Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 01 July 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 07:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parkhotampur[edit]

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

A small village with no notability. The only source used is a census report from 2011. This certainly fails GNG. Created by a user who is just creating articles for the hell of it and is not improving any of them. He is currently a subject of an ongoing ANI discussion. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't fit the guidlines. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. The guideline says that populated, legally recognised places are presumed notable. The census link says that this is a populated (by over 2000 people) legally recognised place. How does it not fit? I must add that I have never seen anyone with a user name that implies that they are here on a mission last for long. If you want to fly under the radar a bit more then I advise you to change it, but then I have also never seen editors with such user names take such good advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fit because there is only one census report. A single source isn't enough. It would be notable if not only with multiple census reports, but news articles or something that can establish notability. This village so far isn't under the guideline. And there's no need to invoke any comment about my user name. Stick to the topic at hand. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per User:Phil Bridger and WP:GEOLAND. One census report IS enough for populated places, although obvsly more sources would be better. Ingratis (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per GEOLAND. People live here.--Hippeus (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement, so passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 7 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. Sandstein 11:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Krüger[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced for seventeen years, since it was created in 2004. According to the website of the subject, he is "King and Champion in the World of Art !" and holds two "World Titles": "World's Foremost Caricature Artist." and "World's Premier Rolling Stones Artist"

The article doesn't have any inline footnotes, but has some external links, which disqualifies it from being deleted under BLPPROD. TThe following is a comprehensive list of all URLs ever used in the article, with a brief summary:

The subject has published a number of books, none of which appear to have been reviewed in independent, reliable sources.

  • ISBN 9781883398279 Stars
  • ISBN 9781883398613 Stones by Kruger
  • ISBN 9783775705349 Backstage
  • ISBN 9783830333890 Face to Face
  • ISBN 9783830350002 Faces: the art of Sebastian Krüger

There is an unsourced claim in the article that "The Times praised him for "capturing the essence of his subjects" in his renderings", but I've not been able to find that in the Times archive.

According to https://artfacts.net/artist/sebastian-krueger/143226 Krüger’s first exhibition was Sebastian Krüger at Kunsthalle Kühlungsborn in Seebad Kühlungborn in 2005, but I'm unable to verify that; https://kunsthalle-kuehlungsborn.de/ausstellungen/ausstellungen-archiv/ doesn't list it. Artfacts also mentios a solo exhit in the Museum im Kleihues-Bau, but their archive also does not list hom as an exhibitor. https://museum-kleihues-bau.kornwestheim.de/start/ausstellungen/ausstellungsarchiv.html

In summary: I have not been able to find significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources, nor verify that he meats any of our notability criteria for artists. Vexations (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the analyses in the nomination. When I did a BEFORE search, I could find things on another person with the same name, but no sigcov in reliable sources on this caricature artist. The article is written in a very promotional advertorial tone to inflate the claims. If verifiable sources can be found I might consider rethinking my !vote. At this time they do not meet GNG nor NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an independent search found no RS.--- Possibly (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All I can find is an interview of him in the German music magazine Rock Hard. He may have more coverage in German sources, but I don't speak German. Brycehughes (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brycehughes, that same source is in the German version of the article, where it is tone of two footnotes, the other is for Welche Schule für mein Kind? (Which School for my Child) from a supplement to the Hannoverschen Allgemeinen Zeitung where he is listed under Prominente Absolventen (Prominent alumni) as: "Künstler Sebastian Krüger". Vexations (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Comment; I'm not sure if they're considered reliable for notability but I've located English-language sources here and here; and German-language sources here and here. There's also a few passing mentions of his paintings being stolen by an unscrupulous dealer. Brycehughs is correct; the sources in German seems to be more reliable. I'll stubify the article and add a few of these. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vexations; I'm poor at detecting the provenance of sources but at least I've been able to remove the U-BLP template. There may be more German-language sources on G-news; these showed up on Page 5 for me. I'm neutral on the proposed deletion though. The copyvio you note on the article's talk page should be rev-deleted unless it's suitably licensed. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion following Baffle gab1978's cleanup.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See the corresponding German-language article at de:Sebastian Krüger and its references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eastmain, The references in the German-language article do not really help, as the first one is unverifiable, and the second two link to the the Wikipedia article for Rock Hard magazine. Netherzone (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist due to changes that occurred during discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: the Rolling Stone source you mentioned says "Per The Guardian, Poole also pilfered pieces by Lennon, German artist Sebastian Krüger and famed French sculptor Auguste Rodin." I guess you are implying that a thief is a potential arbiter of notability. If I rewrite the sentence into something like this, it's clear that the statement does not carry any weight: "Per The Guardian, Poole also pilfered pairs of old socks belonging to Lennon, German artist Sebastian Krüger and famed French sculptor Auguste Rodin." --- Possibly ☎ 10:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this is a trivial mention. —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Apologies! I misread that as "this mention". --- Possibly ☎ 17:59, 8 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 11:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructing Dinner[edit]

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

Article about a radio program, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for radio programs. Although this makes potentially valid notability claims, it fails to reference them anywhere but the show's own self-published content about itself -- but the notability test isn't the things the article says, it's the depth and quality of the reliable source coverage about the show, in sources other than itself, that can or can't be shown to verify that the things the article says are true. A prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Voices landed no consensus, almost entirely because of a single person who argued that BCAST criteria were met on their face without showing any proper notability-building sources, but even in that discussion the only other person besides me who actually looked for sources agreed that he wasn't able to find enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is no where near what we would need to show that this radio program was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks indepenedent sources from reliable publications to establish notability. Tulkijasi (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:46, 6 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) TheChronium 07:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mañana (newspaper)[edit]

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

Not refernced article for over a decade. Was deproded by article creator with the rationale only BLPs need references. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - as explained in the edit summary, lack of references is not in itself a valid rationale for deletion. --Soman (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it appears to pass WP:NMEDIA newspaper criterion 2, but as NMEDIA is not (yet) a guideline, Soman, which sources do you assert help this pass GNG? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kudos to Soman for adding the references soon after the nomination. I would need to be at a university library to determine for myself if coverage of the Spanish Civil War references this newspaper enough to have a stand-alone article; but now the sources in the article are sufficient. You could argue for a merge to Syndicalist Party, but I will not. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:42, 6 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 00:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remesh Ramachandran[edit]

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

The article was created by stock, the person lacks in-depth coverage, and the achievements are not that remarkable. The article also contains sponsored articles without the byline and a few contributor articles. Madarphadar (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly promotional, and the references are not high quality. Three of the 7 references are the same piece from the Deccan Chronicle. The other 4 are of no use to meet GNG; one is a HuffPost contributor piece. Possibly WP:TOOSOON; there could easily be more coverage of this person in 10 years for work done after the present time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:47, 6 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 23:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Michelle Bridges[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 23:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please explain to me exactly what is so wrong about the article to remove it? Thank you in advance ElenaEt (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the annoying one who deprodded this. Giving an overview of WP:PROF criteria I found that: She has an h-score somewhere betweeen 5 and 8 as google scholar and scopus give different results. Upwards of 300+ citations, and at least 12 publications. One publication has 132 citations, and another has 43 and she was not first author on it. Most publications with high citations are older. So while she has not published a lot, it does seem like what she does public is rather noteworthy. It also doesn't appear to be a top journal either. I am not familiar with the averages in library science, and I wasn't able to find it. I am inclined to say no it doesn't meet C1, but if this proves to be near averages I may change my assessment. As for all the other criteria, she seems to fails C2-C8 as I was not able to find evidence of her meeting any of those. I could not find any major new articles, secondary sources, or similar on her which leads me to believe she fails WP:BIO as well, and does not pass WP:AUTHOR if that were a possible consideration. --Tautomers(T C) 01:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep
    Hello. Is it possible to change this decision? This librarian is a very important woman to the international library community, regardless of the traditional publishing circuit. The concept of notability should not be tied to the article indexing ranking when, ultimately, she is a person with various academic publications.
    Having her biography allows many people to know the impact of women librarians of the 21st century. I also believe that the fact that her article in the Spanish edition of wikipedia remains alive, shows the relevance of her existence. Thanks in advance! Virc587 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:14, 3 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. From the content, it seems like he ought to be notable, but as always the proof is in the sourcing. Happy to restore as a draft if there is an editor who wants to work on that. RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Hurst[edit]

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

BLP that is only sourced to an interview and a non-independent source. Outside of that sourcing, I cannot seem to find any indication of notability as far as sourcing goes. This article is filled with very intricate personal detail that leads me to believe that it was written by someone with deep connections to the subject. Although not a notability issue, I would like to point out that the article does not have a lead either. 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 14:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a brief look for now, restored the lead that was there at some time, formatted the infobox and the long list of positions. If he received the awards presented, and had an award named after him, he is probably notable enough, ut it needs to be sourced, of course, which I can't even try at the moment. This article was up for deletion before, in 2013, and obviously kept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked a bit deeper: he is certainly notable in the world of double bassist, judging by articles he wrote, pupils referring to him, interviews. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not sourced. Not notable. Author seems to have a close connection to person. Grimes2 (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above fails GNG no reliable coverage available. Tulkijasi (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article sourcing is not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 13 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. Sandstein 11:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie State Winery[edit]

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

No claim to fame as the oldest winery in the county. Fails WP:ORG. A generic category. Fails WP:SIRS. Notability tag for a decade. scope_creepTalk 16:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the oldest anything in a given size location is less than 25-years-old that is no claim to fame at all. There are something like 4000 counties in the US, although most lack wineries, still if being the oldest in a given county were a sign of notability that would just lead to article glut, especially since we would have to figure similar standards to apply world wide, down that path we do not want to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we normally don't have articles on run-of-the-mill local restaurants/businesses, and I see no reason this should be different. The references read like a business that has saved its press clippings; they are all local. Thus WP:CORPDEPTH is not met. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:54, 6 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. North America1000 03:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Guts![edit]

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

Has already been PRODded, sole source is this review from Mania about an OVA based on the games, was unable to find anything else about the OVA or the games themselves to incorporate. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - This is one of a few officially licensed hentai anime films that got translated and dubbed into English by a Media Blasters so it is notable in that it's one of a few titles that got officially translated into English and is well known. Alongside some other titles, it is still used in memes like other hentai and has reviews about it online. There are written reviews as well as video reviews on this title. I will continue to work on expanding sources for the page but I think it should stay as it is notable among people online. The fact that it has a page on Wikipedia is proof enough. Alexaclova112330 (talk) 05:53, June 18, 2021 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article existing for something doesn't inherently make it notable - articles for deletion exists for a reason. Youtube reviews aren't reliable as they're user-generated and it's just some random guy - not an expert. One of the reviews you linked to, Animetric, is not considered to be a reliable source by Wikiproject Anime and Manga, see WP:A&M/ORS. The reliability of two other sources you added, 'Erosou' and 'Ima-ero' is unclear. Can you explain how they're reliable and who runs them? Another issue is that all of these sources is for the OVA, not about the video games the OVA is based on at all. Waxworker (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I alluded to this above, but my stance is Weak Keep. Link20XX (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Link20XX: Neither the Mania source or the entry in 'the anime encyclopedia' are about the series of video games, which seems to be the main focus of the article. I was unable to find any sources for the games themselves, and the sourcing for the OVA is largely just the Mania review, as from what I can see of the anime encyclopedia, entries in it are rather brief and are largely production info and a plot description rather than something substantial. Waxworker (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are still covering the topic of the franchise, even if it wasn't the primary media. The article is about the franchise as a whole. Link20XX (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vixens was also a manga first. I fail to see how this is any different, just because the source is a video game instead. Link20XX (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view it as any different - in both cases the articles have a Mania ref and an entry in the anime encyclopedia, which strikes me as scraping the bottom of the barrel. There isn't substance to the anime encyclopedia entry in my opinion, as it's largely just production info and a plot description rather than commentary on the subject. One review from Mania doesn't make an article. Waxworker (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't substance to the anime encyclopedia entry in my opinion sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. They are giving the series coverage, regardless of opinions on it. Link20XX (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per Link20XX, the Mania article and book source do check all the boxes for WP:GNG, through just barely. Jumpytoo Talk 06:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:37, 2 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) 05:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Gan[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG; no significant coverage of him in sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable (see WP:RS). He has never directed or worked on a notable film so I can't even think of a good place to redirect or merge to. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 2 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. Not relisting this again, the debate has been open nearly a month. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Loco Shed, Krishnarajapuram[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability found. Fram (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. The major source used is irfca.org which is a WP:UGC. — LeoFrank  Talk 09:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article has 292 incoming links. Quoting from IRFCA ref: "Shed opened in 1983, initial holding capacity was 60 locos. Capacity was raised to 125 locos in 2003; with additional facilities later added for EMD locos since 2005. First 5 WDM-3D units were homed here; these were later transferred to Erode. Now has WDG-4 units as well." Sounds pretty notable to me. There is no reason to question the veracity of the IRFCA source. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number of incoming links is not a measure of notability, certainly not when it comes from a huge template with loads of redlinks (Template:Indian Railways). Nothing you quote is any indication of notability either, and the veracity of that short fanclub entry is not really the problem here. Fram (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the coverage is weak, so another possibility is to Merge to Krishnarajapuram railway station. Jumpytoo Talk 18:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like multiple sources have been found above, establishing notability. Additional sources and content appear to have been removed in the past, in one case with the summary "Blogs cannot be used as sources", despite two out of three sources having the .gov.in TLD. While a merge could work, I don't think it would be appropriate here because this facility is in a different location to Krishnarajapuram railway station. NemesisAT (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still no evidence of notability despite edits being made to it since it was nominated. Ajf773 (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you miss the sources linked to above? NemesisAT (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:35, 2 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 delete or merge. Absolutely no prejudice to a re-AfD in the near future, although it appears that there may also be merit in a merge or the creation of a new target article. Daniel (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Loco Shed, Ludhiana[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability found. Fram (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:This article has 278 incoming links, and is, to quote from one of the refs: "A large shed: 170+ locos [10/13]. Locos serve a large swathe of Northern and North-western India". Sounds pretty notable to me. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither argument has anything to do with notability of course. The number of incoming links is largely due to Template:Indian Railways, which has a truckload of redlinked "railway depots". The quote is from a webpage from the "Indian Railways Fan Club"[16]. Fram (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no reason to question the veracity of the IRFCA source. Are you contending that all these railway depot articles are inherently not notable? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't question their veracity, I questioned their impact on notability. A one-line entry in a fan club website page has no bearing on an AfD, and being a "large" shed is not important either. And railway sheds are not "inherently" notable or not notable: each one has to show notability on its own, like nearly all subjects on enwiki. Fram (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • What would you find an acceptable demonstration of notability? Why is this one not notable, but the others may be? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Meeting the WP:GNG, i.e. having significant, indepth, non-routine coverage in independent, reliable sources. And your second question; this one isn't notable as the article gives no indication of this being a notable subject, and I haven't found the necessary sources either. So until the opposite is shown, I consider this one to be not notable. The others may be, as I haven't checked the articles nor the availability of sources. I presume most ones aren't notable, but each one should be considered separately. Previous ones at AfD ended in deletion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Loco Shed, Santragachi, for what it's worth. Fram (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now this isn't as particularly easy as it looks at first sight. I mean, railway sheds - what next, lists of outside toilets? HOWEVER, there is abiding interest in all things railway and I note that UK railway maintenance facilities and depots can have their own articles, so there is some precedent for railway facilities being notable. Add in some bias, and you could argue that just because this is Indian and undercovered, it should exist. There's a Ludhiana Junction railway station article, so the salient info here could go into that. Right now, however, it doesn't present evidence of notability, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "lists of outside toilets"? This isn't a garden shed. It's a very large and signficant facility, housing and servicing 170+ locomotives that serve much of northern India. And yes, it's not much written about by anyone other than rail enthusiasts, but that doesn't make it insignificant. Really, would the encyclopaedia be improved by the removal of this article and the 40 or so others like it, most of which have substantial content? Deleting them would be a sort of legalistic vandalism, destroying things because they don't quite fit a narrow technical definition of notability. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, deletion was proposed less than an hour after the article was created. Per WP:BEFORE, I feel more time should have been given to allow the article to be improved. There certainly should have been given more time to allow for sources in the local language to be found, if available. Railway stations are generally assumed to be notable, I think it's fair to assume a depot at least 40 years old is notable too. I fail to see how deleting this would make Wikipedia better. NemesisAT (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Electric Loco Shed, Ludhiana is a very similar article, but seems to be safe from threat of deletion because its references include a couple of mentions in the mainstream press. Surely, given time, similar mentions could be found for this article too. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Electric Loco Shed, Ludhiana Google maps & the coordinates show these two sheds are at the same location. No reason why they cannot be covered in the same article. Jumpytoo Talk 18:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good idea, if these facilities are indeed adjacent to each other then I see no reason why they couldn't be combined into one article. NemesisAT (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree. These are two very similar facilites, adjacent but separate. If one of them is notable enough for us, then they both are. The only difference is that Electric Loco Shed, Ludhiana has a couple of mentions in the mainstream press, but the diesel shed doesn't. On that rather legalistic basis, it's claimed that one is notable but the other isn't. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The best sort of article would cover motive power depot(s) at Ludhiana since the earliest steam days, with an emphasis on prose rather than a photo gallery opportunity. Having said merge I am not in position to do this myself, and have minimal knowledge or sourcing for railways in Asia. A simple redirect wouldn't work; there would need to be some content about the diesel depot in the electric depot.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More refs added. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would read the the sources added by Colonies Chris, namely [17] and [18] as adding weight for a combined Loco Shed, Ludhiana article which also could cover the historic steam running shed. This is especially the case as the article is currently falling into the trap of being used to show a gallery of diesel locomotive images rather than any of the diesel locomotive itself in the absence of any prose of significance. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:33, 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. This debate was hard to read due to improvements that occurred during it. Considered closing as 'keep' but, quite simply, it's harder to determine consensus on a fluidly-changing article. Sticking with no consensus considering this. Daniel (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Cheston[edit]

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

None of this is substantial coverage. Fasti is a complete non-selective directory. Bishops are presumed notable, but not archdeacons.

The 16th century is not remote antiquity, where we sometimes assume that everyone still identifiable should have an article. DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although guidelines (well, essays to be honest) do, indeed note bishops are notable, you cannot fail to recognise that WP is PACKED with Archdeacons and that there is clearly broad consensus for their inclusion. I mean, look at Category:Archdeacons of York! There are already a whole load of 'em - one more won't hurt... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I buy Fram's argument, so Redirect. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous articles that may help

Bashereyre (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Archdeacon of Bournemouth. Keeping or deleting isn't based on how many articles we have on a subject, otherwise one simply needed to make sure to pass some arbitrary threshold to be kept ad aeternum. As can be seen from the previous discussions, some are kept, some are deleted, and some are merged or redirected, depending on the actual coverage available for each individual. This is one of a series of mass-created archdeacon articles of very poor quality, with (as with many of the archdeacon and bishop articles by the same editor) lots of errors, inaccuracies, ... in many of them. E.g. for this one, we have a date of death of 1 February 1572, sourced to a page that lists him as "dead by 10 May 1572", and where another source in the article lists him as "died 1571"[19]. He is supposedly installed as archdeacon on 21 March 1554, even though the same two sources say "12 March 1554" and "1555". The third, unlinked and rather cryptic source, is probably this, which doesn't really help us much further with the above (natural death: 1/6/1572 gives us yet another date, and yet again not the one in the article). Looking for further sources gives us only further confusion[20] but no significant coverage. Unless better coverage is unearthed, this looks to be someone failing WP:BIO, and the article should be deleted or redirected to a list of archdeacons (considering the dubious information in it, I don't support any actual merging). Fram (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For context: "By March 1554 Philpott had been deprived as archdeacon, excommunicated, and placed in the king's bench prison." (ODNB) That is John Philpot, Cheston's predecessor as archdeacon. "On 18 December 1555 the authorities conveyed Philpott to Smithfield to be burnt." Cheston is perhaps not a major figure of the reign of Mary I of England, but later in Elizabeth I's reign, Robert Horne as bishop of Winchester tried to get rid of him as archdeacon, in 1564 (ODNB) - no success there, and Cheston kept his place until 1572. These things should be in Wikipedia, and incidentally throw light onto the date issues raised above. I don't think the article should simply be redirected. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In line with what I wrote above, Cheston's historical role is clear enough, and there are references. I have expanded the article. (Some points on dates raised by Fram are to do with New Style issues that go on until the 18th century, while some may be valid concerns though "collation" is not the same as "installation". In any case such things are not what AfD is here to decide.) Charles Matthews (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There doesn't seem to be any reference at all which gives more than very passing attention to Cheston, not even the PhD thesis about the Archdeacons gives him real attention. If in 400+ years time, no one has felt the need to write more than one or two lines about a subject, it is hard to defend that it is a notable subject surely? We don't even know his date of death, even though the article still firmly states it as "1 February 1572" in two places. Fram (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The date of death is in the CCEd reference: the use of 1571, as I pointed out, may well be because Julian calendar dates in the first few months of the year are now considered like 1571-2, in 1571 Old Style and 1572 New Style. In any case CCEd dates, correctly interpreted, are based on primary sources, so that is a reliable, scholarly source. I don't know whether you are able to read the ODNB source (it is easy in the UK, and Wikipedia Library has accounts). The fact is that there is a real story here about nepotism by a strongly Catholic bishop of Winchester, Gardiner, who had the previous archdeacon burned, and brought in a family connection from his home town. (There is no clear evidence that Cheston was a priest at this point: he was probably a lawyer.) A subsequent strongly Protestant bishop, Horne, tried to get rid of Cheston as archdeacon. He failed, because his officials didn't really co-operate. Most people would see that there is a story here. ([21] is Gardiner's will, by the way. There are a couple of local history papers on JSTOR about Gardiner and the Cheston family.) The family name is also spelled Chesten or Chesteyn, and maybe other ways too. So further research would be needed to claim there isn't more to find here. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originator The stub of a archdeacon of this vintage seems worth keeping. When I started on Wikipedia in 2007 there weren't half, nay a quarter, of the digitised books and manuscripts there are now. I've always intended being cremated but am tempted to change this so I can have on my tombstone "Anglican Deans and Archdeacons are notable by office" Although, to contradict myself I was once looking at an Anglican diocese in Canada. I clicked on the staff page and second down was Bishop's Archdeacon. This was a curate with two years experience who was what most Anglicans call Chaplain, which was traditionally a secretarial role. So what do I know?Bashereyre (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now article has been extended and improved. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Charles Matthews has amply demonstrated notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:34, 2 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. North America1000 03:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Hodgson[edit]

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

This article is about Hodgson's movies, not about Hodgson. They may or may not be notable, but he has to be notable in his own right, not simply as the producer/director of those movies. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. He is a WP:ROTM producer/director, of which there are many. Fails WP:GNG FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he has to be notable in his own right, not simply as the producer/director of those movies" How does it work? The person is either known for his body of work, or the person can be famous purely because he or she is a celebrity and is just famous. There are plenty of sources in the article, and highly reliable ones. There is a Guardian article named "Football focus: Queens Park Rangers' Four Year Plan on film" [22]. There is specifically written there: "He pitched a film about their attempts to turn around the struggling, debt-ridden club". Hodgson is cited in this article, it is almost an interview. There are also other sources:[23], [24] - interview with him, [25], [26]. So there are plenty sources on him. Therefore, Keep. Кирилл С1 (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to add the rationale for keeping the article. There was written that his films may or may not be notable. But they are, as they have multiple coverage, including reviews, and in-depth articles about them. See [27] and above urls - United Way (which was narrated by Cantona[28]), [29], [30], [31] - I am Duran. The other thing is that the documentary directors are notable for their work and films. If we see WP:DIRECTORS, it is written in 3 and 4 what his works have to satisfy. Кирилл С1 (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient coveragePipsally (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I say that there is sufficient coverage and that he satisfies WP:Director. I also would like to point out that some of the examples in WP:ROTM are "A local club supporting a hobby or interest, or a local organization promoting some cause" and "The local festival or other scheduled event that occurs annually". The filmmaker that makes documentaries about one of the biggest clubs in the world does not meet ROTM description. His film about QPR is included in the lists of best films about football [32], [33] ("extraordinary fly-on-the-wall documentary"[34]). There is nothing trivial in filming a documentary about a club that pursues promotion to PL, for four years. Кирилл С1 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All you're suggesting is that the film is notable. That does not automatically translate to notability for the filmmakers if they're not covered appropriately themselves as individuals in RS.Pipsally (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability of film directors and notability of their work are connected. He is notable due to WP:DIRECTOR to 3 and 4c. And, there are also interviews with him when he tells about the film (see above urls and [35]). Кирилл С1 (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:33, 2 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. Most of the comments favor keeping, but do not provide the type of evidence (reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage of the subject) that is normally expected to support a Keep. Since it has been relisted twice already, further discussion now seems unlikely to change this, so closing as No Consensus. RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RK DreamWest[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker. The sources cited are either non-RS (IMDb etc.), or cover his films and not him. I can't find a single RS sigcov, not in the cites and not by searching; hence fails WP:GNG. I also don't think the two films or the two awards mentioned are enough to qualify him for WP:FILMMAKER notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the page may be retained for the following reasons.

1. The author added all recommendations by other editors 2. The page includes plenty of secondary sources including famous news outlets like Times of India, Indian Express, Mathrubhumi and Gulf news.

3. The person is active in the Malayalam film Industry since 2014 in various capacities though he started working on his first film 2016 ( from my research)

4. His latest film Fourth River won several International accolades

5. The only thing I can’t find is his interviews. That I think some film makers may not like to be visible or may have affected by the current pandemic isolations.

In my opinion.and to my research, he is an active filmmaker and he already announced his next movie and working on it. So, even if we delete the page, it may come back later with more references as he is on his next movie. Please keep the page.

One more thing why I request you to retain the page is that Indian-American filmmakers are a minority and keeping the page may help Wikipedia balance representation of filmmakers from all origins. So, It is my suggestion that you may please allow to keep the article. Rnair2020 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thanks for taking part. Unfortunately, the points you raise do not address the lack of notability, which was the basis for this AfD nomination. I have explained more fully on your talk page. HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Thanks DoubleGazing for your feedback. I fully understand your concern. Though he is an American citizen as per records, most of his works are in the regional language Malayalam. Most of the time articles are written in that language newspapers only. I went through many other biographies of filmmakers from the same region and I do see many are in Wikipedia with similar profiles. So, I request again to keep the article for six months or a year and watch how others contribute to his profile. For me, I spend enough time on this article and would like to move to other topics in my free time. It’s up to you now. Rnair2020 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The director became notable due to Fourth River, the first Malayalam film to have an OTT release. Rajeshbieee (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, being "the first Malayalam film to have an OTT release" isn't a notability criterion; not even for the film itself, let alone for its director. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - During the release of his second movie there were several discussion in the Malayalam TV channels and many progressive forums due the subject handled in Fourth River movie. There were objections initially from some political factions about the way the film depicted their history, and finally he released the movie in OTT platform (the first Malayalam movie to have an OTT release ever). He is a very active member of Asian-American film makers in US. He is notable and my recommendation is to Keep the page. 144.178.4.18 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This director made an impact and became popular after his theatrical directorial "The Journey"(2009) and "Uthirkaalam" (2013). Unfortunately, I don't have much citations of this handy. 73.147.101.121 (talk) 19:47, 6 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) TheChronium 07:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Camron Johnson[edit]

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

Just a college football player at non-powerhouse Vanderbilt. No All-American or even conference honors. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the coverage is either routine for an inury, and I do not think we want to say everyone who has a season ending injury in college football is notable, or mainly from the school he is playing for. We have consistently decided that not every player of college football in NCAA Divsion 1 is notable, and that is essetially where we would have to draw the line to justify having an article on Johnson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ranked #6 among SEC receivers in 2020 and still has 2021 season left to go. See here. No time to do an in-depth analysis, but I am finding some SIGCOV, including here, here, here, here, and here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer If deleted, please create a redirect as a misspelling of Cameron Johnson.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided by Cbl62 go a long way to establish notability. I was also able to find [36] [37] [38]. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage counts in any case, but the first item from USA Today is national coverage, as is Bleacher Report. And The Tennessean is a major metropolitan daily and a regional paper serving much of Tennessee and southern Kentucky. Cbl62 (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: SIGCOV or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That USA Today article is a fluff piece written by Johnson himself as to why he chose Vanderbilt (along with the rest of "The Tennessean’s Dandy Dozen"): not much nourishment/verifiabily there. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, seems to have just enough SIGCOV to meet GNG, in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coverage sourced in article and others found by Cbl show a pass of WP:GNG. The USA Today article is confusing because it is written by the subject--is that a letter to the editor? Or did USA Today ask a number of college athletes to submit bios? No matter, I see a pass on the other material.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is anything but routine having been named the 2018 Tennessee athlete of the year, after leading his teams to 11 state championships and starring in football, basketball, and track. See here. His collegiate career is ongoing, and as a junior in 2020 he ranked as the No. 6 receiver in the best football conference (SEC) with his senior year still ahead of him. He is also featured on the cover of the 2021 preseason issue of SEC magazine. See here. The USA Today piece is self authored but still significant given its inclusion in a national publication. The totality of the SIGCOV pushes him over the GNG bar ... and with reasonable expectation that the coverage will grow during the 2021 season. (NOTE: He is also referred to in the last couple years as "Cam Johnson" with additional SIGCOV found under that spelling variation. E.g., here, here, here) Cbl62 (talk) 16:18, 9 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) 19:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hristo Georgiev (serial killer)[edit]

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

Following a talk page discussion, we found nothing beyond the one source mentioned in the article. It therefore fails WP:GNG's requirement for multiple sources. --- Possibly ☎ 18:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 18:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 18:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 18:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it almost impossible to believe there's zero sources about this guy, leading to the conclusion it could be a hoax (which is also mentioned in the talkpage discussion). As a side note, the article's creator posted this thread on Reddit. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the one who mentioned the possibility of a hoax - but now I'm leaning against that theory now. All the same, it's only got one reference (in 2 parts). The ref looks like a Bulgarian newspaper site in Bulgarian, and there's no way for me to determine if it's a RS. There's no matching article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia. I can't find any reason to keep it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage available for this guy hence doesn't qualify for GNG. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing on Google Scholar about them and most of the links to information on google search seem to come back to this wikipedia page to source it - which is problematic. Jamzze (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from above well considered arguments, there is a chance that this article is part of a sophisticated attempt at character assassination. See this HackerNews discussion. Although Wikipedia obviously does not control Google's knowledge graph, if this article is indeed a hoax it may have been created to smear the subject of the aforementioned HackerNews discussion by combining Google's knowledge graph and Wikipedia to give the attack an air of legitimacy. Melmann
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SP Nano Ltd.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. No significant coverage, only coverage is routine PR announcements. Article is strictly promotional in nature. Rogermx (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reads like a press release, sources don't establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom no reliable coverage available. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed as per nom. Routine coverage (as per their funding announcements. Lovelife11111 (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable coverage. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I strongly believe it should be deleted because reliable sources are week and this article written just for advertisement purpose.TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources are not significant enough.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:23, 7 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. The primary disagreement here comes from interpretation of local coverage/significant coverage. Ultimately, there is no consensus on the veracity (or otherwise) of the sources, and therefore I am restricted with this being the only close available. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Burgman[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:NPOL. Mayor of a small village and a town. scope_creepTalk 14:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failure of WP:NPOL and the obituaries don't show any accomplishments that would make her an exception to the non-notability of mayors. She did resign because of some local mismanagement, but there's no coverage beyond what is to be expected from a small-town mayor. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and I don’t see what else would make the subject notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meeting GNG. As of now, there is only looked at sources after her death (and there plenty more of them). But to establish notability I did some investigation in older secondary sources. See here an 2008 article of national news source Trouw. The article also refers to the 2005 book Als dat maar goed gaat. Bestuurlijke ervaringen met crises (see here at bol.com) with a long interview with her. In 2010 she was in the national news due to a wine incident, apart from all the news articles, see for instance AT5 here that reflects that the incident had national news coverage. When she stepped down in 2011 it was news at among others the main national news source NOS (see here). And she had coverage in local news sources, some samples: 1, 2, 3. Note that local news sources are counting for WP:GNG. I ping former voters Tristan Surtel and Mccapra to be aware about these new (for them) secondary sources, and might be able to reconsider their vote. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per references and other sources, clearly meets the requirements of WP:NPOL #2 and the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think the references provided demonstrate anywhere near enough coverage for a mayor of a town of 4,000/15,000 people. The "national news" articles are three sentences long. Every mayor everywhere will receive some sort of coverage, and I don't think the coverage presented (of the town cleaning up after a disaster, basically) are enough to get her to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 19:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not correct the national news articles are 3 sentences long. The “Trouw” reference is a whole article about her. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most delete opinions including the nomination should be discounted (i.e. ignored) as misinformed and thus misleading for subsequent opinions. Qualifications of village and small town and the associated population figures refer only to Maarn and Bunnik, while the longest and most significant mayoral position that Burgman held was that of De Ronde Venen. Unfortunately, the downplaying of career achievements of female professionals happens too often at Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not aware of any notability guideline in this context that requires us to ignore routine and/or local coverage. (The only possibilities are WP:AUD, which applies only to corporations, and WP:ROUTINE, which applies only to events.) The question that the GNG is asking is essentially "can I write a policy-compliant non-stub article with this coverage?" and the answer to that question is clearly "yes" in light of the good deal of coverage that's been found. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 10 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) 19:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Mario 64 glitches[edit]

List of Super Mario 64 glitches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable trivia. Also does not cite a single source. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary spin out. Most if not all content would fail WP:GAMECRUFT or not be able to be reliably sourced. Anything else (if there's anything at all) can just be put in the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not Gamespot or IGN.. per WP:NOTGUIDE WP is not a depository of game guides. There are a lot of websites where this information can be found, but WP is not one. Being unsourced and unlikely to have RS is another issue, but even if NYT wrote an article on it, NOTGUIDE is controlling. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Purely an original research essay Dexxtrall (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft. While there is an argument that the backwards long jump is notable enough to have its own page, everything else on the list is not. Mlb96 (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:LISTN, one criteria for a list being notable is if it has been discussed as a set by independent, reliable sources. The only source I can find doing so is this [39], and I am not confident about its reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Citations have been added, the page has been categorised, and there are other lists of such glitches online, such as [1]. I may also suggest merging it with Super Mario 64. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mngoblin (talk • contribs) 11:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]
    Struck duplicate vote as user has voted again below. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theres still multiple glaring issues here, including WP:GAMECRUFT (material not appropriate for Wikipedia), the fact that there's not enough content to warrant a split off article, and virtually ever source in the article is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fair enough, go for it. Just thought I'd give page making a shot. I'll wait until I know more about the rules before trying again. Comment added by Mngoblin (talk
  • Delete per WP:VGSCOPE. The content belongs to Fandom, Super Mario Wiki, and other similar projects. Wario-Man talk 02:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of technical errors that appear in video games or other media. Ajf773 (talk) 09:38, 5 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. North America1000 03:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Marshall[edit]

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

WP:N WP:NOTE. Per WP:BIO, specifically, the basic criterion is "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The closest I've seen of independent content mentioning him is this, and I am mildly doubtful as to whether it meets the 'intellectually independent' criterion. For this reason, I believe the case for his notability is not made out, and consequently, his entry should be deleted. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC) -- Text added to top on AfDer's behalf --Tautomers(T C) 23:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With respect, you are mistaken: see my response below, and the links in my comment on the article's Talk page. DaveApter (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep No real rationale for deletion has been given. What does WP:N mean? It meets it? It doesn't? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Lugnuts: Just pinging you now that a rationale has been added. PK650 (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PK. I've struck-through my comment, as I have no view either way, as I'm not familar with the topic area itself. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep because no rationale is given. On a glance I think there is grounds for putting this up for AfD, but I think it's important the opener offer at least something substantive so it can be reviewed and spark discussion. If this is kept someone please ping me as I'd be willing to re-propose it (unless someone else does/wants to). --Tautomers(T C) 23:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep Please state a broader reason for deletion. Like Tautomers I feel the subject is proper for a deletion discussion as yet another low-N 'marketing expert...but I also bring in The Bible!' huckster, but there needs to be more in the rationale for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 23:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Thanks, Ari; I had a feeling it was likely just shorthand or some kind of editing issue, so I feel your reasoning is proper. I don't feel like the subject meets N in any broad manner, and the sourcing isn't there at all in the article. Nate • (chatter) 02:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. I am ordinarily a Wikidata guy, and consequently, my brain got stuck in Wikidata shorthand. I meant, of course, WP:NOTE. Per WP:BIO, specifically, the basic criterion is "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The closest I've seen of independent content mentioning him is this, and I am mildly doubtful as to whether it meets the 'intellectually independent' criterion. For this reason, I believe the case for his notability is not made out, and consequently, his entry should be deleted. I hope that clarifies my AfD. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no worries! I added the text to the top on your behalf so it's easy for people to see. If I messed it up or you'd like to re-word it feel free. --Tautomers(T C) 23:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Starter note, it seems the account that made this page has been indefinitely blocked for being an advertisement account. To my surprise he actually has a google scholar profile, though I think it's got crossover from stuff he hasn't done. Nevertheless, he does have some citations on what he's done. He's not a PROF though so he shouldn't be measured through those metrics (and wouldn't meet them anyway). I don't see these citations as notable though, and the works themselves do not appear notable in outside sources. I wasn't able to find many meaningful secondary sources. There is one I found in local news, but it's really just an exerpt from one of his books and I wouldn't count it. Entreprenur so that source can't really be used to support him. It seems like any notability he has is within a small bubble, and even that seems limited. As such I don't see him passing WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. --Tautomers(T C) 23:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Or at least give it a month to see whether editors can knock this article (which is admittedly in a deplorable state at the moment) into shape. There is absolutely no doubt about Marshall's notability. He has at least eight books released by reputable publishers over a period of 17 years, all selling strongly and continuously in print. Articles featuring him and his work have been published in Forbes, Inc, the Harvard Business Review, the Financial Times, Nature, and the IEEE Spectrum magazine. A paper he wrote was published in the Harvard Business Review's Italian Edition. I will put a note with more detail on the article's Talk page and make a start on improving the article in the next few days. DaveApter (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow more time - Perry Marshall's large number of publications shows that this page has potential. More time is needed to demonstrate their significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiogenic (talk • contribs) 14:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Surprised no one has asked {{Bri, DGG, or Letters and Numbers to weigh in, given their extensive editing history on this page 174.20.124.25 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your ping was busted but the article is on my watchlist. I looked at some of the sources like IEEE Spectrum and I'm not sure if he’s weakly notable for involvement in intelligent design. However, am inclined to stay out of further investment in this, in the spirit of WP:BOGO. As a closing comment from me, two !voters have opined that more time could help. The article has been around since 2013, maybe another decade will help? Probably not. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article in its present form is barely a stub. I have commented on the Talk page outlining edits I plan over the next few days which will establish his notability beyond doubt. DaveApter (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DGG and Bri did a lot to tighten this article, mostly by subtraction. However, there are some possibly notable materials that have not been reflected in this article, relating to some of Marshall's activities. For example, this source[2] references Marshall's Evolution 2.0 book. In addition, a researcher with no competing interests mentions[3] how the prize Marshall initiated is the largest basic research science prize in history. Copywriter12 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but still needs rewriting. The article continues to be POV, as I understand it The article accepts his own statements about the meaning of his theory, but though his own view does show what he is trying to say, it does not show what it actually means. Guessing from the article, because I have not read his book, he is confused between "the hypothesis that variation arises from random DNA copying errors" and " the hypothesis that variation arises ONLY from random DNA copying errors" (Personally, speaking as a biologist who also knows some IT): the various epigenetic process are included as part of Darwinian evolution; Darwin hadn't the least idea of the actual mechanism of genetic transmission, as neither DNA nor chromosomes had yet been discovered. The concept of Darwinism is not random variation as copying errors followed by natural selection, but random variation regardless of mechanism, followed by natural selection. The concept that the genetic code cannot have evolved is unlikely, given what we now know about those surviving organisms having early variants of it. But this is not the place to argue the science or absence of it. . We don't get rid of heterodox views by calling their proponents non-notable. He's attracted enough attention for notability . DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 13 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 BBC World Service#Radio programming in English. Clear consensus not to retain as standalone. Redirecting as WP:ATD since it's a plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Business Daily[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I can't find any independent and reliable secondary sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:24, 2 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) 19:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel S. Ballif[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:ACADEMIC, and WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. --hroest 14:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above Jamzze (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ballif was also mayor of Provo, Utah so we need to consider as well if he passes politician notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here [40] is a biographical sketch published because he was mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the added source connected with his being mayor I believe we have enough sources to justify the passing of politician notability as a mayor of a significant city, Provo, Utah.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the source that Johnpacklambert found, plus the likelihood that a search of Utah newspaper archives would uncover many more reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks notability and has no reliable sources of information.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL - mayors for cities are not clearly notable. If he is notable, it'll be under NPROF. SportingFlyer T·C 15:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't think he passes WP:PROF. But I also disagree with SportingFlyer's apparent assumption that mayors are automatically non-notable, without examination of the sources. Mayors may be notable, or may not be, depending on the sourcing available. Here we have an in-depth and apparently reliable source giving a retrospective of his work as mayor [41] and another apparently reliable source with a paragraph of depth about him, as president of the NZ mission [42]. I think these two sources are enough to give a borderline pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an assumption - while it may not be completely true that every town has a mayor, pretty much every town has a mayor, so local sourcing which only shows that he was the mayor isn't enough in my book. It's different for larger cities or if coverage is beyond local. The mission.net site also fails because it clearly states "Submitted by James Child Phillips, one of his missionaries." so is not independent. SportingFlyer T·C 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "local sourcing which only shows that he was the mayor" is not what we have. What we have is sourcing that goes into considerably more depth than that. And locality of sourcing is nowhere mentioned as a constraint in GNG. And discounting sources as non-independent because they are written by people who might actually know something about the subject is a stupid idea that would leave us dependent only on hermit-philosophers who write about what the world might be like outside their cave but never leave the cave to check whether their fantasies have any validity. What makes a source reliable and independent is not the level of ignorance of its source of information, but what happens afterwards: being edited and published by a disinterested party with some attention to accuracy. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, obituaries are independent of the subject because a newspaper publishes them, even though they're submitted by families. The fact the disinterested party submitted it does not matter in this instance. We also have a long-standing consensus that mayoral articles require something more than local sourcing in order to demonstrate notability, as not to flood the encyclopaedia with articles about mayors. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Paid death notices (not newspaper-written obituaries) are not known for going through any sort of editorial process: the newspaper takes the money and prints what they write. That does not appear to bear any resemblance to the sources used here; it is a total red herring. We also do not have any consensus that mayors are exempt from our general notability guidelines and must go through some special non-local notability process; that exists only in your mind. The actual notability guideline says nothing about locality. The only notability guideline that actually includes a non-local provision is WP:AUD in WP:ORG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We absolutely have a consensus on mayors. See WP:POLOUTCOMES. SportingFlyer T·C 10:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a consensus that being a mayor is not automatically notable. There is not a consensus that being a mayor is disqualifying for notability or for the sources used for notability that describe being a mayor. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus specifically is that mayors are not notable if they only receive routine local coverage of them being a mayor. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Van Goolen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Manuel Mouzo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiyoshi Iketani as recent examples. Considering Ballif was only an interim mayor for less than two months and the website we're using to show notability was written for the city council, I don't see how either of them can work together to make him notable. SportingFlyer T·C 19:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I could point to examples too. "Routine coverage" means that they were mentioned and/or quoted in an article about city business, or we have an article briefly covering the election in which they won the position. It absolutely does not mean in-depth retrospectives about their mayoral career. That goes totally against NPOL's subservience to GNG and against GNG's insistance that coverage, not significance, is what determines notability. You appear to want a notability criterion based on how significant someone's achievements were, rather than on depth of coverage for what you feel are insufficiently significant accomplishments. I encourage you to work towards changing Wikipedia's notability criteria to be based on significance rather than coverage. But please, stop twisting yourself in knots trying to pretend that in-depth coverage is not in-depth merely because it is coverage of someone you don't think is significant enough, or that GNG is based on anything other than depth of coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, a retrospective of seven weeks of being an interim mayor, commissioned by the town council, is not independent; a listing on a website submitted by his child is not independent either; and NPOL, like other SNGs, work together with the GNG to define what sort of coverage qualifies for the GNG, as do several other guidelines where coverage does not necessarily equal notability. Your definition of routine coverage would flood the encyclopaedia with small town mayors. SportingFlyer T·C 11:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepIt feels like there is just enough information to keep an article about the subject. The page on the Provo Library includes several references (that may contain more information about the subject) and it is unclear if the obituary in the Deseret News is staff written. --Enos733 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick newspapers.com search shows the same obituary word-for-word in the non-staff-written part of the Provo newspaper, which also claims he was the "interim" mayor, which is substantiated by the library page - it appears he only served as mayor from November 1961 to December 31, 1961. Also, the Provo Library page includes information written in a book which appears to be commissioned for the city council - I don't know what that means for its independence. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I further review this case, it appears that Ballif was only an interim mayor. I do not think this is enough to qualify him for having an article. Provo currently has over 100,000 people. However it had a population of 36,000 people in 1960 when Ballif was mayor. Utah County now has over 600,000 people, but was only at 106,000 in 1960. Provo was not as clearly the economic center of the county then. BYU, the driving force behind Provo had many fewer students then. Right now it has just over 36,000 students. 1961 is the year the university issued its first doctoral degrees. I just do not think we can justify having an article on an interim mayor of a place with roughly 36,000 residents without much better sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely agree with John Pack Lambert. The sources about his interim mayorship are not significant enough, and he does not meet WP:PROF. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Considering all of the views and information people have found above, I feel this should be deleted, though not terribly strongly. It seems he does have some notability in various ways. The biggest is that he was a mayor at one point. As it was just interim though and for a short period I don't see the notability of that stand alone terribly strong. As the rest of the information about him is not notable, it it doesn't add up to quite enough. --Tautomers(T C) 23:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage about him. Alvaldi (talk) 16:39, 4 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. North America1000 03:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Engagement[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, 2 reliable reviews (which is what WP:NFILM requires) is "routine" coverage? Common Sense Media is a Wikipedia reliable source for films Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and the other is an independent, third party newspaper review. Both taken together is enough for this film to pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the coverage out there is distinctly routine for a film of this type (particularly the Common Sense Media article, which is less a 'review' in the critical sense and more guidance for parents on whether a movie is appropriate for children), and I highly doubt therefore that it meets our notability guidelines. There is also the issue of whether we can write a decent article based on all the sources available, which again I am sceptical of. firefly ( t · c ) 06:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firefly, there seems to be a lot of editors commenting lately that Common Sense Media is not reliable as a review source, this is incorrect. Please review reliable sources for Wikipedia film articles at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Common Sense Media has been discussed several times and to quote the page, "There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed." Therefore, your assessment that it is "less a 'review' in the critical sense and more guidance for parents" is also incorrect. It counts as a reliable source review. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine, if there is consensus that Common Sense Media is a reliable source I'll strike that portion. I don't think that changes my core view though - that the sourcing is still insufficient to show notability. firefly ( t · c ) 14:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in my opinion two reviews are enough to pass NFILM and GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG, and I argue it also fails NFILM. NFILM says: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." I do not see the Common Sense Media 'review' as being a 'full length review' - it's a few short paragraphs with a little analysis. The Pittsburgh City Paper is a full review, but Ryan Deto is a staff writer (not exactly Ebert) in an 'alternative' Pittsburgh newspaper, according to Media in Pittsburgh. In any case, even assuming both qualify, it's the very bare minimum. I am not convinced that notability has been established and for that reason I'm out. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the general notability criteria and doesn't satisfy any of the film-specific criteria at WP:NFO. The two reviewers brought to attention above are not "national known" critics. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Betty Logan to reiterate what I mentioned above, Common Sense Media is a Wikipedia reliable source for films Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. To say it is not a "national known critic" is mistaken. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that it's a reliable source but the primary function of Common Sense Media is to evaluate the suitability of content. It is not nationally known for its film criticism. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose of notability on Wikipedia, it is "nationally known" as it is accepted as a reliable source, so it cannot be discounted when considering the article for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:03, 7 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 merge to Nicu's Spoon Theater Company. There is a clear consensus of editors below that this article should not be retained as an individual article, due to notability & significant coverage issues. The options were split between delete & merge/redirect, so in the spirit of WP:ATD, closing as a merge and redirect. Editorial decision how much (or how little) of the content to merge into Nicu's Spoon Theater Company, and then the redirect can be executed after that. Daniel (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Barton-Farcas[edit]

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

Doesn't pass GNG or AUTHOR Pipsally (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Can you look again?Hunk2019 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC) You will now.Hunk2019 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This has been a redirect for years until a new editor came along and jammed this down our throats--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Really?[reply]
  • Delete or revert to redirect. No significant coverage and the current list of references is poor.VVikingTalkEdits 21:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the theater company, I guess. An extraordinary claim like "the first company in NYC history to be fully inclusive" requires an extraordinary source. I guess that "NYC" is supposed to mean New York City, but how is a young reader from Kathmandu supposed to know that? Where's the significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC) All has been addedHunk2019 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nicu's Spoon Theater Company, where section about artistic director could work & be sub-sectioned some existing material. Djflem (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for the mean feedback in general. The page has been continually updated.Hunk2019 (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I literally have added Variety, Playbill, American theater magazine references and nope, nothing from you guys. Even when I add or correct you still vote for deletion.

Which of those sources provide significant coverage of Stephanie Barton-Farcas? Not just credits or passing mentions. pburka (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All do, which is why they have been added. New ones being added daily, but nobody seems to check them. literally there are made up pages on Wikipedia but for some reason this director and inclusive theater advocate is hated by you guys. Hunk2019 (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which one do you feel is the best? i.e. the most reliable source with the most in-depth coverage? I'd like to evaluate it more carefully. pburka (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say anything NY Times or any of the interviews- or all of these. Hunk2019 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC) This as well https://vimeo.com/177274816 Hunk2019 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews aren't usually considered independent, because they're simply reprinting the subject's own words. Can you point to one article, in a reliable source, that addresses Barton-Farcas in depth and isn't just quoting her? Please link the source here. pburka (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horwitz, Simi (January 12, 2004). [45] “Nicu’s Spoon stirs nontraditional plays and casts"]. Backstage.
  • Block, Michael (April 5, 2015). [46] “Spotlight on Stephanie Barton-Farcas”] “Theatre in the Now”.
  • Viafas, Robert (September 1, 2015) [47] "Playbill interview about Richard III" Playbill. Hunk2019 (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/nicus-spoon-stirs-nontraditional-plays-casts-25872/ Hunk2019 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Backstage one is largely an interview and it's mostly about Nicu's Spoon, but there's a bit of commentary that could count to notability. The Theater in the Now one is purely an interview. The Playbill one is also about Nicu's Spoon. I'm reconsidering my position, but these aren't very strong sources and WP:REFBOMBing the article with weak references doesn't make it any easier to evaluate. pburka (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, was not trying to reference bomb- just was trying to get as much info in as possible. I see so many wikipedia pages and the people have done nothing so I just thought this lady, who works so hard for Inclusive casting, should have a page. Look at https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/theater/an-actor-uses-his-second-language-speech.html https://axelandir.tumblr.com/post/130008491298/richard-iii-with-all-differently-abled-actors https://reviewfix.com/2011/04/review-fix-exclusive-interview-with-bad-seed-director-stephanie-barton-farcas/ Hunk2019 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC) also this https://reviewfix.com/2011/12/review-fix%E2%80%99s-top-ten-off-off-broadway-professionals-in-new-york-city/Hunk2019 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. The article is a mess and the refbomb of passing references and interviews makes it very difficult to evaluate. However, Barton-Farcas has achieved notice as an actor: "once the playwright has arranged the play’s complicated duel between Barton-Farcas' magnetic Queen Elizabeth..." (Variety; 2008); been criticized as an artistic director: "Barton-Farcas's costuming is similarly erratic..." (New York Sun; 2007) and "Stephanie Barton-Farcas, the group’s artistic director, has something else on her mind..." (New York Times; 2007); and she won (or was at least nominated) for an award (Playbill; 2008). pburka (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and she did win in 2008 https://www.theatermania.com/new-york-city-theater/news/2008-it-award-winners-are-announced_15433.html which I will add and begin a page cleanup. Hunk2019 (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do that and contact the Nicus Spoon People to work with getting it cleaned up. Hunk2019 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you associated with Barton-Farcas or Nicu's Spoon? People associated with the subject should not be editing their pages, per our WP:COI guidelines. pburka (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not associated with either of them, but I was just saying i could contact them through tier website Hunk2019 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Coverage is still marginal despite the WP:REFBOMBING, appears to be a fairly clear undisclosed COI with the editor that has created it Dexxtrall (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually not associated with them or her - I am a disabled artist Hunk2019 (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I am continuing to cite better references and will be breaking it down better over the next few weeks.Hunk2019 (talk) 13:22, 7 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) 19:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Baldo[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NMUSIC 4meter4 (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A minor figure who spent most of his life as an ordinary citizen. A Google Books search shows his name in several different histories of the Eurovision contest, but he is only ever listed very briefly as present in 1968 with no additional commentary. I can find no confirmation that he hosted the radio show (Les Nocturnes); I'm sure he was a host but that's just a job that lots of people do. Nowhere close to the requirements at WP:NBIO. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of this article, all artists which have represented a country in the Eurovision Song Contest are notable enough to entitle themselves to a Wikipedia article, for the reach of the competition. Additional secondary sources can be added to expand the article in question. To respond to the previous user, he was not a radio host of the competition, he was an active participant of the show. Under WP:NMUSIC, Chris Baldo follows criteria 2 and 10, with 10 being for the Eurovision Song Contest. Furthermore, the current state of an article has no bearing on notability, with the Luxembourgish language version of the article going more in-depth to Baldo's relevance in Luxembourg. Additional coverage likely exists, but may not be readily available online. A Luxembourgish individual or a Eurovision fan should be able to find sources more pertinent.--Lucky102 (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then at least the chart information should be on the article then. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The final sentence of the article says "He also hosted the RTL show Les Nocturnes". That is the unconfirmed radio hosting job mentioned in my vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that interpretation of WP:NMUSIC and that merely participating in Eurovision makes a contestant automatically notable. We don’t have articles on every contestant on American Idol or The Voice, and Eurovision is a similar platform in terms of audience reach. Our policies at NMUSIC specifically address contests in criteria 9 (which is the most pertinent criteria for Eurovision contestants), requiring subjects to win or place 2nd or 3rd in the contest in order to be notable. Merely performing a song or two on television isn’t enough, and criteria 10 specifically advises that the performer be listed on the television show page over having a stand alone article in such cases. Further, I don’t see any evidence of the artist placing on a chart. Provide sources if you are going to make that claim.4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I added a few sources from Billboard, but they are both trivial mentions that confirm the Eurovision contest. Discogs has a good list of the albums and 45s that he has released. Wider searches show no mention of his work in depth or of the Nocturnes show. --- Possibly ☎ 17:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Performing at Eurovision is notable but if a person's career before and after fails to retain that notability then we have to consider the wider picture. He appears to be a rather ordinary person who fails our policies on musicians and personalities, despite the one significant highlight. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article can be expanded to improve notability.Wp27 (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is about the subject of the article, not about the article itself. Also, this article has been around for years. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 14:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, does not meet WP:NMUSIC with an 11th place at Eurovision, and there is so little coverage otherwise. LizardJr8 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 23:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kirkbride[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Three of the sources cited in the article are passing mentions ([48][49][50]) and one is an interview ([51]), which does not count towards notability. Only other sources I could find through a Google search are other wikis ([52][53]). – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you remove the list of works, even the Elder Scrolls fan wiki page about this guy is a stub.[54] Page fails WP:GNG. Birko bird (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 14:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single article that mentions him by name in the title. We would need multiple articles about him (not the games he worked on) to establish notability. TarkusABtalk/contrib 09:18, 3 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 merge to Samoan mythology. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fetu[edit]

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

I think this is a hoax that has existed on Wikipedia since 2002. Doing a Google search either lists unrelated results or results that cite Wikipedia, such as baby name sites and "books" that cite Wikipedia. (https://www.abebooks.com/9781155491745/Samoan-Mythology-Atu-Losi-Fetu-1155491742/plp)

It also seemed to exist in the Encyclopedia Mythica (which was removed from the article as a source in 2006 due to being unreliable), but looking through the website now, it seems to have been removed. (http://web.archive.org/web/20051020051300/http://www[DOT]pantheon[DOT]org/articles/f/fetu.html) [website partially blacklisted] wizzito | say hello! 20:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wizzito mentioned this on Discord, and I did a little extra research. The article on Ele'ele, putatively Fetu's wife, was deleted in 2006 as unverifiable. (I've now re-created the article as a redirect to ʻEleʻele, a community in Hawaiʻi; that article says the name means "black" or "black water" in Hawaiian.) If this can be proven a hoax, it would be the oldest ever, by about four years. Even if not a hoax, it seems very unlikely to meet GNG. I'm going to ping WT:WikiProject Samoa and WT:WikiProject Polynesia and see if anyone there has any input. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myths and Legends of the Polynesians (accessible if you have a free Internet Archive account) quotes a Samoan creation myth involving a "Fatu" whose wife is 'Ele'ele; given that the wife's name matches, it's probably referring to the article subject with a different transliteration. However, the myth quoted there describes him as a man, not a god, with no particular association with the night. Vahurzpu (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page 14 of this book (predates this article; reliable author) states the following: "In Samoan mythology, Ele'ele was the first woman, wife of Fetu ('Star'), a god of the night sky." Unfortunately, that's it, but it's enough to convince me that this likely isn't a hoax. It may still fail the GNG, but we should be especially reticent to delete articles for which offline and/or foreign-language coverage conceivably exists. I'd be interested to hear other thoughts before expressing a firmer opinion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Samoan mythology, unless more coverage can be found. Looks like there are possibly further academic sources using "Fatu" rather than "Fetu" as a search term alongside "Ele'ele", but not enough detail to support a stand-alone article. I've added the source identified by Extraordinary Writ into the article. Watchlisting to follow the debate, as I'm keeping an open mind. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:DICDEF or redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Samoan mythology per BennyOnTheLoose. I don't think this is a hoax (as I explained above), but there aren't enough sources to meet the GNG. A single-sentence reference in the main article would be perfectly adequate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:54, 9 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 merge to Firefly (TV series)#Fandom. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signal (podcast)[edit]

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

I can't find any independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate WP:GNG. The article might qualify for a stand alone article based on WP:WEBCRIT, but the guideline says that it "may be notable" (not that it's guaranteed) if it has won a "well known and independent award." I'm questioning whether the awards are well known enough and also whether the article is notable even if the awards meet the requirements of being "well known." I wasn't sure how strict the WEBCRIT guidelines so I asked at the teahouse and was told that I should see how an AfD for this article turns out. The contents of the article could potentially be merged into the host's article. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is for failing under the General notability guideline. It is true that only two sources "[address] the topic directly and in detail", while the others are less focused, though not necessarily "trivial". However, there is zero original research. I don't see any glaring reasons to consider any of the secondary sources not-reliable. All of the sources present are independent of the topic in that they're not published by any entity immediately involved with the production of the podcast, though some are by guests thereupon.
    The question then is, does receiv[ing] significant coverage in [two] reliable sources that are independent of the subject meet the muster of the Notability guideline. By themselves maybe not, but the subject also received six industry awards, which the back of my brain is suggesting there's precedent for giving weight to. Lastly, I want to explain that before I made this a standalone article, I looked for somewhere to incorporate it otherwise, but Firefly fandom and Browncoat no longer exist, and it would otherwise have overwhelmed Firefly (TV series)#Fandom. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looked through the sources and like nom, I don't see how this passes WP:GNG. No issue with a merge. SportingFlyer T·C 13:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Firefly fandom which really needs to be spun out to its own article again, as the current target, the TV series, is far too long to accommodate a reasonable merger from this. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:05, 2 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. Needs editing or renaming, perhaps, but that's a matter for the editoial process. Sandstein 08:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steam locomotive components[edit]

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

What. Is. This. Mess? Is this an article? Is this a list? Is this a lengthy caption to an image? Is this a glossary? Terribly formatted and with very dubious notability. I suggest transwikifcation to Commons where this can survive in the form of a lengthy description of an otherwise useful diagram, but Wikipedia is not a place to list components by machine. (Imagine: computer components, toaster components, space shuttle components, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:*Speedy keep: Per [4] which covers a lot of the stuff at techie detail. [5] is particularly good on valve gear and heating. To hand I have [6] This pretty well covers the notability stuff although there a bit UK/Ireland orientated and as a set might miss out covering stuff on more modern locomotives live Tornado and Duke of Gloucester where some components have been covered in detail. I've sometime glanced at this article myself when writing about other articles to faintly cross check stuff. Vehemently opposed to Transwiki .... if someone wants to do that then do it I'd want to see overall improvement on what could be achieved here first given previous experiences. In terms of retention of article generally deemed in an unfit state for the encyclopedia I'd note some comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times though some may see the case as not relevant, and [[55]]. Can I please confirm with the nominator they raised their good faith concerns to SME's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains first as an alternative to deletion to ensure there is no question of this not being a sociological experiment or vexatious nom. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your assurance that WPTRAIN is active, I'll try to report my concerns over train-related articles there first in the future. Tnx for letting me know about this option. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/10/18/9-insane-tricks-used-by-mario-64-speedrunners
  2. ^ "Giant cells: Linking McClintock's heredity to early embryogenesis and tumor origin throughout millennia of evolution on Earth".
  3. ^ "The early origin of cooperation".
  4. ^ Dempsey, G. D.; Clark, D. Kinnear (2015). The Victorian Steam Locomotive: Its Design & Development 1804-1879. Barnsley, England: Pen & Sword Transport. ISBN 9781473823235. OCLC 934055481.
  5. ^ Clements, Jeremy; McMahon, Michael (2008). Locomotives of the GSR. Newtownards: Colourpoint Books. p. 373-376. ISBN 9781906578268. OCLC 547074718.
  6. ^ Dawson, Anthony (2019). Locomotives of the Victorian Railway — The Early Days of Steam. Stroud: Amberley. ISBN 9781445677613. OCLC 1104650699."> Dawson, Anthony (2019). Locomotives of the Victorian Railway — The Early Days of Steam. Stroud: Amberley. ISBN 9781445677613. OCLC 1104650699.
  • I oppose deletion. I disagree that "Wikipedia is not a place to list components by machine" as an absolute principle, PP. It depends on the machine. This is quite a popular article: 2600 people in the past 30 days seem to have thought the subject was sufficiently notable. Why this level of interest? As time has gone on from dieselization, fewer and fewer people have a clue about how these beasts worked. I occasionally drive a steam locomotive, and it's not at all unusual, when some people see the fire, for them to ask "What's that for?" They are fascinated by this hang-over of early 19th century technology. They are astonished that water is boiled and that steam expands to deliver enormous power.
    Sources of concise information on how a steam locomotive works, including the components and their functions, are not readily available. It seems to me that the provision of an illustration, plus a very brief description of what a component does, plus links to articles about them (where articles exist), all on about 3 "pages", is the essence of useful information. Your comparison with toaster components ignores the fact that toasters have only two component and there is no mystery about how they work. I see the article on the International Space Station (1200 visitors in last 30 days), also a bit mysterious, contains several "pages" on its components that broadly equate to this article.
    To summarise: the article has a good-sized readership; it provides a good summary, with brevity; and it provides very useful links. It is far from being useless. DAHall (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that this shouldn't be deleted outright, but the formatting is bad. I would strongly suggest to convert this to a proper list (it's currently categorized as an article). Even though it is currently unreferenced, I feel like the layout of Components of medieval armour is much better than this here. @Djm-leighpark and DAHall: Since you seem to be rather concerned about this, would you consider this a good option? --LordPeterII (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm actually OK with the current format (but I'm randomly weird anyway). As a slightly off-topic comment I note there is fantastic scope for describing steam engines, and why they smoke and wee and steam for what seemingly appears random times, and need to be able to do the descriptions from nearly 5-year old level up to near expert level. As a practical matter if there is consensus I am willing to insert a lossless conversion to table format somewhat akin to Components of medieval armour ... but to achieve that format would need the diagram numbers converted to numbers. I can do stuff by using a sortable table on index, (maybe component major part), and maybe minor part. I can actually edit this kind reformat in my sleep without thinking too much with special tools some but not all might have (I'm rubbish at diagrams stuff). I'll commit(this is a best efforts commit) to have a best effort go by a target of 14 July 2021 subject to other stuff. Have to dash RL stuff ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some folks seem to be a bit confused about what this article (and hence, nomination) is about. Nobody is questioning the notability of steam locomotive, steam engine, or even numerous components themselves like trailing wheel. But there is no indication that this random list of components passes WP:GNG (or WP:NLIST). There is also the OR concern with the claim that the article presents a (list) of "main components found on a typical steam locomotive." Who chose those elements? Presumably, the author of the diagram, who then decided to create the article. That's pure OR, making a diagram and then describing it on Wikipedia. And in fact, the OR nature of this is stressed through history: this was created in 2004 as a diagram description with no references. Over the years, the diagram has changed, and the list of components grew from 34 to 48, with not a single source confirming that 34 (or 48) elements in question are typical. And why, pray tell, are we supposed to believe the current list of 48 elements is correct? Why doesn't it mention the Kylpor ejector or the larger concept of the steam locomotive exhaust system? This is OR mess top to bottom. This or a similar diagram can be preserved and used in the article on steam locomotive, it doesn't need it own stand-alone article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Piotrus have your !delete vote then. I just noticed that you've AfD'd Components of medieval armour as well that I've been asked to model this on. Should by some weird perchance this article be kept by offer the work stands, timescale extending if there's relists.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an illustrated glossary of steam locomotive components is very clearly useful and encyclopaedic - by which I mean it is the exact sort of content that one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. This level of detail would be undue in the mean steam engine article, so it needs to be a stand-alone list. It could be improved and possibly that includes the title, but these are not matters for AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - needs too be rewritten if to be kept, otherwise it seem like non-encyclopedic trivia, mainly when lists are defined not by a single technical standard but by Wikipedians based on their personal experience/opinions/research = WP:OR - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't recognise this as a description of the content in this article at all. I'm not sure what about the definition of components of a steam locomotive is unclear or OR at all, nor what is trivial about the subject? Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, all praise to Djm-leighpark for offering to re-format the article.
    One problem I can see with converting the text to table format is a point of difference with the armour components article – the text describing some components, such as those in the cab, is longer and will fit less readily in a table. Also, photos of some components might be hard to get hold of – especially the internal ones! But over to you.  ;-)
    Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus asks: "Who chose those elements? Presumably, the author of the diagram ..." I guess so, but I don't really think that's important. What is important is whether they are pertinent. I am certain they are. He then asks, "And why, pray tell, are we supposed to believe the current list of 48 elements is correct?" As someone who is very familiar with operating steam locomotives, I can say that the list as it stands covers the most common components out of the many that could conceivable be included – and the descriptions are well worded. I don't understand how the list is a "mess top to bottom" as he postulates. While more references could be listed against individual components, there are good reference sources for some entries and in the "Further reading" list. Also, the articles linked in this article contain references. (I have just updated the Further Reading list; Fowler's 1906 Locomotive dictionary ... seems to cover all of the components. Maybe a note should be inserted at the top of the article citing this, or Steam Glossary, specifically the index pages, as a reference for all entries.)
    Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus also asks, "Why doesn't it mention the Kylpor ejector or the larger concept of the steam locomotive exhaust system?" Because those subjects are abstruse, and beyond the scope of a generalised list.
    I believe it's drawing a long bow to consider the locomotive drawing as original research: it was clearly based on other sources (though it would have been helpful to cite them). There are many diagrams in Wikipedia that undoubtedly have been prepared (or commissioned) by editors for the purpose of clarifying a concept or subject, based on information that is too complex to make for easy reading in itself.
    I agree with Thryduulf's comment that it's "very clearly useful and encyclopaedic - by which I mean it is the exact sort of content that one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia." I noticed a comment in a similar vein by Elemimele on the AfD discussion concerning Components of medieval armour: "It's easy to forget what people do with encyclopaedias. How many kids through history have found themselves writing about medieval castles and knights, and turned to an encyclopaedia to find the names and functions of the different bits of armour? We would be failing in our duty at a very, very fundamental level if we didn't tell them. ... it's a subject that ought to be here ...". I think that's the essence with the Steam locomotive components article. We need to make sure that interpretation of policy doesn't become too specious and that reasoned common sense has its due weight. Let's keep. DAHall (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point that Anachronist made on the AfD discussion about armour was "This is basically a list article, and as list articles go, it's a far better list than the usual crap-list articles that can be easily substituted by a category. Each entry has not only an illustration but also its own article with its own sources". The same applies here; it's a great visual index to a lot of articles, and it's an overview that's highly appropriate in the setting of an encyclopaedia, so keep. Elemimele (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Glossary of steam locomotive components or possibly merge into steam locomotive although it seems impractical and unwieldy to do so. When Elemimele pinged me above, I looked at the article and was reminded of Glossary of wine terms, which I had contributed to many years ago. Wikipedia hosts many glossaries: Glossary of mathematical symbols, glossary of music terminology, etc. The thing about glossaries (particularly music terminology and math symbols) is that hardly any of the entries have their own stand-alone articles, and the terms don't need them either. A glossary of terms pertaining to a notable subject is useful and encyclopedic. I suppose they would fall under the same guidelines as lists (we don't seem to have one about glossaries specifically). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I wonder what makes glossaries notable? There is proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries, and nothing else I see that says whether glossarie are allowed on Wikipedia (although, obviously, many exist). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that the long-term existence of a large number of glossaries is what says that they are allowed on Wikipedia. That the MoS talk page has no discussion of whether we should have glossaries at all also speaks to their acceptance by the community. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are right, although I think potential OR issues with creation of such lists will be something Wikipedia will have to address in years (or decades) to come. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When I first looked at this article I assumed it had been greatly improved since its AfD nomination. But no and it is absolutely fine. I prefer it as it is (the text in tables is too small for my liking) so I'm weird too. The references are (and were) OK. And are we supposed to believe the current list of 48 elements is correct? No, if any are missing please add them and if any should not be there... In a featured article biography how do know the aspects of the person's life mentioned are the correct ones? Who selected what to include? The editors made the selections. We are here collectively to make decisions. Thincat (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remformat: The article is well sourced for what it's aiming for, it's not horribly written, and it seems like a relevant article. That said, this article certainly is formatted very strangely and it does pain me just a tad to look at. The big photo should be included in a small box with a caption on the side, there should be an opening paragraph, and the parts listed in the sections. The article is sort of an article-list hybrid. Odd, needs to made more pretty, but overall its a valid article. --Tautomers(T C) 23:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs to be improved. But your content is referenced. The argument for deleting the article is unconvincing. Why can't there be an article about train parts? If there are books about it, then there may be an article about it. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:27, 2 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 Drum Corps International member corps#Open Class members. ✗plicit 14:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Empire Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

Article on a drum corps is sourced entirely to its own website and a couple fan blogs. A WP:BEFORE on Google News, JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google Books finds a single, incidental reference in the Bakersfield Californian [56]. As this article fails WP:GNG, deletion is appropriate with no prejudice on recreation at some point in the future when it can pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note In some previous AfD discussions (e.g. [57] here, etc.) on different drum corps, editors have volunteered to merge the content of dozens of non-GNG drum corps into the single list List of Drum Corps International member corps to support their "Merge" !votes. To date, no work has actually occurred in fulfillment of any of these offers. Chetsford (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Qwaiiplayer. Listed at that article, and there is no need to merge anything (there was a concern re merging). Fails GNG but could conceivably be a search term. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect it would take an intern at least a month to do all the cleanup of DCI articles that is needed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:53, 6 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. Hog Farm Talk 04:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Valencia Golf Course[edit]

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

Run of the mill golf course, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost all independent sources seem to be just routine golf course directory listing stuff and passing mentions, i.e. zero significant coverage, so this fails GNG; local interest only; subject is adequately covered in the Valencia article, which only mentions its existence. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created this article because Valencia Country Club (just 2 miles (3.2 km) north of Vista Valencia Golf Course) already had an article. Based on my personal experience, Vista Valencia is better known in Santa Clarita than the Valencia Country Club, although Valencia Country Club did host the AT&T Champions Classic. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked at notability for that other course, but hosting a major tournament would be very helpful for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:59, 2 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. Consensus in this discussion is that the article and its subject doesn't meet the requirements set out by our policies & guidelines, relating to notability demonstrated in significant coverage. Daniel (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Graham (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor / bodybuilder. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV of him. Natg 19 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable actor Rondolinda (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what qualifies as a "major amateur or professional competition" per WP:SPORTSPERSON, but I do not believe that Graham meets GNG as I could not find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Natg 19: Natg 19, he is pretty old. Bodybuilders were not given much attention back then, and internet was not available. I will try to find something on Web Archives. And for "Major Amateur or Professional Competition," all of his awards are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Physique_Committee . It is the largest Amateur bodybuilding competition in the USA, so that's why I said WP:SPORTSPERSON, and he secured top positions too.HeyitsmeFellen (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trakinwiki, you joined three days ago and have contributed to only deletion directly. It takes you 2-3 minutes to decide whether the article should be kept or not. What are you? The best Wikipedian ever? Most of your comments are copied/pasted and very reliable on previous comments. Do you even bother to check about the subject in-depth before commenting? Or you have some other things in mind? And apparently, I am a day old and this being my first suggested article, I am learning about the rules, and you KNOW ALL THE RULES as you comment clearly in 2-3 minutes (that also using mobile~)? I am posting this on other comments of yours as well. HeyitsmeFellen (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not have any promotional language and the citations are from relevant sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiptoo05 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More reliable sources have been added to the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiptoo05 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)— Kiptoo05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Not clear that USA Bodybuilding Championship wins even qualifies as a sport or if is a notable competition in and of itself as we currently have no article on that topic. As such, our default is GNG. Fails WP:SIGCOV as the sources are trivial.4meter4 (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails all potentially applicable notability guidelines. Any coverage is trivial.DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion since the article has changed significantly since the debate started.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Falls short of notability both as an actor and a bodybuilder Dexxtrall (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referring to "Bodybuilding Career" section of the page, he placed 3rd and 4th respectively at the NPC USA Bodybuilding Championship and the NPC Men's National Bodybuilding Championships that makes him notable as a nationally ranked bodybuilding in America.Oliveoilx (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RECOMMENTING Graham has also advertised for many big companies and have been featured in many Global Body Building magazines. HeyitsmeFellen (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Graham's notability as a bodybuilder is now evident from the image of magazine added where he was featured from the NPC championship
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Names and titles of Jesus in the Quran[edit]

Names and titles of Jesus in the Quran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant content fork of Jesus in Islam. PepperBeast (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Improved a page a lot more and how is it a redunant fork since on the Jesus in Islam page there are two noteswhich I copied and thats it. I also added etymology and meanings with names of Surahs, this article should not be deleted User:SharqHabib 12:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While it is a fork, it is a valid fork. I recommend adding a short summary paragraph to Jesus in Islam with a {{main}} link to Names and titles of Jesus in the Quran. The Jesus in Islam article is already too long to merge this material into it. Names and titles of Jesus in the Quran is also too detailed a treatment of a narrow subject to be dealt with at such length in the Jesus in Islam article. The real question is whether the topic is independently notable. It is hard to judge from the sources, which are mostly books. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability. "The real question is whether the topic is independently notable". These books which I have added are reliable as well as many reliable sites too so I don't think there's any question about notability, also I don't think so list type of article necessarily need reliable sources. ~SharqHabib (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This topic is not independently notable, and is only made to appear so by the original research of which the article consists right now. As far as I know, al-Masīḥ ('The Anointed', The Messiah, from Greek Khristós = Christ) is the only thing coming close to an alternative name or title for Jesus in the Quran (like 'Christ' functions in English). ʿĪsā is just his name. The rūḥ or Holy Spirit in Islam is normally understood to be a separate entity by which Jesus is "strengthened" (I will refer to the English translations of the Quran verses cited in the article: 2.87). The ghulām zakīy or "pure boy" is merely used to describe Jesus (e.g., Mary is promised a "pure boy" in 19.19). Somewhat closer to a title (especially because it used in that way in most Christian traditions) but in the framework of the Quran still just a description is "Word" (kalima, from Greek logos): Jesus is announced several times as a Word coming from God (e.g., 3.45). If Jesus holds the title Āya ("Sign") at the basis of a verse like 19.21 ("[...] We may make him a sign to men and a mercy from Us [...]"), he should also hold the title Raḥma ("Mercy"), which does not appear to be the case (showing how this is partly arbitrary and depends on later interpretation). The fact that Jesus is passingly described as "held in honour in this world (Arabic: wajīhan fī l-dunyā) in 3.45 is the basis for the 'title' Wajīh ("Honourable"). Of course, in some Islamic traditions these Quranic descriptions of Jesus may have been adopted as titles, but it would need to be explicitly pointed out who did adopt them, and when and where. None of the secondary sources used at the moment is reliable, and actual reliable sources are very unlikely to treat this topic in a unified way. Any passing mentions of it that may be found would not exceed the bounds of Jesus in Islam, and are even not very likely to receive more than a few sentences there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I've taken another look at this, and it appears that I was wrong. I've checked Parrinder 1965, and he covers this material quite significantly (listing the names and titles, quoting the verses in which they occur, and then discussing them one by one, though unfortunately from a tertiary source perspective). Perhaps some of the other independent and reliable sources copied without acknowledgment by the now-blocked SharqHabib from Jesus in Islam and somewhat inexplicably removed by Pepperbeast also contain something relevant. The article needs much improvement, but the topic of Jesus' epithets in the Quran does seem to meet WP:GNG, if perhaps only barely. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is a lot of scholarly material on the titles/names of Jesus that are found in the Qur'an. This article can definitely be fleshed out by referring to journal articles by individuals like Gabriel Said Reynolds (Professor at Harvard), and other academics who study the relationship between Christianity and Islam. Maqdisi117 (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Maqdisi117: I'm curious, what scholarly material are you referring to? If you give me a specific article or paper I'm definitely willing to take a shot at improving the article myself. However, there must be sources is not a valid argument here: don't just claim that there must be sources out there somewhere. Instead, prove it, by providing them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Apaugasma's comments largely reflect my conclusions. I did quite a bit of work to at least clean-up the article, stripping out some of the Quran trivia and improving readability, but in doing so, I've come to the conclusion that it's largely nonsense (as well as affirmed its non-notability). As far as I can make out, Isa bin Maryam is known to Muslims as Isa al-Masih and Isa al-Wajih. The other "titles" in the article are basically just descriptive phrases that are not used as titles. I think the article represents an effort by the author to create some kind of equivalent of the Names and titles of Muhammad, which really is a notable thing, or the 99 names of Allah (which is so much of a notable thing that my local shopping mall sells nicely framed posters of the 99 Names), or of Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament, which is a whole 'nother can of notability worms, IMO. I just don't see how this topic is notable. PepperBeast (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as opposed to Merge; this material is too long to be kept in Jesus in Islam. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:01, 6 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) Dr. Universe (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geliyoo[edit]

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

According to the discussion on WP:DRV, allowed to renominate. The previous AFD reason was vague; all the votes were also vague, almost like someone is behind it according to the vandalism/advertisement/spam edits in the history of this article. I do not want to attack as I've made mistakes too. So I'll just state the facts. These links are broken/promotional: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Black-listed: [13] [14]. Press release: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Wordpress: [20]. Plagiarism(same as wikipedia article): [21] [22].

Also, on WP:DRV, contributor who also participated in the previous AFD, suggested links that show up on Google after some promotional/spam sites. Addressing those links; Controversial information that's been removed (History of article), also points to more reason of deletion of the article. If it were reliable info, I would've edited it on the article. Controversial links: [23] [24] [25] [26]. Written with similar promotional content: [27] [28].

This shows, Geliyoo goes against WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Due to WP:G11 as the article does not have independent sources and is almost advertisement even if the article has been on Wikipedia for a while. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://forum.geliyoo.com/geliyoo-arama-motoru/52052-geliyoo-ceo-su-onemli-gelismeleri-linkedin-den-paylasti.html
  2. ^ http://www.geliyoobilisim.com/services.html
  3. ^ http://www.sosyalsosyal.com/turk-arama-motoru-geliyoo-com-roportaj
  4. ^ http://www.geliyoobilisim.com/about.html
  5. ^ http://www.geliyoobilisim.com/blog_post_4.html
  6. ^ http://forum.geliyoo.com/geliyoo-arama-motoru/53169-mozilla-5-0-compatible-geliyoobot-1-0-http-www-geliyoo-com.html
  7. ^ http://www.haber7.com/internet/haber/1047133-turk-motoru-geliyoo-rss-servisini-yayina-aciti
  8. ^ http://haber.gazetevatan.com/turk-yapimi-arama-motoru-geliyoo-aktif/550678/43/Gundem
  9. ^ http://www.reklamazzi.com/turk-arama-motoru-geliyoo.134298.htm
  10. ^ https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ersu-ablak/google-as-a-turkish-national-search-engine-108694
  11. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/opinion/sunday/propaganda-in-istanbul.html
  12. ^ https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/ersu-ablak/google-as-a-turkish-national-search-engine-108694
  13. ^ https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2248424580812/a-young-entrepreneur-who-believes-in-creating-a-space-for-himself-in-the-industry-anuj-pradhan
  14. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331822015_Geliyoo_Web_Browser
  15. ^ http://marketersmedia.com/geliyoo-com-announces-a-new-all-in-one-search-site/3587
  16. ^ https://www.ensonhaber.com/teknoloji/geliyoodan-bir-yenilik-daha-2012-02-02
  17. ^ https://www.haberler.com/geliyoo/
  18. ^ https://ipsnews.net/business/2021/04/18/4-awards-given-to-hakan-atabas-at-once-in-the-fields-of-blockchain-and-finance/
  19. ^ https://www.ensonhaber.com/teknoloji/geliyoodan-bir-yenilik-daha-2012-02-02
  20. ^ http://www.habertorial.com/2012/11/21/turkiyenin-en-kapsamli-link-arsivi-gmoz-geliyoo/
  21. ^ https://clutch.co/tr/web-developers/istanbul?page=1
  22. ^ https://plex.page/Geliyoo
  23. ^ https://tr.sputniknews.com/turkiye/201701191026837454-yerli-arama-motoru-google-sonuc/
  24. ^ https://www.yenisafak.com/teknoloji/yerli-arama-motoru-geliyoo-tepki-gordu-2598805
  25. ^ https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/bir-turkiye-hikayesi-10-yil-calistik-googlea-yerli-rakip-yaptik-dediler-altindan-bakin-ne-cikti-661817
  26. ^ https://www.sabah.com.tr/teknokulis/haberler/2017/01/19/bakanliktan-beklenen-geliyoo-arama-motoru-aciklamasi
  27. ^ https://www.milliyet.com.tr/teknoloji/yerli-arama-motoru-geliyoo-2380016
  28. ^ https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/teknoloji/iste-yerli-arama-motorumuz-geliyoo-40338705
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Nudgepath (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't really be specific in the first AfD because the nomination felt a bit more like a joke (inexperienced user who didn't give a proper reason to delete). I still think the sources I gave on DRV are enough to warrant notability. I'm going to add a controversy section (back? Didn't know it existed before) and trim the whole thing ("Founders" and "Projects launched" sections seem bs to me) to remove promotional content. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 20:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article trimmed to remove obvious promotional sentences. I agree with the nominator when he says that the article was advertisement. I also added back the criticism section removed by an IP 4 years ago and expanded on it. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 11:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG, especially with reliable sources indicated by Styyx in the DRV. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 08:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep: The page is really good and meets the required Wikipedia policy for a standard page Francisca po (talk) 18:33, 8 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. A reasonable concern has been made NMEDIA lacks community consensus, but that full discussion is not for here. Previous non-admin close has been reverted and relisted by deletion review; that close rationale has no applicability in my determination. Discussion since last relist is largely one-sided. My reading of the broader discussion is that sufficient reliable sources have been applied or presented to meet GNG and convince participants of this process that WP:PRESERVE is the deciding policy. BusterD (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KOAD-LP[edit]

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

A defunct local radio station that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. The only bit of actual coverage included in the article is just in the local paper for the town it broadcast from. I was unable to find any additional coverage in reliable sources beyond that. I initially PRODed it, but it was de-PRODed with the argument that there was two local papers covering it. However, I don't think they realized that it is actually the same article/source, just linked to twice. Rorshacma (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Actually I said "two local newspaper articles, I think not." Not "two local papers". Now, Rorshacma is correct, it is the same link, but what they are incorrect about is, even one local media story is enough for it to pass NMEDIA and GNG. Also, KOAD-LP is still airing...sorta...as an internet-only station via the station's kfunradio.com website, branding as "K-Fun 92.5". This is significant as the LPFM's classic rock format is still on-going, along with local news, weather, and commercials. Apparently K-Fun has studios located within the Hanford Mall.
According to this article, the station is still on the air. This one talks about their morning show. On the station's stream, you can hear them very quickly ID as "KOAD-LP Hanford". While I concede, the license is officially cancelled, the station is still operating in some form or another. So, it's still notable and well within GNG and NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rorshacma is absolutely right that this radio station does not pass WP:GNG. Neutralhomer Since you believe the subject passes WP:NMEDIA, can you provide one source that fits the criteria "Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors, such as importance to and history in the station's market, or originating some of its own programming."? What makes it stand apart from other radio stations that do not have an article? NMEDIA also says an article can be redirected to a list of radio stations that serve the area. I dont know if there is such a list but that's a possibility if there is. --ARoseWolf 14:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf: If you look at my post, you will see several different links that aren't included in the sourcing of the article itself. Those should be more than sufficient. :) Hanford is a city of about 53,967 in 2010, but doesn't have a list of radio stations or a media section. Even if it did, the amount of media coverage this LPFM station has more than passes GNG, V, N, and NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree about it passing those other guidelines even if it passes NMEDIA and is allowed to stay in the encyclopedia. I don't believe Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of data. I don't believe the intent was just because it exists then it should get an article. If we had something more on the historical value of the subject then I might would unequivocally accept it belongs but we don't get that. There is nothing that makes this radio station unique among all the other radio stations. If we don't have an article for every human being just because they exist then why should we have an article on every radio station. That's my rationale. I concede that your sources have it passing NMEDIA. I'll let others weigh the information and give their assessment. --ARoseWolf 16:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added one FCC citation relating to the cancellation. It's a bit of an unusual one—they got a station elsewhere and had to divest or shut down the Hanford LPFM. But I'm running into the issue of just one newspaper reference. The Hanford Sentinel seems to have mentioned them a couple more times, but not in articles useful to this (and invariably as KFUN, as a note): [58] [59] But I'm having some notability qualms still, even though personally I lean toward keeping on something like this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Sammi Brie: I think "K-Fun" was their branding, but KOAD was their callsign. It's kinda like callsigned KZID brands as "K-Hits". I am more than happy to throw my brand of updating at the article if you feel it would help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NMEDIA is a notability recommendation. Notability guideline discussion to setup talking points for the RfC to make NMEDIA/BCAST a Guideline is ongoing at WT:N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've pointed out at another AfD, that doesn't matter for the context of this AfD. There's only one source in the article which could possibly qualify, the Hanford Observer article, which is hyper-local and probably fails WP:AUD if WP:NORG is the proper analysis, probably okay if we're just talking about WP:GNG, but it's not enough to write a stand-alone article on. Things like the FCC filing or a listing in a directory don't count towards notability. If there's a redirect target, such as a list of radio stations in California, we'd be better off redirecting there, since there's clearly not enough sourcing here to support a stand-alone. SportingFlyer T·C 13:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: "Hyper-local", for a city of 57,703 (in 2019) and that's in Kings County, California which has a population of 152,940 (in 2019)....I think not. As previously stated, newspapers are a highly reliable source. Plus, I haven't even updated the page, so there are about 5 other articles I can add....or you could (BURDEN?) if you tried. The FCC, a federal government organization, is another highly reliable source and is used across multiple pages. If you want to fight that one, I suggest you take that up with WP:N. This is not the forum for it. This isn't about the number of sources. If a page has sources, the more the merrier. We don't redirect to lists. You should know that by now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A town of 50,000 isn't that significant in the US, and we redirect to lists all the time when there's a proper redirect target. Anyways, if there are additional sources, this may pass WP:GNG. I can't find them, I've looked, but I'll change to !keep if someone else can. However there's no way a listing in a FCC database passes WP:SIGCOV, and it may not even be independent of the subject. SportingFlyer T·C 20:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Well, ain't you just a Negative Nelly? First, look up. Better yet, 1, 2, 3, 4. Yeah, local coverage. :)
Second, United States Government pages (ie: IRS.gov, GAO.gov, FCC.gov, WhiteHouse.gov, NOAA.gov, USGS.gov, etc.) are considered highly reliable sources under WP:RS, because the information is directly from the United States Government and literally goes through ALL the proverbial red tape. So, yes, FCC listings pass SIGCOV because they are RS. :) I've been doing this just as long as you have. I know the rules.
Third, a city of nearly 60,000 in a county of almost 153,000 is nothing to sneeze at. Taking into account the populations of the towns KOAD-LP served, the station had the possibility of being heard by approximately 67,823 people, give or take.
The four articles you cited were all from the Hanford Sentinel. I cannot view them due to geo-blocking, but 1 and 3 appear to have the same URL, and I know this feels like I'm moving the goalposts again, but we usually don't count multiple articles from the same publication as being enough. None of the government pages associated with this station are significant coverage. "These are significant because they are reliable" doesn't really make sense since these are two completely separate things - I'm not saying they're unreliable, just that a database entry in a government database isn't significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 07:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when you edit with a wicked migraine. :) You start not checking your work. :) Time for a Sumatriptan. :D
Anywho, I think 3 out of the 4 is better than nothing. Plus, we can show the station is still broadcasting from the Hanford Mall, where it has studios. So, even streaming online, it is still "on the air" to some extent.
I'll be honest, it does feel like you are moving the goal posts. Gotta compromise somewhere and I'm willing to work with you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see an additional source that's independent, secondary, reliable, significant, and not the Hanford Sentinel - if we can get that it probably passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1 (news story), 2 (program airing on KOAD), 3 (morning show host Joey Perez, interviewed by The Fresno Bee, regarding a picture of Tom Cruise on the set of "Top Gun 2" in Lemoore). Does that work? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Fresno Bee isn't significant coverage specifically of the station (the fact it does specifically discuss a show isn't terrible, but it's about something else entirely.) Irrelevant Deportes clearly isn't secondary or independent. The Business Journal isn't clear to me. The Business Journal would probably count if we can confirm it's a reliable source, issue with business journals is that often articles get written for promotional purposes, whether that article was independently written or not I cannot tell. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now this is moving the goalposts. I give you exactly what you ask for and from two different sources (the show was gravy) and you dismiss them all. You are dismissing everything. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, the sources aren't very good! SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you take the sources you have and make a very not good lemonade out of them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which doesn't matter, because it doesn't pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed. WP:BADNAC backed out per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 24. Any uninvolved admin may either re-close this now, or allow it to run for another week, as they see fit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Broad community consensus is that articles should meet either the GNG or an SNG that has consensus. WP:NMEDIA does not have community consensus, so all votes on the basis of that essay are effectively WP:IAR arguments. However, the prose in the article is mostly sourced to reliable sources: although the coverage in The Hanford Sentinel is not quite substantial, the source appears reliable and it is verifying some facts. Similarly, the FCC seems to be "reliable" and is "independent of the article subject", although it is a primary source. Above all though, notability is really a test as to whether it's possible to write an article that complies with core content policies (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV). This article appears to mostly have sourced prose that complies with all three of those guidelines. As such, I cannot identify a good reason to delete it since the information here may be of use to a reader, it complies with our policies and causes no harm, and Wikipedia is not a WP:PAPER encyclopaedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- You make a very strong case argument, @ProcrastinatingReader. I can see merit in your conclusions. All I ever ask for in the case of an AfD is for someone to show me how they reach their conclusions. I am not so closed minded that I can not be convinced to see it from another perspective. This is one such case. I see no reason to delete this article as it does meet the criteria and the spirit of our core principles. Above all else it provides useful information for readers. --ARoseWolf 15:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As it is closed, it is now historical, and the threshold for historical institutions is much more generous than for a currently trading commercial organisation. There is currently controversy over the guideline covering these things, but that is just a content Structurism issue. The information might be better merged to a list of local radio stations, eg sortable by place, years operating, start & finished, etc, but deleting in the meantime is just destructive. WP:Preserve while working to improve. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Dr. Universe (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the keep !votes address the fact that this does not meet WP:GNG, which does not distinguish between active and defunct entities. Onel5969 TT me 18:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: Actually, mine does (which SBKSPP echoed), and many are pile-ons. ProcrastinatingReader said it even better and ARoseWolf !voted off that user's !vote. SmokeyJoe, who I rarely see eye to eye with, even !voted keep on his own opinions and per PRESERVE. GNG isn't the end-all-be-all.
Once again, the indigenous people of North Sentinel Island know how you feel about radio station articles and GNG. You can drop the STICK at any time. The horse is dead and has long been turned into dust. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, yours doesn't. Again, saying something passes GNG when it clearly doesn't isn't a cogent argument, you make a case for BCAST, but that does not address the dearth of in-depth coverage in multiple sources which would pass WP:GNG. And you're personal attacks are getting stale. Onel5969 TT me 00:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: That wasn't a personal attack, that was stating a fact. You clearly dislike radio station pages and have made no effort to take part in the discussion or rewrite of NMEDIA. So, it's a clear fact, not an attack. Also, have you had a look at the page? 15 sources and references. The "dearth" of in-depth coverage is there, hence STICK.
Just cause you want the Keep !votes ignored, because the Deletes are in the minority, doesn't mean it will happen. The article has the sources and references to meet and exceed GNG and the current writing of NMEDIA. Saying something doesn't pass GNG, when it ticks all of the boxes, isn't a "cogent argument", it's actually the opposite of one, it would be muddled and feeble. Yes, I can pull out a 50 cent word too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:09, 11 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wirya Kumandra[edit]

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

No evidence that this player meets our inclusion criteria. They have a profile page on Sport.de, World Football, Soccerpunter and Soccerway, all of which are effectively blank. An Indonesian source search comes up with some minor blog coverage and only a smidgen of news coverage. I found nothing better than this Bola article, which basically just mentions him in passing and says he didn't play a game all season.

Looks like he fails WP:GNG and likely fails WP:NFOOTBALL too. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:36, 2 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmer Javed[edit]

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

Not Notable enough to be on Wikipedia. KnightMight (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KnightMight (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:55, 2 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 merge to Battersea Power Station#Theme park proposal. Sandstein 08:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 447[edit]

British Rail Class 447 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page has had no sources since it was created. With only a single image that shows what the train may have looked like. Possibly fails WP:GNG too. Slender (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, much as I love trains, it's difficult to get excited about three that never got made, and wouldn't have been anything particularly extraordinary if they had. In the world of railway trivia, this is exceedingly trivial. If no one else has an opinion, I'd say safe to deleteElemimele (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete for the reasons stated above.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've conducted a review of newspaper archives, in case the proposed train was for some reason notable at the time, but no details can be found. It is likely that the proposed project was sufficiently notable to meet GNG, but it does not appear like this proposed train for said proposed project is. BilledMammal (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Battersea Power Station#Theme park proposal. I agree that the EMU isn't notable in its own right, but the theme park seems to be (see, for example, this article), and might be worth its own article at some stage. The EMU would have been a significant element of the theme park, and reverting its article to a redlink will create a gap in our currently-comprehensive coverage of UK railway topics. Tevildo (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per above, though I am surprised there haven't been any sources added to this article. I couldn't find any either. NemesisAT (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the above. Given the dates, it's most likely that sources will be in specialist magazines for the period rather than online. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 6 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. The consensus in this debate relating to the sourcing added to the article, is that it doesn't fulfil the requirements set out by GNG. Daniel (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yauhien Anischanka[edit]

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

Was draftified in hopes it would be improved. It was not. Searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 12:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article with a single obit ref. Typically an academic artcle needs two obits before it is created and the convention at Afc is three refs which are secondary. scope_creepTalk 14:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And what you don’t see in the article doesn’t exist? Updated with the refs I mentioned above. (But seeing the personal attack here below you will never change your vote) SportsOlympic (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author seems to be unwilling to do the work to source the articles they create, which per convention and consensus is the required process and has been since the get go. I would suggest that the editor is uncapable of doing it and per the remedy applied to FloridaArmy, all articles the editor creates should be submitted to draft for review and approval. Currently as it stands, all the one ref articles the editor is writing, which are often profiles, is creating an immense amount of work for other folk, not only for the people at Afc who have to review them once they have been moved after NPP review, but the months and years ahead when more work will be needed. All the editors work should go to Afc. scope_creepTalk 14:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides of that; this is not the place to propose your opinion; please do it somewhere else. And it’s not correct: “all the one ref articles the editor is writing, which are often profiles”—>Please check the articles I created and don’t state something when just seeing a few articles. Stubs are welcome, you call improving a stub: “months and years ahead when more work will be needed”. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And actually, why moving them all to draft while, you say it yourself, they have already all been checked one-by-one SportsOlympic (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully support this editor having to create new articles through AfC. Their poorly sourced, brief articles usually fail to show any notability even when the subject is notable. The only time an effort is made to produce anything like an acceptable article is when the article is in danger of being deleted. This could be forgiven if it was a new editor creating the articles, but this is not the case here. --John B123 (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR --John B123 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF, the sites linked by the article creator to support notability do not inspire confidence that the original author understands Wikipedia's policies. --hroest 21:46, 12 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 02:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Saleski[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources in the article are what we'd consider reliable and/or independent, and no part of his playing career gives him notability under WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GRIDIRON, and if not an autobio it looks like it was written by someone close to the subject. SportingFlyer T·C 10:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 10:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 2 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 12:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Against the Grain (radio program)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. After a search for sources I couldn't find anything that would be considered more than a trivial mention. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 18:43, 2 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 per WP:A7. North America1000 09:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Œīîto[edit]

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

Non-notable translator. Can't find a single thing about him. Do not send to draft unless encyclopaedic merit can be proved. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG as far as I can tell from a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated the book listed as a reference after I posted above, but I didn't bother posting about it since consensus is clear enough. The Philippine Bible Society is a legitimate organization that publishes Bibles in the Philippines, and the ISBN is in the proper format for books published in the Philippines, but the specific book claimed as a source doesn't appear to exist, by that title or with that ISBN. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that PBS is a legitimate organization and I've seen their products in various bookstores here. "Œīîto" and this reference's existence is questionable though. --Lenticel (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Per WP:A7. 70 results on Google? Even the article name sounds fishy. Those letters do not typically exist in Filipino names. HiwilmsTalk 18:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete the creator has been indefinitely blocked. Two near-identical articles from a ‘new’ editor were speedy deleted yesterday. Mccapra (talk) 07:36, 9 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 Materialscientist (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Games Korea[edit]

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

This is a hoax as well. "게임 오브 게임 코리아" yields zilch. Jeon So-min and Jessi are huge in Korea so, if this did exist, it would not be hard to find reliable media sources. Do not draftify this. Just get rid of it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I have been following Jeon So-min and Jessi closely and I have not heard before of such shows before nor are there news published that they would be on such show. Maybe this should be CSD under A11 instead ... anyway since AfD is already here, it can serve as an evidence if the author happens to recreate it. Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:06, 2 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 Materialscientist (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Games UK[edit]

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

A hoax... I think... Channel 4 and Stephen Mulhern are massive in the UK so, if this show exists and has already aired, it would be featured heavily in the news. I can't find anything on Channel 4's website about this show nor can I find anything in search engines about it. Ellen's Game of Games is real but there is nothing about a UK Stephen Mulhern version anywhere. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nominator and WP:G3. There isn't anything searchable with Game of Games UK nor anything like this linked to Stephen Mulhern. The official URL leading to a 'page not found error' is a giveaway. Ajf773 (talk) 09:56, 2 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsaan Qureshi[edit]

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

it fails WP:GNG and has lack of reliable sources and also fails WP:NACTOR Preetykaur761 (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the IMDB profile that shows multiple lead roles. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:39, 2 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 02:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Slavík[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, and a before search brought up nothing additional to help save the article. While possibly a marginal SNG pass, we usually defer to GNG if it's clearly failed. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 1 or 2 games is enough only in high-publicity cases. Geschichte (talk) 04:21, 7 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. —Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur Braithwaite[edit]

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

Tagged with a notability tag for almost a decade now. Youth sports coaches are generally not inherently notable, so thought I'd start a discussion. The case for keeping is that he was more accomplished than usual for a high school coach, having been elected to a high school coaching hall of fame and being selected to be the torch bearer for his small town for the Olympics, and as a result had several articles written on him, almost all by newspapers in Salt Lake City, but a couple church publications and a USA Today article. The case for deleting is that the vast majority of the coverage on him is routine sports coverage from the local paper, giving the article the feeling as if it's been written by someone close to the subject. It also appears many different Utahans carried the torch due to Salt Lake hosting the Olympics. While you can pass GNG with only local coverage, the only coverage outside of Utah I can find is local coverage from Connecticut and Florida mentioning his attendance at two hall of fame coaching conventions, showing what notability he had was quite local. I'm on the delete side here, as I don't think the extent of the coverage adds up to notability. I think relevant information can be merged into the high school's article, if one exists, but am interested to think what others make of this. SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going for Keep since he is getting significant coverage in Utah's major publications over some period of time, not just his local town media. There are several articles about him in the states larger media outlets such as [61][62][63][64][65]. Alvaldi (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will abstain. The NFHS Award of Merit alone seems notable on a national level. However, page views that average <1 a day seems to indicate not notable. If the vote is for deletion I agree with merging the information elsewhere. I've updated dead links. Jacobkhed (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that per WP:PAGEVIEW Page stats can help determine how popular a page is, but are not an indication of a topic's notability and If a page's stats are low, it is not a reason to consider it for deletion. Alvaldi (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The award of merit isn't really an award which receives a lot of coverage, though, in my searches - it's just an organisational award that will occasionally generate "local coach wins award" coverage, along with that USA Today article, even though I can't find that article appearing in any national print archives. SportingFlyer T·C 11:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The local coverage he has really is significant, as has been mentioned. The article also has a decent bit of depth of notability beyond just him being a high school sports coach, such as being an Olympic torch bearer and his participation in World War II. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decent amount of local sourcing which tends to sway toward notability. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all others. Note that the "abstain" !vote should be a keep, because they point out that the subject is notable, which is all that matters. That user goes on to say that they deny the article a keep !vote because there's <1 visit/day, but even a few visits/month is enough. Plus, lack of views/day don't matter, notability criteria is what does, and this user has agreed that the notability criteria have been passed. Dr. Universe (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They said an award they received "seems notable". They didn't say the person was notable.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 10 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albesian Mataj[edit]

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

Biography of a young soldier who died fighting for the independence of Kosovo. The sources in the article clearly indicate local notability, but it’s not clear that they meet WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I started the article I was well aware of the lack of sources in English, but sources do not have to be available online or written in English. (WP:GNG). Albesian Mataj was probably the youngest (rebel) combatant who died in the Kosovo War and in Kosovo his name is commemorated in public space (monuments, streets, parks). In Gjakova, his hometown, every year local politicians and MPs attend an event dedicated to his memory. Side comment: There is an inherent WP:SYSTEMIC problem about cultures which have been underrepresented historically. There are probably more sources about instagram "influencers" than there will ever be about Albesian Mataj, but such is the world we live in and we have to address the skewed reality which is being created daily via heavily "English-centric" social media.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here isn’t the lack of English sources. The question is whether there is in depth coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources that aren’t local. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 09:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It passes WP:BASIC as every year a state supported event takes place to honor him [66] his name has also been used to name public spaces like streets and parks. Durraz0 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While there's some coverage in local media in Kosovo, I don't see any significant treatment of the subject in multiple reliable secondary sources (books, national newspapers, etc.), which is the basic criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Griboski (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per points raised by Maleschreiber and Durraz0. Uniacademic (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is notable enough. There is more content sourced to RS that can be added. Among other things, the subject has been dedicated books, memorials and park/street names. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:53, 11 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 12:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WRND (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Open and shut WP:2DABS case - specifically, WP:ONEOTHER. There is one primary topic (WRND), and the only other related page WQEZ is linked from a hatnote. Taking it to AfD because the PROD tag was removed without explanation. schetm (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Yet another PROD/AfD jumping of the gun from someone who, just recently, started editing radio station articles. This is how we do things at NMEDIA (currently). I'd invite people to ask first or, ya know, LEARN before going off half-cocked and nom'ing everything under the sun for PROD or AfD. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I've been editing this topic off and on for three years, and with even less regularity going back almost my entire decade plus here. I do know my way around. At any rate, WP:NMEDIA, as an explanatory supplement to WP:N, has absolutely no bearing on a disambiguation page. Per WP:WHYN, (notability guidelines) "do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages)" schetm (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whatever the ideas of one particular project, this is not how disambiguation pages work. It is not needed (and is wrongly formatted, for the case where there exists a primary topic). PamD 07:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator's statement accurately reflects the relevant guideline, WP:ONEOTHER. This has nothing to do with radio stations as such: disambiguations are always unnecessary when there's a primary topic and when a hatnote would suffice, regardless of the topic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A look at FCCdata's call sign search shows that three stations have used this call sign in the last 40 years, the two entries on this dabpage and a short-lived station that could either be part of the same hatnote or potentially part of another article (WRND, Manchester, New Hampshire, owned by Notre Dame College (New Hampshire) and on the air for just three years). NMEDIA is not a style guide, nor should any style guide particular to radio topics prevent the application of encyclopedia-wide guidelines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have a long history of transitional disambiguation pages after a call sign change, followed a couple of years later by putting a hatnote on the article with the base call sign and moving it over top of the disambiguation page if the disambiguation page only has two entries. I've done those moves myself, conservatively, 100 times, and I have another three dozen or more on my "get around to it someday" list. Mlaffs (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm replying here for the main purpose of explaining why our naming conventions and page moves have to be so darn arcane in US radio for non-topic editors.
      Imagine, if you will, that there are several people (first names only), and every first name is unique. One day, John decides he'd like to become Joe. We move the page at John to Joe. Not long after, or several years later, Jimmy decides to become John. We might have a "John (disambiguation)" page, especially if a lot of people have been John over the years or people might be looking for John only to learn that there's a new John and they're looking for someone now named James.
      Or imagine that John dies and someone else becomes John, and the dead person needs to be disambiguated because current call sign holders are presumptively a primary topic. We used to just have lots of articles like "John (defunct)", which was an MOS violation and was starting to create some bad edge cases, so in 2019 the priority order enshrined in User:Sammi Brie/Radio naming was implemented.
      Or we have John AM and John FM, and "John" was a disambiguation page until John AM became Jack (this case), plus there was a dead John we don't have an article on. (That's this case.)
      Every month, the FCC puts out the ever-exciting "Media Bureau Call Sign Actions", which recaps all of the changes in call sign at every US broadcast facility (example). We get a lot of chained swaps (B becomes C, A becomes B) and round-robin changes (B becomes A and A becomes B). This is a lot of work to keep up to date, and it demands pagemover (indeed, this is the reason I have the right) and results invariably in several G6s of redirects every month.
      We likely have a good number of dabs we no longer need, but because of the reuse of call signs, dabs can be an appropriate short-term strategy to reduce astonishment. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Since there's currently one station currently assigned to that callsign, there's no need to have a disambiguation page for such. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no need for a disambiguation page here: a hatnote will do it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:20, 4 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. Geschichte (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic precision[edit]

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

Original research. The references cited do not define the term, only use it. From this I conclude this is not a literary term, but a self-evident collocation. Three editors expressed the same concern in the talk page in the past. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having searched google scholar and my university library, I can't find any indication that the term is in use with any kind of specific meaning. Precisionism is a real aesthetic movement, but both Swift and Flaubert substantially predate precisionism, and I'm not convinced that the other cited writers (whom I know less well) have anything to do with it either. I think all of these works are just using irony, and being praised for doing so in a precise way (ie accurately and insightfully). Without even a definition of the term in circulation somewhere, this does not appear to be a meaningful concept for an article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The concept appears to exist, but there is nothing suggesting it is notable on its own. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this type of phrase should be on Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. It's not a "style" the way the article would make you believe. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:04, 6 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. Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CRAX Commander[edit]

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

Unnotable - sources are either first-party or obscure websites (and most of them return 404). Google News returns some Russian websites that are either lists or comments on articles. Looking at non-automated edits, it seems like this is self-promotion by a few connected users. byteflush Talk 03:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is commercial software. Therefore, really good sources are necessary to support the article. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:17, 9 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. From the discussion here, it seems that it might be possible to write an article that complies with our policies and guidelines and would thus merit a standalone article in mainspace. However, there is a consensus that this version is not that with some citing a lack of notability while others cite the documented issues around UPE/COI. In the end there is a consensus that there are valid reasons per WP:DELPOL to delete this article at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moglix[edit]

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

Previously deleted multiple times. Suspected case of Covert advertising. Advertisement of the company. Major references are either Press Releases or announcements, WP:MILL. I would also like to ping Celestina007 and DGG who recently declined the article. DJRSD (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Speedy Delete as G4 essentially an unimproved version of previously deleted article. Fails WP:NCORP--refs are mostly notices, awards are insubstantial.I should have salted it the last time around. Other user contribution of User:Hayema K need to be checked. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt and Delete Considering it's been deleted multiple times, looks like we need some yummy SALT. Per previous discussions the delete is self-evident at this point. If someone does go and set this up for speedy delete I would make a note to recommend salting as well. --Tautomers(T C) 07:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The company itself appears to pass WP:GNG, as it has received coverage from multiple independent RS. The business, which is valued at over $1 billion, is clearly WP:GNG-notable in light of the significant coverage by multiple RS. However, the current article reads strongly like an advertisement. I'd recommend we draftify the article to allow for improvements to be made and for the advertorial content to be removed. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I beg to differ here - I don't believe it qualifies for WP:G4. The 2nd discussion took place around 4 years ago and the topic has since received an abundance of significant coverage in secondary, independent, reliable sources and passes WP:GNG with ease. Moglix is the largest e-commerce company for industrial goods in India. It has received extensive and substantial coverage in major national newspapers over an extended period of time, such as Forbes, INC42, Business standard, BW, Financial express, Forbes, BS, and Livemint and google news search shows 5,250 hits. It may need copy edit to meet WP standards rather than deletion. I have made some substantial changes to the page though and edited out promo and excessive refs concerning funding.
Also pinging participants Cunard, David in DC, and CNMall41 of the last discussion who may want to give their opinions here as well.Hayema K (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hayema K:, as an aside, most people do not just come to Wikipedia as a volunteer and start to create articles on business unless they have a [{WP:COI]] or are WP:PAID. I would strongly suggest that you disclose any affiliation you have with this company. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soooo pings just for the keep !voters then. The other participants: @K.e.coffman, Xxanthippe, and Dennis Brown: — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I hate advertising and anything that smells of WP:COI. However, looking at this strictly from a notability standpoint, there are references out there that meet WP:ORGCRIT. If you take away all the brief mentions and funding announcements, there are staff written pieces (not contributor pieces) in Forbes 1, 2, and Entrepreneur. Was also featured on CNBC. Also, despite the normal funding announcements that you may see in references such as TechCrunch, the latest valuation was covered by Business Insder and Economic Times which don't always practice churnalism as TechCrunch does. If editors see fit in deleting this for other reasons, so be it, but I cannot see how WP:BEFORE didn't turn up anything meeting ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After the !vote by JBchrch, I looked closer at WP:TNT. While it is not a policy or guideline, it does provide a layout for what the community consensus on these type of issues are. Despite it being a notable topic (IMHO), deleting something that has a history of advocacy would be appropriate in this situation. I would love to see something like this cemented in policy but that is not really discussion for an AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After removing the promotional part by CNMall41, the article looks like clean and as per available references it passes WP:GNG. 2401:4900:5AAB:DA6D:FD4E:AD2B:510:FFB (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC) — 2401:4900:5AAB:DA6D:FD4E:AD2B:510:FFB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Draftify for reasons above, it seems it may be notable, but its clearly got issues with tone and impartially.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As bad of a taste as the original piece left in my mouth (and this entire process with the canvassing). I have to grudgingly concede that this easily passes WP:GNG. Additionally, the excellent efforts of CNMall41 in stubbing it have left only objective truth. There are no concerns left with the article in it's current state. Jcmcc (Talk) 11:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Are we encouraging conflict of interest editing by voting to retain an article that has all COI tale signs? I know focus on content and whatnot but if this article was moved To Draftspace why wasn’t AFC allowed to play out? Especially since there is indeed a stench of possible COI? I’m lost on this one. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007:, @Miniapolis:, I do a lot of reviewing at AfC so it would be pointless to send it back. I am one that would likely approve it if I saw it. It either needs to be deleted or kept as it would be a waste or time to draftify. It sucks as the topic is notable despite being hammered by COI. My vote is strictly on notability and kind of puts me between a rock and a hard place. I'd love to not reward a COI editor, but it also takes away from our credibility by throwing out a notable topic just to prove a point to these people. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete/Draftify — Imho, the article should be moved to Draftspace and passed through AFC where an uninvolved editor with AFC pseudo rights would handle this, if this is considered moot then please the article should be deleted. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt — Following JBchrch's rationale both here and in ANI, I cant in good faith !vote in favor to even drafitify the article (or any article that has been created by a possible covert upe editor) what sort of hypocrisy on my part would that be? what sort of message am I leaving for posterity? This should]WP:TNT'ed and an editor without a COI recreate this. Celestina007 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Celestina007. Miniapolis 23:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC) After reading CNMall41's comment above and looking more closely at the sources, Rahul Garg may be notable but the company (IMO) is not. Delete Miniapolis 23:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and salt per Dennis Brown below, so we're not back here yet again. Miniapolis 13:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    Moglix was covered in an international source, Japan's The Nikkei, in 2017. Moglix became a unicorn company in 2021 which led to profiles in Forbes India and The Economic Times, which is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after The Wall Street Journal.

    1. Marandi, Rosemary (2017-07-12). "Startup Moglix bets on growth spurred by India's GST". The Nikkei. Archived from the original on 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2021-07-05.

      The article notes: "Headquartered in Singapore, Moglix was founded in August 2015. It serves over 50,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in India, and over 200 major manufacturers in India, China, and other parts of Asia. Clients include GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals, Havells India, India Forge, Kirloskar Group, Lumax Industries, and some Tata Group companies. Moglix platforms enable companies and individuals to place bulk purchase orders and fulfill deliveries with the help of logistics partners. It provides cloud-based software as a service (SAAS) that third parties are able to make available to their clients for convenience and supply chain efficiencies."

    2. Balachandran, Manu (2021-06-07). "Moglix: How Rahul Garg built an unexpected unicorn". Forbes India. Archived from the original on 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2021-07-05.

      The article notes: "Amongst them is six-year-old Moglix, a rather unlikely unicorn amongst others such as messaging bots startup Gupshup, social commerce startup Meesho, fintech startup Cred, and online investment platform Groww. Moglix, started by Rahul Garg is 2015, is a Noida-based industrial business-to-business marketplace in India, that is essentially an e-commerce platform for industrial tools and equipment, used largely by businesses. Moglix, helps over 500,000 small, and medium-sized businesses and some 3,000 manufacturing plants across India, Singapore, the UK, and the UAE in their procurement for industrial goods."

    3. Hariharan, Sindhu (2021-05-17). "Moglix raises $120 million at over $1 billion valuation". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2021-07-05.

      The article notes: "Moglix provides its solutions to over five lakh SMEs and 3,000 manufacturing plants across India, Singapore, the UK and the UAE. Several manufacturing majors such as Hero MotoCorp, Vedanta, Tata Steel, Unilever and PSUs such as Air India and NTPC procure indirect material through the Moglix platform. Moglix has a supply chain network of over 16,000 suppliers, over 35 warehouses and logistics infrastructure."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Moglix to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding promotional content: Thank you, CNMall41 (talk · contribs), for removing the promotional content.

    Regarding canvassing: Canvassing happened when only "keep" editors were pinged. This has been remedied by the pinging of the "delete" editors. I am removing the "canvassing" tag placed next to CNMall41's comment. If the canvassing tag is to be restored to CNMall41's comment, then it should also be added to the "delete" editors who were pinged and who have commented.

    Cunard (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that any of these sources meet the criteria of WP:SIRS, according to which posts that are company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials are not considered independent, an example being a Profile in Forbes. What I'm reading is, at best, reporting that simply parrots the company's the company's marketing claims. JBchrch talk 16:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBchrch: Would you be kind enough to explain in detail how the refs above are sponsored ones? did you check out the refs above Cunard's comment and most importantly did you do an online search? some of the best sources about the company i have provided in my comment above. google search shows 5,860 hits. I understand the article was once deleted as a result of discussion but it has gained a whole host of significant coverage on independent sources since 2017. last time the page was not even deleted on the grounds of notability but because of G11. its the largest company in india that sells industrial products and meets the notability criteria. All information in the article are factual and not promotional or not that promotional that it should be tossed aside. There were plenty of refs in the article alone which got deleted as a result of page clean up by CNMall41. thank you.Hayema K (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayema K: I have expressed no view on the general notability of this company. However, if this company is truly notable, then some volunteer editors will propose a neutral and encyclopedic article at some point (if necessary through the WP:SALT process) instead of the continuous out-of-process creation by COI editors. As of signature time, the only information about the company in the article is the professional history of its founder, the fact that it has partners in several countries and funding/valuation information: it's pretty much a pitch. And, as I have already written below, this is despite having been reworked by competent editors. What this article needs is a complete rewrite by neutral, volunteer editors, which is precisely why a WP:TNT deletion is needed. JBchrch talk 17:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and salt. Article still reads like a promo piece with pretty much 0 encyclopedic value, despite being only 3k long and having been reworked by competent editors. This goes to show that it is beyond saving. Salting has become necessary: sub-par versions of this article keep being recreated by SPAs and each iteration has required a lot of administrative work by good-faith editors. Salting would prevent the inevitable waste of time that would follow a 4th re-creation of the article. JBchrch talk 16:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that TNT had a provision for undisclosed paid editing or advocacy until I looked closer ("Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up"). As such, it would give us a policy based reason to get rid of an otherwise notable page. Changing my !vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and salt per DGG. I closed the last AFD discussion, which went to DRV and the delete close was endorsed, so this has already been scrutinized plenty. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting an article on a clearly notable subject based on a mere hunch that it might've been created by a COI editor goes against the very foundation of Wikipedia and it saddens me that it's what's most likely to end up happening yet again. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At this point, based on the admission of the page creator, it is safe to say this meets speedy deletion. Per WP:TNT, "Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. Anyone can start over as long as their version isn't itself a copyright or WP:PAID violation, or a total copy of the deleted content." The history and current failure to disclose meets the definition of "excessive cases of advocacy" in my opinion. Get rid of it so no more of our time is wasted on this paid advocacy. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cunard may possibly have shown that sources exist from which an acceptable article could be written, tho I remain uncertain about the truly independent non-promotional nature of some or all of them. but he has not shown that this is an acceptable article. Lack of notability may be the most common reason for deleting an article at AFD, but it's not even the most important--the encyclopedia can survive with one borderline notable article more. It could not survive in any useful way if it became a vehicle for advertising or a directory, for it would be no better than the Googles, and they do well enough without us volunteers. Nor would it survive under continuing assault by undeclared paid editors and puppets, for then we volunteers would be spending most our time here in removing them--and, as the need for this discussion shows, we're getting perilously close to it. If, as some seem to advocate, we accept material like this, written for motives such as this by editors such as this, why are we even here? DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally be with Cunard on this one and give a lot of leeway to editors with a COI. However, keeping TNT in mind, I think this case qualifies and we should WP:IAR in lack of one existing for deletion based on COI or PAID. As recommended above, I would suggest we work on getting something in policy to make these cases easier and we don't have to spend so much time on them. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:19, 7 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) Dr. Universe (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Aloysius Battista[edit]

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

The article is primarily cited to The Book of Catholic Authors entry which was written by Orlando Aloysius Battista and is entirely autobiographical. Searches for in-depth coverage in independent references have yielded nothing promising. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR. 4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable chemist, inventor, and author. Passes GNG with SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. E.g., (1) part 1/part 2 (originally from The Washington Post), (2) this, (3) this, and (4) this from the Science History Institute. Cbl62 (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per sources provided by Cbl62, which I incorporated into the article. Suriname0 (talk) 15:24, 2 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 12:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Roach (surfer)[edit]

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

Article on a surfer with zero information on competitive impact, sourced to commercial and unreliable sources, basically constituting a permastub puffball advertisement. BD2412 T 05:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there's zero evidence he has had any competitive (or really any) impact on bodyboarding and just bein the "pioneer of the dropknee style of bodyboarding" (whatever that is) isn't enough on it's own to establish his notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While some sources mention him, there is no in depth coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:00, 9 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) 04:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knives Out 2[edit]

Knives Out 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Knives Out 2 This film does not satisfy film notability guidelines, and in particular does not satisfy future film guidelines. The future film guidelines are poorly written and are often misunderstood. There is a myth that a film is considered notable if a reliable source states that production (principal photography or animation) has begun. A more careful reading of the guideline shows that films are divided into three groups based on stages of production:

  • 1. Films for which production has not begun, which are not notable, and are usually redirected, to the director, the book, the franchise, or some related topic.
  • 2. Films that have entered principal photography (or animation) but have not been released.
  • 3. Films that have been released to theatres.

Films that have been in production but not yet released are notable only if production itself has achieved general notability. Films that have been released to theatres are notable based on reviews or similar coverage. This film has been in principal photography but has not yet been released, and so is notable only if production itself satisfies general notability. An article should speak for itself as to why the subject is notable; but nothing in this article says that production has been notable.

Because the notability criterion for the second group is poorly written, some film articles are written to provide a handwave that production is in progress or completed. The removal of the notability tag was a handwave, and did not make the article speak for itself

A detailed analysis of the sources has not been provided at this time, but many of the sources simply identify cast members, and advance identification of cast members is not significant coverage.

A film notability tag was removed from the article with the edit summary "Removed {{Notability}} tag: This film is in the news all the time. Def passes WP:GNG ". Nothing in the article refers to news about the film, which may or may not be significant. A statement in an edit summary does not establish notability. (If significant coverage of the film can be added to the article, that is what the Heymann rule is for.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep – I would understand starting an AFD on an independent film moved to mainspace because it just started filming but you're saying Knives Out 2 fails WP:GNG? The Netflix sequel bought alongside a third film for $469 million? The Rian Johnson ensemble film that has received a lot of media attention and dozens of interviews just about it? In what way does this article fail WP:GNG or WP:NFILM? It clearly passes the statement that "Films that have been in production but not yet released are notable only if production itself has achieved general notability." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Some Dude From North Carolina. The production itself has already been treated as newsworthy. Indeed, language like "mind-boggling deal" goes more than far enough to indicate why it's a project worth remarking upon. With that much money on the line and principal photography already under way, the only thing that could stop this from a general release would be a disaster that would itself be newsworthy. XOR'easter (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I do not see how this does not meet NFILM or GNG. It seems to satisfy both criteria. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the editor who removed the notability tag, I agree with the statements above, especially from Some Dude From North Carolina, as the amount of press that went into covering its acquisition by Netflix, to the coverage of the actors being cast, this clearly and easily pass WP:GNG. This nomination reminds me of the nomination last summer for Mulan, when an editor wanted the article deleted simply because Disney delayed its release. Anyway...again, my opinion is Keep. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At this point, the Rubicon has been passed; with all these casting announcements and a distributor solidified, it would still be a keep if somehow the film didn't come to fruition. Meets NFILM/GNG easily. Nate • (chatter) 23:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the editors above that the coverage of the deal demonstrates notability for the production (even if the film ends up never getting a release). I suppose it would (at present) be possible to cover all the relevant information at Knives Out#Sequels, but I really don't see the point in doing so. TompaDompa (talk) 19:47, 3 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 Restore dab. There is consensus that the Canadian politician is not notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Stephenson[edit]

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

Won second place in a by-election, only relevant due to said by-election where he lost Ornithoptera (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Ryan Stevenson as a plausible spelling. The current bio shouldn't stand per nom. schetm (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The two dab entries as they stand right now are quite weak and I don't think they're worthy of disambiguation. I still think the whole thing should be redirected, but I'd urge the closing admin to relist another week as a new argument has come into play. schetm (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect which ever. But political candidates that lost elections aren't notable. Although, he did win a city Council election, but that's not high enough of a political position on it's own to make him notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to DAB page Ryan Stevenson as {{R from misspelling}}. The current article cannot stand, it fails WP:POLITICIAN. Narky Blert (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He lost the by-election, and is therefore not notable. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.--Bduke (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Bondegezou (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect Per WP:NPOL and above. Rwendland (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lost the by-election, so fails WP:POLITICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect Per above, does not seem independently notable for now, most citations about the subject are really about the past election. Inter&anthro (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to "Ryan Stevenson" as plausible misspelling. PatGallacher (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ryan Stevenson per above. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is long established practice on Wikipedia that being an unsuccessful candidate in a UK parliamentary election is insufficiently notable for having an article on Wikipedia. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ryan Stevenson as a plausible spelling, and maybe add to that disambiguation list "Conservative candidate in the 2021 Batley and Spen by-election" if someone really remembers his name in five years' time. Being a city councillor and parliamentary election runner-up is not inherently notable. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ryan Stevenson as per above. Vida0007 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with others, being a local councillor and a candidate in a by-election does not make him notable. Redirect to Ryan Stevenson is the most suitable course.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against the recreation of a redirect afterward (but delete first so that this isn't available in the edit history to be revert-warred over). Neither being a non-winning candidate in a by-election nor serving on a local council constitute automatic notability freebies under WP:NPOL, but the article is not sourced even remotely close to well enough to earn him special treatment over and above other unsuccessful parliamentary candidates or local councillors. Essentially somebody jumped the gun here because it looked like he had a good chance of winning — but the fact that he didn't win in the end is precisely why we wait until the count is done before we start an article about the actual winner. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would suggest that one benefit of a redirect is that in the event of Stephenson becoming an MP in the future, existing information is available in the edit history and wouldn't have to be recreated. I don't anticipate edit-warring being an issue- there is currently very little demand for a standalone article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest WP:SNOW. It was my mistake, I created the article early that night when people thought that he had won. PatGallacher (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thinking about it, the article was a disambiguation page prior to your creation of an article- could easily just be turned back into its state prior to the election. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but it was a pretty crappy disambiguation page, both entries were of doubtful notability. PatGallacher (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as dab this was an overwirtten valid dab, which I restored and it was then changed to something else invalid. I have no idea why second blue links to lines were added, or why Ryan Stevenson was moved from its see also section. Dabs are indexes - the people on them need to meet MOS:DABMENTION or MOS:DABRL - they do NOT need to meet notability. If someone types in Ryan Stephenson, they are taken to a page listing those on Wikipedia they may be looking for. Dabs are just indexes and thus are cheap - there is zero gain to not giving this info when people type it in. Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth mentioning that the creator of the page (me) doesn't seem to have been informed of this deletion discussion. Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be fine with it staying a DAB. Hopefully it can be protected though if that's how things turn out so it's not overwritten again. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore DAB (changing !vote) per Boleyn. Perfectly valid DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as DAB While not notable for an article, Stephenson seems to meet dabmention.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:58, 9 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. No chance of a deletion consensus. Geschichte (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Văn Ngọc Tú[edit]

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

No decent journalistic sources of relevance, no significant achievements, no google source results indicating any semblance of WP:BIO qualification Hyperwave11 (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 2 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) 04:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam van Schaik[edit]

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

1) Is a BLP with only affiliated sources (schools attended, employers), no independent sources (yes, I've looked) and 2) There are no sources because he doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. He's just not notable as an academic. Skyerise (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 2. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He works in a library which is a bit different than a typical professor, but this does still count as a PROF position. He does not pass C1, as he has an h-index of 3, 19 publications, and 23 citations respectively. Now, while I am unfamilar with this field and I know fields like religious studies and histories can have low averages, this seems really low even for that, so I am inclined to think this fails C1. He fails C2 as he does not seem to have won any major awards. C3 as he does not seem to have won any awards. Fails C4 as I see no evidence of impact, he fails C5 as his appointments have been neither named nor disginguished, and none of his have been appointed administrative so it fails C6 too. It fails C7 because his impact has been low and not noteworthy. Finally fails C8 as he has not been an editor. All of that aside, he has three published books on his academic website (1) (2) (3), which have been cited 197, 24, and 6 times. I found two other books (4) (5) that got 4 and 2 citations. Most of these were published under Yale University Press and are of an academic nature. It looks like there are a few others as well from earlier years that have parallel content, publishers, and citation amounts. These don't pass WP:AUTHOR as there is no major press coverage nor do I see signs of impact. The first one does have a fair amount of citations that makes me wonder if that would count towards WP:PROF C1 if this is abnormal for his field of study (if someone is versed in this field please comment!), but I am inclined to think no as it isn't discussed and I believe that is a hallmark of significance in the humanaties academic world (please correct me if I am wrong). Essentially, I gave this a good look and came up dry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tautomers (talk
  • Keep I am revising my vote to keep as Russ Woodroofe below found review of the large book that I missed, and I agree that this brings him over a threshold to meet WP:AUTHOR, and in my view WP:PROF as well since it is an academic book. --Tautomers(T C) 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC) • contribs)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While citations are a bit light for WP:NPROF C1 (as one might expect for a "book" field), I'm seeing enough reviews (of at least two books + an edited volume) for WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews include [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73], also [74] of an edited volume. (Search JSTOR with an Advanced Search and the reviews-only filter is btw a useful trick!) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. thanks Russ! I was looking for stuff like this but couldn't find it. I am not familar with Jstor and didn't use it while looking which explains why I didn't come across it. I have revised my vote to keep. --Tautomers(T C) 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is the author of a noteworthy history of Tibet (Tibet: A History, 2011) for which there is no dearth of reviews. --Elnon (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found and added to the article 16 published reviews of 6 books, easily enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Author of many highly cited books on Tibet, e.g Tibet: A history has 198 citations on Google Scholar. Uhooep (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Indeed. Wrote a highly-respected and heavily-reviewed history of Tibet. Clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 7 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) 04:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fish (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND, WP:GNG. Google test gives Lastfm, Facebook, and their own website, none of which are reliable. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 04:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 04:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 04:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ha! The intro for this article gave me a good chuckle. This fails notability per the nominator. I couldn't find any sources that would signify it meeting, though I did see a few things in search. --Tautomers(T C) 04:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The intro was recently changed by a promo username. Check the history if you want, it has the original intro. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 05:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ahahahahha, oh that makes it even funnier. The original doesn't change anything for me but considering this one appears to be circling the drain, it pleases my inner chaos lord and I am not compelled to fix it hehe. --Tautomers(T C) 05:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When you're a kid, the whole point of music is to drive your parents bonkers! Anyway, this group does have a few media mentions, but they tend to be brief mentions in articles about someone else (see current footnote #1), occasional gig announcements ([75]), or very brief blog posts ([76]). They've been around for a long time so I suspect that they are often discussed in internal church newsletters or the the social media pages of church youth groups, but they have not crossed over to mainstream notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're a bit behind the times there. As baby boomers have got older it's the parents and grandparents who play music that drives the kids bonkers. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, kids ignore metal music created by graybeards and played at medium volume by other graybeards ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very clear delete, nothing resembling notability Dexxtrall (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Delete as non-notable. OMG. JSFarman (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a member of the Christian music project, this band barely made it onto the radar. No charting. No awards. Fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 6 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) 04:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Williamson's Arkansas Infantry Battalion[edit]

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

Came across this one while starting on some cleanup at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20190125. From my experience, many stand-alone ACW battalions (not component battalions of regiments) are likely notable, but this one only existed for 17 days before being dissolved and its component companies scattered to the four winds of the Confederate army. All three sources cited in the article are unreliable, and searching didn't bring up significant coverage in RS.

Furthermore, there is a decent amount of foundational copyvio in the article, so even if this can be kept, WP:TNT will be needed anyway to rid this of the copyright violations. Hog Farm Talk 04:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 04:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 04:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 04:21, 2 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) 04:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Bananas Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP - lacks significant coverage from independent sources. Per WP:ORGIND - "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." The refs provided are advertorials/sponsored content. KH-1 (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a few articles about this company, but they seriously come off like bad paid for PR buff pieces. I couldn't find anything that is any better either. So this clearly fails the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — conflict of interest article on a non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 4 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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dilawar Syed[edit]

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

BLP that was speedy deleted in 2015 for non notability. Since then the subject has been nominated to serve as the deputy administrator of the US Small Business Administration, but I don’t think that makes him notable either. Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sources that cover him only reference his appointment and confirmation process. The "deputy administrator" role does not automatically confer notability. KidAd • SPEAK 16:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No because she is a much-decorated rear admiral. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's a significantly large coverage about his nomination for SBA and a heated debate about his political views regarding Israel. As there's no article about his nomination(so WP SingleEvent can't be applied here), it'll be better if we keep it. Thank you. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Radioactive. The article will likely also expand heavily overtime since being nominated by Joe Biden to serve as deputy administrator of the Small Business Administration. Dr. Universe (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As there is a significant level of coverage about his nomination.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:55, 9 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. Sandstein 11:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox (organization)[edit]

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

Appears to fail NORG. Sources only make passing mention of the initiative, aside from a self-promotional article in Al-jazeera, written by co-founder. I don't see any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The allegedly non reliable article from Al Jazeera reference has been removed and another reference from an independent reputable source has been added to the article.

This page has been already reviewed by user User:John B123. It is not clear why ‡ El cid, el campeador diverges from the previous review. In any event, as both comments by ‡ El cid, el campeador are addressed, please remove the AFD mention, absent other objections.

Hello. Marking an article are reviewed is not the same as endorsing that an article meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. My concern is that the sources provided do not involve in-depth discussion of Equinox, i.e. the organization is only mentioned and the articles do not actually discussion Equinox. I stand by that assertion. See WP:GNG. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I don't really know what the specific notability guidelines for initiatives are. Let alone if there even is any. Maybe WP:EVENT? In any case, the coverage that exists for this seems to be rather weak passing mentions, that don't address the topic directly or in-depth. That said, I think someone could maybe squeak out a case for keeping the article with one or two high quality references. I just couldn't find any, but it's likely they exist. So as things stand my delete "vote" is on the weak side. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:31, 2 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. Geschichte (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Yahya[edit]

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

The person is not notable as the person is only known for one event, and therefore I suggest redirection to 21 July 2005 London bombings trial. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to article on the 2005 incident. There is not enough on him to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the article about the original incident. Individual people involved in it aren't notable on their own. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:BIO1E. Suriname0 (talk) 15:31, 2 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. Closing as delete rather than redirect because IMO there are damned unlikely search terms. No objection if someone disagrees and wants to make redirects. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elazar IX[edit]

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

Has no information beyond that available at Samaritan High Priest. Can be redirected back there. MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No content, no notability, just make it a redirect.
Hyperwave11 (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of they meet the same criteria:

Elazar XII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shalma I ben Phinhas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tsedaka II ben Tabia ha'Åbtå'i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yitzhaq I ben Tsedaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Abram ben Yitzhaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Levi V ben Abram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tabia III ben Yitzhaq ben Abram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shalma II ben Tabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amram VIII ben Shalma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yaacob I ben Aaharon ben Shalma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect all - Add nothing to the encyclopaedia beyond what is already included in Samaritan High Priest. --John B123 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even though I only voted for the first article, I'm fine with all of them being deleted or redirected. Since it looks like they are just more of the same. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:19, 2 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) 03:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ingenuity[edit]

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

Content fork of creativity and possibly innovation. For example, where it refers to "teachers encouraging students to be educated in human ingenuity", the word used in education policies and programmes such as 21st century skills is "creativity" (and sometimes "innovation"). It's also barely sourced, and appears to promote the work of a single living individual. OsFish (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article reads like a weird OR personal essay that's meant to promote some person in a vailed way. There's zero evidence "ingenuity" in this context is a meaningful or notable thing either. Going off the lackluster references it doesn't seem to be. So, ultimately, nothing is worth keeping about the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted above, it's a personal essay full of WP:OR that strikes a rather promotional tone. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT: the topic might be notable - I found some mention in psychometrics, e.g. [77] - but there is no encyclopedic content in the article worth preserving beyond the dictionary-depth definition, and that is at Ingenuity (disambiguation) already. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for trying to find sources. I had a look at that paper, and when they say "ingenuity" they also describe that parenthetically as "creativity"; in the psychometric test they use to assess "ingenuity" (Berlin Intelligence Structure), that component is usually labelled "creativity". So they clearly mean what is normally called creativity. OsFish (talk) 08:02, 8 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Dowie (humourist)[edit]

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

I think the article should be deleted. It is heavily outdated, and has been tagged as needing more sources since 2015. Since it was recently brought over to Simple English Wikipedia, I did a quick search on google, and didn't find any meaningful sources, so I nominated it for deletion there as well (request here). Therefore, I propose deleting it.Eptalon (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've added 6 published references establishing his notability. There's a lot more work to be done on clearing up the page, but I hope other editors can see that he's not obscure at all within the history of British comedy.OsFish (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Geschichte (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on all the sources, in their totality, the subject without doubt an individual who is a forerunner and/or one of the first representatives of Alternative comedy which is a culturally significant and notable field. This gives the article a decently strong run at WP:ANYBIO #2. In addition to this, the subject weakly passes WP:SIGCOV. Adding the two together, there is just enough for me to find that the subject is notable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:52, 7 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 02:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tacito Augusto Farias[edit]

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

Notability tag has been on this article for 5 years. There's no Portuguese Wikipedia article on them. It reads a bit like a resume and seems posted for reasons of self-promotion. Poorly written to the point where in places I can't tell what it's trying to say. -- Beland (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this article was re-created shortly after the previous deletion by User:Comunicaufs, which seems to be a public relations organization at Federal University of Sergipe (UFS), the article for which that user has also edited. -- Beland (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:40, 2 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. Whether and where to redirect may need more discussion. Sandstein 11:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animal disease[edit]

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

Disease is not a disambiguation page distinguishing conditions from the study of those conditions, nor are animal diseases different from human diseases in any respect significant to the article. Delete this disambiguation page and redirect the title to disease. BD2412 T 01:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @BD2412:, Do you want to redirect the page or delete it? Because you mention both in your nom statement so I just want to make sure.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an either/or. Delete the current page, and then redirect the title to disease. Although it could be redirected without deletion, that would be out of process. BD2412 T 01:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just don't see the purpose of their being a redirect or a disambiguation page for this term. Animal disease as a term doesn't seem significant. Further, the two linked pages are loosely connected to "animal disease" as a term, at best. I also cannot think of any terms that would fit onto this page. Though, I would be interested in seeing if others would propose articles to list on this page. If a good set of a few pages could be suggested to justify its existence then I'd likely change my vote/opinion. --Tautomers(T C) 04:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would lose no sleep if that was the outcome, either. BD2412 T 04:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lists of animal diseases, which looks like the best landing spot given the lack of an overview of diseases in animals (that I can find). I would oppose a redirect to disease due to the fact that article does not specifically cover animal diseases. I think someone searching that specific of a term would already be familiar with the concept of diseases and would be looking for something more specific than that article can provide, leading to disappointment. -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page inhibits Search which gives better results. I don't think a redirect to the (very) incomplete list Lists of animal diseases is appropriate for the same reason. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we also have the start-quality article Wildlife disease. In microbiology, there might be no fundamental difference between diseases in humans, domesticated animals and wildlife, but from the point of view of epidemiology and treatment these are cogent distinctions. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:54, 8 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) 03:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFK Gaming[edit]

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

Not an notable esport news coverage agency, mostly known for PR article's in india. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 23:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Readership and mentions on other websites do not make for notability on Wikipedia. IceWelder [✉] 06:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article comes off like a ref bombed advert and all the references contain trivial, non-notable subject matter. What the sites Alexa rank is or how many visitors per month it gets doesn't make it notable either. Only sustained, in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources does. I get the feeling that it's to early in the websites life for that kind of coverage to occur yet though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:49, 2 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An Introduction to Sustainable Development[edit]

AfDs for this article:
An Introduction to Sustainable Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

book that doesn't appear notable -- definitely created during a different era -- prior deletion discussion didn't ground it in WP:NBOOK Sadads (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cited a couple of reviews in the article. More are available here. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes criteria one of WP:BKCRIT with multiple published reviews in academic journals within the textbook's field. Notability is not temporary, so arguments that the text is now outdated are irrelevant.4meter4 (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 2 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 Speedily deleted per A7 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immlu.church[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains(talk) 00:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete! IMO this deserves a speedy delete, as the article reads like an advertisement for a website. IF this were notable to make it into ANY article, much less its own, it would go on the churches article!
Hyperwave11 (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Christ. No way does this deserve an article. It doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the churches article either. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7, or if it doesn't technically come under that, then just delete with extreme prejudice. I think there are registries listing domain names, hence we don't need to! (I was going to say, at a pinch this could be redir'd to Immanuel Lutheran Church (Pensacola, Florida), but perhaps not, seeing how that's going...) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedy if you can. W Nowicki (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 Speedy delete Per everyone else, I put the tag on it to speed things up, this absolutely doesn't need the full AfD process. Jumpytoo Talk 20:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that's dealt with. Now someone just needs to close the AfD. Adamant1 (talk) 23:15, 2 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 merge to 21 July 2005 London bombings. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manfo Kwaku Asiedu[edit]

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

A similar case to Adel Yahya. As I said in the other nomination too, the person is not notable as the person is only known for one event, and therefore I suggest redirection to 21 July 2005 London bombings trial. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on the bomd related incident. This article was first created in August 2005, when we had virtually no notability standards, and when it clealry could not be shown to be anything other than a news article and a violation of the not news guidelines. We have much more stringent inclusion requirements now, and this article clearly in no way meets them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As John said, this article doesn't meet notability standards, and thus deserves merging with the relevant event.
Hyperwave11 (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_July_2&oldid=1033827105"