Europe Under the Dictators 1930-1945. I can't find a copy of the catalogue online to read but the exhibition contained the work of Salvador Dali, Lucio Fontana, Paul Klee, Oskar Kokoschka, El Lissitzky, Joan Miro, Pablo Picasso, Kazimir Malevich and Vladimir Tatlin. Not an exibition focused on architecture or even art from totalitarian regimes.
Spotts (2002) - this is Frederic Spotts' book Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. Again can't get a copy of the book to have a check but this is a book dedicated to Nazi art (not architecture exclusively) and I'm guessing wouldn't devote a great deal of time explaining a theory of totalitarian architecture.

Looking at this the 'supposedly' makes a lot of sense. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mahtab Alam[edit]

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

This Article fails GNG. and Doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. Iamfarzan (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

leaning toward delete - When I reviewed this, I saw some coverage and was on the fence about notability. On second look, it appears the yahoo news source is not neutral, leaving outlook india to be the only source offering any in-depth coverage. This is compounded by the fact that there appears to be a doctor with the same name. Unless more in-depth sources can be found, this does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A S U K I T E 16:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 16:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 16:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

he is not a doctor. He got the Doctorate(Phd). Iamfarzan (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cleaned up the article and there's nothing that helps in establishing notability, if we try for WP:NPOL, because it fails GNG at the first instance. Weird advert piece. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Emery[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Artist appears to have only recorded one single with almost no published work about the artist. Current references are to YouTube and a dead BBC link. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some true one-hit wonders, but Emery is not one of them. To begin with the work she is most known for is a work that has a much longer history, and so it is not even defined by her particular recording.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child. The BBC link (archived) never had any biographic info, just a node in a directory pointing to MusicBrainz and Discogs. She became known for a single cover song. She receives passing one sentence mentions in showbiz chatter sections in Variety, Billboard, and music trade journals: e.g. "Kathleen Emery is visiting deejays plugging "Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child" on the Love label, "Kathleen Emery (signs) to Le Roy Prinz for personnel management", "Top arranger-conductor George Siravo has been signed by songstress Kathleen Emery to wax her first single", "Kathleen Emery starts at the Holiday Inn, Aruba, today". Her cover of "Motherless Child" apparently got some radio play in the UK in 1997, and Aquarium Drunkard (RS?) gave two paragraphs indicating its existence , which is why it might possibly be worthy of mention at, and redirect to, the song's article. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:MUSIC Kevin19781 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/federal-officials-details-what-evidence-theyve-collected-in-hot-air-balloon-crash-investigation/6159554/

[2] ttps://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/newsmaker-faisal-farooqui-115032601198_1.html

[3] "দুর্গাপূজার সময়ে যেভাবে শোক পালন করেন 'মহিষাসুরের বংশধরেরা'". BBC News বাংলা (in Bengali). 2020-10-26. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[4] "दुर्गा नहीं महिषासुर की जय". BBC News हिंदी (in Hindi). 2009-09-27. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[5] পরামানিক, অমিত. "মহিষাসুর ও হুদুড় দুর্গা". www.anandabazar.com. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[6] "দুর্গাপুজা উৎসব নয়, শোকের সময় যে হিন্দু জনগোষ্ঠীর কাছে! | কালের কণ্ঠ". Kalerkantho (in Bengali). Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[7] "দুর্গা নন, এই উৎসবে আদিবাসী সাঁওতালদের উপাস্য হুদুড় দুর্গা। শ্যামসুন্দর বেরা". EI Samay (in Bengali). Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[8] "क्या सच में महिषासुर दलित या आदिवासी था?". News18 Hindi (in Hindi). 2019-10-05. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[9] Chattopadhyay, Arunava (2018). DURGA: Ekti Obolokon (in Bengali). Atmajaa Publishers. pp. 48, 49. Retrieved 17 March 2021.

[10] "Mahishasur Day observed at JNU | Delhi News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[11] "'दैत्य' को भी पूजेगा बंगाल". Dainik Jagran (in Hindi). Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[12] "Navratri Special : इनके लिए दशानन रावण कुलगुरु और महिषासुर हैं पूर्वज, ये लंका दहन को मानते हैं पाप". Navbharat Times (in Hindi). Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[13] "जिस महिषासुर का दुर्गा ने वध किया उन्हें आदिवासी अपना पूर्वज और भगवान क्यों मानते हैं". thewirehindi.com. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[14] Deogharia, Jaideep (October 11, 2013). "Asur tribals mourn 'martyr' Mahishasur | Ranchi News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[15] "Meeting the Asurs". The Indian Express. 2016-03-06. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[16] Dam, Abhirup (2016-09-12). "Dalits Point out How Onam Is the Story of Upper Caste Domination". TheQuint. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[17] Hansda, Parimal. "Eight melancholic, introspective poems by Parimal Hansda on being a Santhal today". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[18] "BJP MP Cancels Celebration of Mahisha Dasara in Mysuru". NewsClick. 2019-09-30. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[19] "দুর্গা নয়, এই উৎসবে তাঁরা উপাসনা করেন হুদুড় দুর্গর". EI Samay (in Bengali). Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[20] NewsDesk, G. C. "When Bengalis celebrate Durga Puja, Santhals mourn killing of demon king Mahishasura - Goa Chronicle". Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[21] Service, Indo-Asian News (2016-03-01). "Not just Durga, Mahishasur also worshipped in India". India News, Breaking News | India.com. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[22] Oct 3, TNN /; 2016; Ist, 13:57. "Descendant of Mahishasur to inaugurate puja at an east Kolkata pandal | Kolkata News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2021-07-16. {{cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[23] "As You Celebrate Durga Puja, These Communities Observe Mahishasur Shahadat Diwas". InUth. 2019-10-01. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]