Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 20	July 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ganghwa Maehwamarum Habitat[edit]

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

The article Ganghwa Maehwamarum Habitat is not notable enough to be considered for a WIki article. Although there are events tied to the location, they do not read as significant enough to constitute the necessity for a Wiki page. Secondly, there is not enough information on the notability of the location nor resources to credibly attest to its notoriety. There is also no public coverage on the location to properly deduce its sociocultural impact. The page fails to meet the guidelines as per WP:GNG. There is not enough coverage and the sources used presume its own notoriety.

You provide only three sources within the entire articles. The first does not attest to its notoriety and simply denotes its existence. The second is an inoperable website and does nothing for the site. The third is a dead link and holds no intellectual or thematic value. See WP:PLOT, as Wikipedia is not a website to dump information about places which hold little to no global value.Gongfong2021 (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this seems to be a named geographic feature with protected status as a Ramsar Wetland. I found substantial coverage to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article, beyond basic statistics and coordinates (per WP:GEOLAND). Due to the language barrier I'm not comfortable making a definite judgement though. Aranya (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found sources - Aranya (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the translations of Korean-language article titles are rough machine translations.

김호섭기 (27 May 2004). "시민자연유산 1호 '강화도 매화마름 군락지'" [Citizen's Natural Heritage No. 1 'Ganghwa Maehwamareum Habitat']. Hankook Ilbo (in Korean).
Bae Ji-sook (30 October 2008). "Ramsar-Registered Wetlands in Korea". Korea Times.
최재용 (11 October 2008). "[한국의 람사르 등록습지 ⑧ 강화 매화마름 군락지] 4월이면 매화마름이 속삭이는 곳" [[Korea's Ramsar Registered Wetlands ⑧ Ganghwa Maehwamarum Habitat] A place where plum blossoms whisper in April]. The Chosun Ilbo (in Korean).
이슬비 (17 May 2010). "멸종위기 매화마름 '강화군락지'서 보전대회" [Conservation contest at the endangered plum blossom 'Ganghwa Habitat']. The Dong-a Ilbo (in Korean).
현진오 (7 January 2015). "논농사와 불편한 공존 중인 '매화마름'" ['Maehwamareum', an uncomfortable coexistence of paddy fields]. The Science Times [ko].
최은지 (13 June 2017). "강화 매화마름 군락지…생물 다양성 관리 계약 체결 무산" [Ganghwa plum blossom colony… failed to sign biodiversity management contract] (in Korean). Yonhap News Agency.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. I do not believe this was a good-faith AfD nomination. On July 14 the nominator went on a spree of inappropriate deletion tagging, e.g. [1][2][3]. pburka (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references found by Aranya and my own research. While there are language barriers, it does appear there are sufficient references to meet WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 13:39, 27 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) Ambrosiawater (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Kabushemeye[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SIGCOV. Primary notability seems to be his death, rather than his career as a politician. Offline independent sources beyond primary sources are not likely to exist (meaning original research would be required to build an article). 4meter4 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has held national office (Burundi's Minister for Mines and Energy), so he passes WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed notability at NPOL is based on the concept that offline sources would exist for a government official at that level; enough of which to meet WP:BASIC. It's my contention that a Minister of Mines from Burundi, a nation without the infrastructure to produce much independent coverage, is unlikely to have sources beyond government documents which are only accessible if one does original research. In other words, I'm not sure NPOL should countermand the sourcing requirements of GNG in this context given that expanding the article beyond the assassination of the individual is unlikely to ever occur without a researcher doing original research.4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen in other politician-related deletion discussions, "presumed notability" is usually interpreted as that the person is notable as long as sources show that the person has held the WP:NPOL-passing position. Passing WP:GNG is then not required anymore. If the officeholder would still have to pass GNG, "presumed notability" would be meaningless, as every person (including a politician) passing GNG is notable. Reliable sources (The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Libération show up on Google) confirm that Kabushemeye has indeed held a position passing NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of results in a google book search, in. Probably lots of local Burundi news results, but digitization can be tricky for the 90s. He was a party leader and had a cabinet level position, this was a senior politician.--Chuka Chief_talk 14:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the google books hits are about the assassination.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The assassination is widely covered in contemporary sources and any concerns about WP:ONEEVENT can be allayed by his status as WP:NPOL. Although it is certainly not the major event of the year, his assassination does feature in at least one footnote of a highly reputable secondary source. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron Perhaps it would be better to move the article to Assassination of Ernest Kabushemeye given that it is what all of these sources are mainly about.4meter4 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep aside from holding the ministerial position, as party leader of the RPB he was a signatory to the 1995 Burundian Convention of Governance, ample evidence of his prominence within political affairs. He would have been reported on throughout the early 1990s in the Burundian press; assertions that offline sources would not exist for a leading East African politician of that time seem incorrect to me. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He satisfies NPOL as a government minister, led a political party, and his assassination (mentioned across many sources) heralded a new flare up of political violence in Burundi in 1995 that threatened to derail a coalition government. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aarupadai[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews or significant coverage was found in a WP:BEFORE.

PROD removed with explanation "having enough citations and reviews", but the citations are not reviews, the are film and music database listings, and none were added when PROD was removed. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gamebred Fighting Championship[edit]

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

Sporting event (MMA) promotion company does not meet WP:NCORP- the event might be notable, but this isn't inherited by the company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Kelly (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page since Lil Hunter Kelly is not mentioned in America's Got Talent (season 16) and would be referred to as Lil Hunter Kelly (not simply Hunter Kelly) in any case. Pichpich (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed the invalid entry and added a possibly ambiguous one to see also (Kelly Hunter). Still doesn't add up to needing a dab. Boleyn (talk) 12:47, 22 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. Daniel (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 outbreak at the UEFA Euro 2020[edit]

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

There was no outbreak at Euro 2020. A few people got COVID, sure, but nothing that should called an outbreak. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I made this in the light of the controversy of the fans crowding teach other. I am not sure if this should be renamed, redirected or stay deleted because there are other cases related to football events? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close because the article is turned into a redirect by its creator. enjoyer -- talk 10:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - do not procedural close, we need consensus on this to avoid re-creation in the future. The redirect is the right call. Giant Snowman 06:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there wasn't an outbreak, just a few people testing positive. An article doesn't pass WP:GNG, and redirect is too sensationalist, and therefore misleading. Also, procedural close would be wrong, as the article shouldn't be blanked during an AFD anyway (it's on the AFD template). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, although not accurate, it could be a possible search term, and it's WP:CHEAP. Govvy (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where it redirects to, there is nothing about players/staff testing positive for COVID at the tournament. So doesn't seem like a valid redirect to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (withdrawn). Daniel (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Millmow[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable Fails WP:PROF and GNG, and certainly fails the much more important NOT ADVERTISING (TimTrent is not the creator--it's an artifact of a self-move from AfC by the obviously coi editor, who would seem an undeclared paid editor for Federation University Australia--I'm checking their other articles).

Two books only, one of which is the thesis--neither are in many libraries. The "frequent commentary" are his own publications, which are too minor for PROF and self-published as far as GNG is concerned.do not amount to notability. The award is a blatantly promotional award from his own university. , DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with the nom. And no, I am not the creating editor. Fails WP:NPROF. Any article containing the word "Notable" tends to fail in my opinion. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see some progress towards WP:NAUTHOR, with two reviews of his books [4] [5]. Still looks a bit light to me, and I agree citations ~~also look light for~~ fall far short of WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I found and added to the article four published reviews of one of his books, seven of another, two more each of two more, and a seven-article journal special issue entirely devoted to the second book. That's significantly more my threshold for this notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Edits for tone might be necessary, but that's not an AfD matter. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:HEY of David Eppstein. Plenty of reviews now. WP:PROMO issues are much improved over when this was brought to AfD, although sourcing is still weak (apart from the reviews, which are fine). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the others above and WP:HEY. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would strike out references relying on "Journal of Economic and Social Policy", as subject was a founder and co-editor ?, but even so seems to have sufficient referencing to pass notability. Aoziwe (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing this my apologies for noy checking adequately. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bensussen Deutsch & Associates[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ. The awards it received do not seem notable. The Seattle Business Magazine article is sponsored by the company itself; the Forbes article is written by a contributor; the Entrepreneur article is written by the company's cofounder. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with sources from publications like Chief Marketer, supplychaindigital, Promomarketing Magazine and Advertising Specialty Institute, I find the coverage to be questionable. NCORP Fail. --- Possibly ☎ 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an advertisement masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 22 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 CVS Health. Daniel (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CVS Lookbook[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Very limited coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with CVS Health. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, no referenced content to merge, stand-alone notability is unclear and unlikely. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It does not appear to have been a notable product. The one review mentioned in the article currently seems to be the only actual coverage this product received, which is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles are to have references and this article doesn't have that. Catfurball (talk) 18:48, 28 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 deleted per G3: Blatant hoax (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Souder[edit]

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

None of the added sources seem to resolve to real web pages. Not sure if this is nonsense, a hoax, or a real person with fraudulent sources. Citing (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus exists that GNG is the overriding factor when it comes to technical passes of the SNG (and that is disputed here anyways). Daniel (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tuğba Babacan[edit]

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

A Turkish source search mostly produces user-generated websites and hits about namesakes. The best coverage appears to be a match report in ITV Haber and an article in Birgun but this falls short on WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BirGün article is enough for her to fit WP:NFOOTBALL as she played in at least one Tier 1 professional football match (she is mentioned in the lineup at the article). Per NFOOTBALL criteria 1 and 2. — Pamphylian ● 💬 12:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamfilyalı - where in the article does it mention that she played in a tier 1 international match? The article is about a domestic club game, in a league clearly listed as 'not fully professional' at WP:FPL. There is no mention anywhere of Babacan playing for Turkey in a tier 1 game. If she did, it would certainly give her presumed notability but a reliable source must be cited. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 26 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. While there was some agreement on moving the article, there isn't enough consensus here to make that happen. A move discussion can take place on the article's talk page if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest nebulae[edit]

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

Deprodded in January 2021 by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) without explanation or improvement, 2 hours before it was eligible for deletion. The PRODder, SkyFlubbler (talk · contribs), was concerned that this list is woefully incomplete to the point of being inaccurate, is based entirely on WP:SYNTH, mixes different size metrics for non-compact objects, and fails WP:LISTN. There are also concerns that it inappropriately lumps together Lyman-alpha blobs and high-velocity clouds with other types that are much smaller. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest galaxies, a similar AfD from 2018. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The largest astronomical objects naturally attract attention on account of their size, whether its absolute or apparent. So, notice that we have lots of similar lists like the List of largest cosmic structures, List of largest stars, List of most massive black holes and many other Lists of superlatives in astronomy. Nebulae such as the Tarantula Nebula are naturally included in this as they are major astronomical objects. The only complication is that there are different kinds of them and so we don't have a single list of nebulae, rather we have several lists of nebulae. The nomination mentions another AfD for the List of largest galaxies. Notice that this did not result in deletion but that the title was redirected to the list of galaxies where similar content is found. That solution won't work in this case and so some more considered approach is needed. The nomination complains at the lack of the improvement but notice that neither the nominator nor the prodder have made any constructive improvement. See WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. See also WP:DINC. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being complete is never a requirement for a list to exist. This aids in navigation and gives far more information than a category would. Use the talk page to discuss any changes that need to be done. Dream Focus 21:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WP:LEAD currently reads Below is a list of the largest nebulae so far discovered, ordered by size. This list is prone to change because of inconsistencies between studies, their great distances from our stellar neighbourhood, and constant development of technology and engineering. Nebulae's boundaries are also undefined, and is also prone to change. Lastly, scientists are still defining the parameters and defining features of nebulae. Because of all these scientific inconsistencies, this list might be unreliable. That seems to bear out the concerns noted in the nomination. Superlative lists are usually fine, but we need to be able to tell what qualifies to be on the list and how to order the entries. In other words, we need proper WP:LISTCRITERIA and at least a fairly well-defined measure which is applied consistently by WP:Reliable sources. Do we have that here? TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of nebulae. The size criterion is inherently unreliable, and not even followed by the list itself. Makes more sense to simply rename it as a list of nebulae, as this is what it is. This also solves the lack of criterion: like list of galaxies, it is explicitly fuzzy. Tercer (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, List of nebulae already exists as a redirect and the page that it redirects to is a list of lists, not a single page like the list of galaxies. So, it's not the same structure. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. I'm suggesting removing the current Lists of nebulae. The content there is trivial, it's no loss getting rid of it. Tercer (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of nebulae; I would rather have it in there. The thing here is, our data regarding the size of nebulae is still too inconsistent to make an appropriate list. Nebulae can range anywhere from small Bok globules to galaxy-sized Lyman-alpha blobs, and an attempt to make a list would just end up being completely dominated by LAB's, HVC's while leaving out the more famous and prototypical representations of nebulae: planetary nebulae and H II regions. There is also a very large gap between the size of the largest entries and the mid to low entries (SSA22 Protocluster is 200 million light-years while the low entries are in the mere hundreds, and not very many entries between); such gaps are not present in the List of largest stars and List of most massive black holes. I've even got myself on such great lengths of time trying to fill out the latter list to avoid having any massive gaps between the entries the size of Sgr A* to the overmassive beasts at the top.

And finally, the benefit of both the largest stars and most massive black holes list is that we have large-scale surveys and references available dedicated to the determination of their sizes. Such references are not available for galaxies (hence the problem of the list of largest galaxies) and the same is true for the largest nebulae. While I do see the potential of such a list as being a useful navigational tool, and I do agree that incompleteness does not disqualify a list, we must understand that our problem here is inconsistency - no clear consensus on how sizes of nebulae can be defined. Vast majority of the entries, I believe, are products of self-research as well, and I don't think Wikipedia is the one that should declare what should be and what is not.

Moving it to Lists of nebulae instead can solve a few problems; we can just add the nebulae as much as we can without having to worry about what their sizes are. SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Branch[edit]

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

I just don't see how an intermittent stream testified to only on topo maps is notable. We have of late deleted several short German creeks which had better testimony; this one I cannot even see on aerials. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doyle Branch is labelled and clearly runs its course on ACME's topo map.74.83.4.200 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Appears on a map" is not a valid keep argument per WP:NGEO. Reywas92^Talk 14:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NGEO: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." The guideline also excludes maps and databases from establishing notability. This leaves the Carter County Place Names source, which really doesn't amount to significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 22:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cambodia national rugby union team. Daniel (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Mong[edit]

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

Cambodia is not a High Performance Union so his alleged appearances for Cambodia do not meet the requirements of WP:NRU. His rugby league career was at university level, which falls short of WP:RLN. More importantly, there is no evidence of a WP:GNG pass. According to Daily Mail, he is a close friend of David Warner but this isn't enough to justify an article. My WP:BEFORE search didn't come up with anything else.

The only two links in the article that aren't permanently dead are this and this, neither of which establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by Spiderone, my before search revealed nothing of substance. Celestina007 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails WP:NRU with no professional or notable international appearances. Not seeing anything to suggest a GNG pass either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:Notability. Simple searches show there is no relevant sourcing to substantiate an article here.--Canyouhearmenow 12:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a section for key players in Cambodia national rugby union team. Subject is not notable in own right, but as an international and national team member is a possible search term. Aoziwe (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Redirect while I think it is fine to add his name as a player at large which would include other players into the Cambodia national rugby union team page, I do think this WP:AFD should play out and the subject page should be deleted per failed WP:Notability guidelines.--Canyouhearmenow 13:43, 27 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 12:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Andrews (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. PepperBeast (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Possible keep - Article needs more sources to justify keeping. Kevin19781 (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV from third-party reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per rationale by OhNoitsJamie, and pepperbeast I too do not see significant coverage met. Celestina007 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and above comments. Genuinely just not a notable-enough subject to have an article. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 18:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacking significant coverage.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 19:56, 24 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Mbondiah[edit]

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

Uk businesswoman who seems to be completely unknown in the UK, even though some "articles" in foreign media give a different impression. You get e.g. things like this, a glowing article about her at the occasion of her nomination for the "prestigious" CEO Care Professional Awards. Bizarrely, the existence of this prestigious award is not even mentioned anywhere,at all, but in this article[6]. Which makes the award and the source meaningless. The same goes for things like "EAWA Philanthropist of the year". Fram (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for noticing, however i think we can keep the article, the subject is notable with accomplishments in her field.

As for the award, When i did my research at first it was hard to find the awarding body until I searched online with the full name McAlpine CEO Care Professionals Awards. I came across their website to understand more about the organisation https://mcalpinecare.com/. I then realised that organisation does not do much press coverage, they communicate with their nominees via email who then publicise in the press or as social media announcements.

https://www.facebook.com/AmberSupportServices/posts/we-are-delighted-to-announce-that-we-have-been-moninated-for-the-mcalpine-ceo-ca/2594468220659120/

https://www.sure-grp.co.uk/news/sure-healthcare-wins-mcalpine-ceo-care-professional-award/

https://www.ascotcareagency.co.uk/latest-news/ascot-care-agency-nominated-for-award

Solace Care post^[1]

Aspire post^[2]

Apologies for the long links.

According to a statement on their website: The McAlpine Care Professional Awards (MCPA) celebrates excellence throughout the care industry, recognising team efforts across the UK regardless of size or CQC rating. https://mcalpinecare.com/care-awards-2021

Nenerue (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.facebook.com/SolaceCSLtd/photos/basw.Abq1JFTDpF0rLj2UmoJA0z7YPsZ1CAERZf3m0pS6Srf6pKKPAg9RtmuJ3aCNUvFdDYCIxcOrovHO39XPT1khZWdTN2_DMjySXIH-eC0Yp781exkVxNfr20temxGfSV9uVco2_hdhkZpK0Yw3Lkg_Ttq8bM_9oen8Qj1389WfgCTm7Q/3286732584672343/?opaqueCursor=Abr2inaIEKDFEqiRYLthBj6bCsKa7wYp97aj-2gjKUjKcPa2im2zxUJP9EGPBp52BiMgro--wvb0EsjLzmhpxjiXTZyRyq6zO4crE-4ZVyhhjZLksBrsxs_vzKZW5ji-P-ePEHTt9_WJVTUQ9XjZv19piQ9xi5JeForqP9zZdrgb_QvFkzjjBz8GnDwKXVXuC0inSjgpx5e8MDHf8_PuGqWdJaWHLkrO7llmd_7N1Frtcqsw6Fep7EvaqbNtQxByeHTTs0k52BdPHToq7B70grv23k7fMpfvE09ghedR_l8Uwwxk6-U2FDT1As-rKi7YajOKkV3L9NpdipNgqVLz6taMIyQbyd-r3UXAJa9puwt8bQrXYH1-WNLP2ZpnO8kf4OhVMJA4bibyRqY19sUcTLquFgY9hiXRC0zk-Al1rAeEGvjX6KS3h0avCZ-VhaKkkOlEvOtZtXbL8CoENkmAyTJJoGR5YHUR1qsfKK30tM3CNd6D1uFoJia2WBTc0epWKcBj9tkQk_aqP86wbYCiF8gHg3JEDVsqfMmwL5fNIrUf1ON_tQTji9FN91_i6KMZDl0VrDg3EwLQToyGuFwqPnacN4sBwBwu1q8z9LjdGJpDVw
^ https://www.facebook.com/aspirecsswirral/photos/basw.Abq2OO7x-uNk7i_Y8qN0S_AagEQ9X2NvTMDHd0P-uzE1-KnOkvfGO49yByInm0DNVkx3mG6zeaJ6psk2U-59aQpNhXvA9wfV54fkfpz-Uz3-yFrfVgRDUSFAzH8ngVV11M327xcDzpRcDCSxQwAaRHC5JlpZQ44p1Q54IP1EGksAoQ/1637672086411343/?opaqueCursor=AbotLEYR8BQDXLqBxv4X2BruRSwFSlAACZZKe5OcBrIqipukHY6llg-hgF46v2mtK3np5LIltfuJpFiF8mrwQSvUrIly7g1a7vM32IAKHRX1AdM-zY5dnj_CVwS0h-LRdrvBOAPyPj7a0h9nVdzyZHLOQ75AbnfjqeWp8fLEX_CpJT-2KpHw8d89oea6fsp9uzYJpBVL62siJ6NmPdJ_KrC6-0kBh-kIcPrEniUKz5sp35G-SNljXU99qpwJ8u1ZbBHerwx7pXfcl29ffrFtF0Xmh6BwExiQSS_FZ8xkrLPdRvycYDPHdiFyX_x6itmSOdaA6fwh52i4iHm-fP7EWTOUzgx_PIWWuWtkk8E8fXvUAH4KBvnVb1vP9WAKf4nJWSEoJ2VeK8YdgPC0XvM0ciE4gHZXR0DPFkJtGkoCOqCkZE-NZjopMiVsPQOJThaQyyzEPq-T58QUwaIMDtLqDqFO1A779oMtkVHiIQogyZQKXjwV03Wu9GHQzkmy3rxlgF3mk81ZxM324t0cnBJOtb2InyoxxK3lx74vRPORaweIvE3gAKCIwQkCjcevxBBRFp8

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable at this time WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly take note or consider that the person is also being reconised by other awarding organisations in her field and her biography is also featured on Women Economic Forum which could prove her notability in the field. Am appealing for consideration keeping the article. If there are improvements to be made there can be done.

Nenerue (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage in The Herald and NewsDay. If she's not notable in the UK, she does seem to have a degree of notability in Zimbabwe. NHCLS (talk) 13:13, 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) 23:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NHCLS, she seems to have received coverage in her country (Zimbabwe).-Xclusivzik (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm struggling a bit with this one. The Zimbabwe Herald article (which is a report of an interview with her) says "Her name might not ring a bell in some people’s minds, but she has made strides in empowerment circles. Mbondiah is an entrepreneur based in the United Kingdom with interests in fashion, literature and health." If one of the better available secondary sources is apologising that she's not well-known, it may indeed be true that she's not well known. If she hasn't yet done enough to become well known, it's perhaps Too Soon. Meanwhile, I'm not sure what to make of McAlpine care, who gave her an award. According to the care quality commission (cqc) who have oversight over such businesses, they have yet to inspect it, and it's registered as a flat with a mobile phone (though the website gives it a proper phone). According to companies house, it consists of a single employee, and has assets of less than £10,000. I think we have to entertain the possibility that its awards are entirely meaningless; a big website with nothing behind it. The Beffta award nomination, which is only a nomination (best author) is for Mel Mbondiah, not Maureen Mbondiah; are we sure these are the same person? I'm also not sure about the mbcc awards, how meaningful they are? It doesn't seem hard to nominate someone[[7]], but she is listed as a finalist. I don't know how much extra you have to do, to become a finalist! In her interview in the standard, she claims " I won the Outstanding Business Achievers Awards International 2021 and Outstanding Business Achievers Awards UK 2021" but if I do a Google search for "Outstanding Business Achievers Awards" I get only this interview, and if I do it without the " ", I get ukbizawards, who are still selling tickets to their final awards ceremony for 2021. I'm not sure how much value one can attach to an award one cannot trace. Again, I can't find the "Midlands Business and Community Awards" 2016. I can find only the Midlands Business Awards [[8]] for which she is not listed as a finalist. I am trying to assume all is well here, and that she's a fine person with good notability, but I'm struggling. Is any of this real, or are we looking at a non-notable businesswoman who runs a probably perfectly decent run-of-the-mill care provider, and has written a motivational book, but who happens to have a big charisma and a rather edgy approach to blowing her own trumpet? Elemimele (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

forget the book, she was one of 300 contributors. The book's creator is Ruth Cyster-Stuettgen (not Ruth Strutten as in the article); it does in fairness say she's just a contributor, in the article. Her magazine doesn't seem to exist any more, but the orphanage in Zimbabwe has a website.Elemimele (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notes with good observations, I just think there should be a difference between being popular and being prominent or notable rather, her work in her field is notable, how about other sources and recognitions. She also features on Women Ecomomic Forum, thats not a platform for persons who haven't done enough to prove their status.

I noticed in research that each and every field has its own recognition platforms that award for merit, they may not be as popular to us who are not in the field but have weight in meaning in their respective areas.

So I think she has done notable work to put her name on the mark in her field and we shouldn't disregard her notability.

Nenerue (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disregarding her notability. I'm just trying to assess it. In the UK she is not running a notable business. It's a middle-of-the-road, perfectly normal, small-scale care-provider, rated by cqc as 'good', but nothing special, nor is it a nation-wide huge organisation. The orphanage in Zimbabwe has no appearances in secondary sources, and its own website says "we plan to house...", implying it might not even be open yet. All the newspaper sources about her are interviews, which means they are primary, not secondary. And I cannot trace any of her awards as actually both meaningful and existing. Some of them look strongly as though they don't exist; usually when people describe awards they've received, they get the name of the award sufficiently right that the award can be found by a Google search. Many of hers cannot. It seems symptomatic of her that she describes herself as "co-author" of the book, when it has almost as many authors as pages - 300. I believe she is genuinely philanthropic and cares, and I hope she succeeds. But I don't see any evidence she's succeeded yet, and I do see a lot of evidence that she is prone to extreme exaggeration about her achievements and status, and is very good at publicity (which is making it very hard to assess her notability). But in the end, it's not a question of what you or I think, it's what the great world of newspapers etc. think; I have yet to see a single secondary source referring to her or her work. Elemimele (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion and analysis of the sources in view of notability, remembering that sources must be reliable, independent (so not interviews) and substantial, would be helpful toward resolution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I was “walking” past when I stumbled on this, Let me try and explain my POV which largely aligns with what Fram said in a potion of their nom rationale above. Generally, winning awards do not auto confer notability and even worse when the award is a non notable award. Any body can invent or create award shows, hell even worse here in Africa (here it’s literally a business) and Asia, what I'm saying is just about any person or group of persons can create award shows. Except clearly notable awards and notable categories (“Awards”) do not confer automatic notability as some poorly worded guidelines here might have you believe. I’d give y’all a real life scenario, In Nigeria, it’s pure business, certain people conjure up award shows in their basement, proceed to contact individuals mainly “celebrities” and “entrepreneurs” , and say to them; “we are(insert whatever nonsensical name of the award show or award they just created in their heads) and we notice your good works, thus an award “abc” is available for you if you can pay an amount “xyz” “, Sorry for the wall of text but yeah I’m with Fram on this one. Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article's references seem like some sort of Publicity Campaign to me, the article titles and style of writing by the journalists feels like its controlled for an agenda to create an image.

I think its too soon. Zvandofarira2 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cleaned this up a little so it could be judged on its own merits, and not for grammar and syntax. However, there's only one real source of media coverage - The Herald. Newsday is a simple announcement of a breakfast she hosted. A Google search doesn't turn up much else. I looked up her businesses, and one is a dead link, and the the other has some grammar and typos which hurts notability. I removed the nominations for awards that she didn't win, so we could focus on the most important ones. She won an award for having a business that earned £500,000, nice but not earth shattering. She's doing good work for women and children, and has overcome hardship, but I'm not seeing enough to keep. Needs more sourcing to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts @TimTempleton, but this is getting really complicated. The BEFTA award was to Mel Mbondiah, not Maureen Mbondiah. Now both have linkedIn profiles, both look very similar, both come from Zimbabwe, and both work around Wolverhampton, one (Mel) is a social worker with a series of solid council roles, the other (Maureen) runs a Dravens healthcare. Mel has written a single-author book that can be found on Amazon, Maureen contributed to the 300-author book. But on the linked-in profiles, Mel claims to have been at EATC private school Zimbabwe" doing A-levels in 2000-2002, while Maureen was at Birmingham City University doing Mental Health Nursing from 1999-2001, which suggests they're not the same person. There are also no other overlaps between the CV sections of their LinkedIn profiles although they overlap in time. Meanwhile, Mel's LinkedIn says she was director of Goshen business solutions in 2012, which according to companies house was founded in 2012 by Maureen, Melody and a couple of others. So I'm guessing Mel might be a relative. Either way, if they're not the same person (and the fact they were listed as two different directors in Companies house suggests strongly they're not), the BEFTA award doesn't apply to Maureen. Also, the Midlands Business and Community Awards 2016 remains unreferenced and (at least by me) untraceable. Elemimele (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That just reinforces the delete vote. A single somewhat decent source doesn't make a keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele TimTempleton, Fram thank you guys, i think the article should be deleted or incubated in draft space, it is too soon for Wikipedia, i do agree with everyone.Nenerue (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Celestina007 that some awards could be pay-for-play type, but at least one of them has its own Wiki page and that is what I always look at. If the award has a Wiki page then we should assume that is legit and notable and based on a few other new coverage, I feel we should keep this one. Peter303x (talk) 08:56, 28 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 Sega arcade system boards#Triforce. Though not unanimous, there was a consensus that notability was not established.

While there are two redirects and a merge, the redirect was in the "I've merged, so now redirect" form, and so are functionally doing the same thing. As such I believe it remains the consensus view, and enables any additional merging thought to be beneficial. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Triforce (Arcade Board)[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of arcade hardware. BEFORE searches do not return anything close to significant coverage. And aside from one source cited in the article, the rest of the links cited are effectively dead/broken. Also Earwig suggests potential copyvio issues as well. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If kept it should be (arcade board) not (Arcade Board).--70.24.249.16 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Has sources with [9], [10], and [11]. Would most certainly need a rewrite if kept. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:21, 23 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) 00:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sega arcade system boards#Triforce So all the sources in the article currently are unreliable, that's for sure. Oinkers did some nice detective work and found some good sources above, but not substantial enough to build an article out of. Best solution would be to redirect and summarize the hardware somewhere. The best target currently is List of Sega arcade system boards#Triforce. An alternative would be a paragraph in the GameCube article since it is based on GameCube architecture. There's a brief mention there currently but until that article gets an overhaul (which it desperately needs), I think the Sega board list is a better target. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 09:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I took the initiative and merged all reliably sourced information to the target I suggested. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep copyvio is not a reason to delete an article on a notable topic. Sourcing presented here shows notability. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than IGN, all the other sources used are unreliable. And of the IGN articles, only one article is explicitly about the arcade board. I'm not seeing how the sourcing demonstrates notability. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, Copyright violations are a very good reason to delete. However, it is not at all clear from this discussion whether the copyvio is merely suspected, if a few parts of the article are copyvio (these should be removed and revdeleted), if there is a "good" version to revert to, or if the entire article needs to be removed and rewritten using available reliable sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would help to get more comments on keep vs redirect options
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sega arcade system boards#Triforce. The brief sources mentioned/added together do not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) We would need way more content to write a dedicated article on the subject. The suggested merge target would be sufficient for housing the little sourceable info. czar 03:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sega arcade system boards#Triforce per TarkusAB. Wario-Man ^talk 11:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Spackman[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG; I have tried Google searches and also searching under Samantha Spackman and Sam Spackman and even Sammy Spackman in an attempt to find significant coverage of this footballer.

Best sources appear to be My Football, Illawarra Mercury and TWG, all of which only address Spackman in passing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the subject was playing in a male league, with multiple appearances for a team in the top national league . . . . but the WP.NG.FOOTBALL . . . . Aoziwe (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even male footballers playing in the top national league are required to pass WP:GNG as is clearly stated at the top of WP:NFOOTBALL in the Q&A section; specifically Q1 and Q2. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodie Bain, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alesha Clifford and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronwyn Nutley for examples of W-League footballers with several appearances that were deleted for failing GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Wonder's Workshop[edit]

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

Non-notable TV series. I was almost tempted to keep it because it’s an interesting curiosity but it just doesn’t pass notability standards. Dronebogus (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no GNG compliant sources and the article is written as an advert. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search for references did not find much. At first I though The book "The Story of Dr. Wonder's Workshop" would be a good reference but it is primary source as the author of it and the creator of the show are the same person. No objections to recreation if secondary sources can be found. Jeepday (talk) 14:01, 27 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. While there is some consensus to leave this article as a redirect, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus that the singular version is a common enough misspelling to justify a redirect. However, the consensus is pretty evenly split here. So, no prejudice against recreating this as a redirect. If there is disagreement, feel free to take it to RfD to have a proper discussion about whether or not this is a valid redirect. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest nebula[edit]

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

A supposed list of nebulas which contains galaxies and protogalaxies, no longer referred to as nebulas. The list seems to have no indication of what it's based on whether it is length, volume or otherwise. It includes listings that have no articles and no references. There may be a valid topic here but with this current page I believe WP:TNT applies as this list is currently not reliably sourced or accurate. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article already exists at List of largest nebulae. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest nebulae I didn't think of an alternate spelling of nebula when I nominated and would support a redirect to that article instead as it is much better laid out and sourced.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with McMatter, i think we should redirect it to the List of largest nebulae. D Eaketts (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That article is now up for deletion itself, interestingly Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DELREASON#5: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). I don't think it qualifies for WP:Speedy deletion per WP:A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic) since the title is a plausible redirect (but would also not be opposed to a speedy delete per WP:IAR). Whether or not a redirect to List of largest nebulae should be created depends on the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/List of largest nebulae; I say delete for now and create a redirect afterwards if necessary, but turning this into a redirect that may or may not need to be deleted is also perfectly acceptable. TompaDompa (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of largest nebulae. Dream Focus 03:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of largest nebulae as this discussion is confusing the deletion discussion of that article. An admin should just do the redirect and close this discussion. --Bduke (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of largest nebulae. Unnecessary duplicate. Ajf773 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a content fork as described above. Shankargb (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Excelse (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any list that mixes nebulae with galaxies and protogalaxies must be bonkers. Lack of pluralization is problematic as a redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Norrington[edit]

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

Appears to be a recreation of an article on an author deleted in 2012. She does not appear to pass WP:AUTHOR. In these cases, sometimes we can redirect/merge to the company that she owns but Storycentral doesn't seem notable enough for an article of its own either. I can't find any significant coverage of any of the five novels that she has released. The best thing I can find in terms of WP:SIGCOV is this article in The Independent, which is a passing mention. Her YouTube career also seems to be non-notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by Spiderone. Celestina007 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of generation III Pokémon#Blaziken. Daniel (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blaziken[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage we would expect for Pokemon species. The largest chunk of this article, "Appearances", is just listing off the character's appearances. Concept is weakly sourced, Reception is dry. There's no substance here. Key points can be summed up in the species list. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of generation III Pokémon. Per WP:BEFORE, the subject lacks significant coverage as a fictional character or element, and not in relation to other Pokemon species, period. And if the nominator is suggesting that there is worthwhile material which simply can be better summarized in a list article, then this should never have been sent to AfD and should have been resolved by a merge proposal instead. Haleth (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of generation III Pokémon#Blaziken per Haleth, no WP:SIGCOV. Link20XX (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a compromise. No WP:SIGCOV but there is a well-organized merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the corresponding list of Pokémon. As I have been saying, most of these characters indeed include reliable secondary sources, but the sources do not cover the subjects in a deep way; the Reception section in this case is just a collection of random comments from these sources and other game guides, which are not enough to establish Notability. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to said list, stand-alone notability is unclear. Ha, for a moment I thought this is about Blaviken... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others, non-notable Pokemon, article is fancrufty._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrije Terzic[edit]

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

Article has lasted a long time and, although there is some coverage of him, I don't think that it's enough to pass WP:GNG. I found a match report of a game against an English club but I don't think that will get him through GNG or WP:NRU. There was then another article on the same website. Rugby Ozone also mentions him in a match report. A DDG search came up with no other sources that could be used to build a biography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, certainly fails WP:NRU with no professional or notable international appearances, and while there is coverage, it's mainly trivial and not enough to pass GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spiderone, why don't you just {{prod}} about everyone from Category:Serbian rugby union players? I doubt there's anyone notable there, by listing them here you're wasting everyone's time. All those unsourced substubs were created in 2015 by Terminator2015 (talk · contribs) in span of an hour, we're going to discuss for days to get rid of them. No such user (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've just did that, save for three that had a credible claim of notability. No such user (talk)

Yeah, fair enough, they all seem to get relevant hits in Serbian, though, so I was worried about accidentally deleting a potentially notable person was all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer peripheral companies[edit]

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

Unsourced list of practically nothing, mainly a flag farm. BilCat (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced list that does not passing any "notability criteria" and "no practical purpose for the list". Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability states: If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable). -- Otr500 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a non-notable list, with no incoming links. Jeepday (talk) 18:09, 27 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 Jethro Tull (band). Daniel (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Hara (musician)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the Italian version only contains one reference and it is not reliable [12]. Any search only brings up the band not him so I don't believe he merits his own article and fails to meet WP:GNG on his own. At best this should be redirected to Jethro Tull (band). McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. John O’Hara has been a member of Jethro Tull for almost 10 years, touring and recording with the band. Jethro Tull is a world famous band and John already has pages on Wikipedia in Italian, French as well as other languages. I believe he deserves a page just like the other members of the band.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valere24 (talk • contribs) — Valere24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What we need to see is that others have taken the time to write about him apart from his group. We don't care what other language projects include or don't, as each has their own inclusion criteria. We also don't accept the "but so and so has an article" argument either as each subject must stand on its own merits. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page should be deleted as many Jethro Tull fans and also followers of John O'Hara's work will be interested in the page. He has a worldwide following and is greatly respected in the rock world and classical world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Treetopcow (talk • contribs) — Treetopcow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Redirect to Jethro Tull (band) My search for references did not find anything to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 18:13, 27 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 draftify. Daniel (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Abyss (Royal Caribbean)[edit]

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

Article declined 5 times in the AFC process, moved by the original author into the main space with an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument bowing out of the AFC process. This does not qualify for a standalone article as it has not received enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. There are 2 references in the article which do help with some notability that may be worth adding some information into the Oasis-class cruise ship article. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcmatter: I have tried improving the article many times. I took feedback, added sources, removed blog sources, all what I can to try to get it to be published. It gets dificult when they reject your draft and having to spend time fixing it only for it to be rejected again. If other users would help improve the article, that would be better ass I am only a single person. Please don't delete this article or the Viking Crown Lounge article.Angelgreat (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Angelgreat: The declines was probably a sign that the subject was not notable enough for it's own stand alone article. Article creation is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia as most newer editors are not familiar enough with the policies of inclusion and sourcing. I don't think anyone could improve this enough to warrant its own article as I found, when I did my WP:BEFORE, there just isn't enough coverage. This isn't a reflection on you or the work you did but the subject itself. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcmatter: Ok then, Could you move the article back to the Draft? Maybe later, it can be merged into the Royal Carribbean or Oasis class articles. Angelgreat (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pupi Poisson[edit]

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

Poisson fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage about her. The Screen Rant source is three lines long. Being on several reality shows doesn't make her notable either. Dougal18 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" With 5 keeps there's no point keeping this open for another 6 days. BTW can the last edit be revdelled? I don't want my IP visible.--Dougal18 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I took care of the rev-del. I'm arguably involved as I !voted below, but this seemed a no brainer Star Mississippi 17:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Dougal18 (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's an in-depth biographical article in El Espanol here; another biographical article on 20 Minutos here; and Ecoteuve here. Those are just the sources that focus solely on the subject, but there's more out there in relation to her appearance on RPDR reviews. All available sourcing should be reviewed when nominating an article for deletion, not just the sources on the page. This article should be expanded, not deleted. --Kbabej (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did you even try finding more sources? If so, you'd see the subject has appeared on multiple television series, released an album + multiple singles, and been featured on singles released by other artists. Plus there's Spanish-language sourcing to consider as well. We should expand the Career and Personal life sections further, not delete the entry. I'd welcome Spanish speakers to assist with finding additional coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She fails WP:ENT and WP:SINGER. But let's ignore that just because some people wrote articles on her non notable TV appearances. Dougal18 (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply yep, around here we call that GNG. Star Mississippi 13:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You mean the routine coverage any competitor gets from being on the show? Dougal18 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, if you find others have the same in-depth profiles of their careers to date and other work, you're welcome to create articles on them too. Most of these sources are far beyond routine Star Mississippi 15:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. I'll try and avoid sending articles to AfD of people who's only vague claim to notability is being a Drag Race contestant. I will take into consideration media appearances that would result a "delete" should the article have been created prior to being in Drag Race. I will take into consideration that having several non notable "careers" can make someone notable because there is a few articles written about said "careers" due to their latest appearance on reality TV. Shantay stay.--Dougal18 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sarcasm is particularly helpful or constructive. If you want to withdraw this nomination, you can follow those steps listed at WP:WDAFD. --Kbabej (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have expanded it with some of the articles mentioned by Kbabej and another I found. I cannot access this one but do read Spanish and am happy to help if someone can access it. Star Mississippi 17:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with the other users on here. I found, apart from the articles I added to this post, mentions in one in El Comercio (Spanish-language source), one page on Tidal, this, or an article in La Vanguardia, to name a few. Clearly, the OP did not even try and find additional sources for Pupi, but went to the extreme option of nominating the page for deletion without a second thought. It is unfortunate to see. Historyday01 (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is meeting WP:GNG, as per GNG keep. Bapinghosh (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets GNG as of current edit.Naraht (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Daniel (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Crown Lounge[edit]

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

Article about a feature on a cruise ship that doesn't meet WP:GNG and has so flagged since 2016 and flagged for lack of sources since 2006. The only source I could find which discusses this is [13] this is not enough for a stand alone article. I'm not even sure if this would be worth redirecting to Royal Caribbean International. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcmatter: Ok then, Could you move the article back to the Draft? Maybe later, it can be merged into the Royal Carribbean or Oasis class articles. Angelgreat (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Clockwork Cabaret[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources currently referenced are all WP:INTERVIEW content, which are generally considered primary sources and don't contribute to notability. Most of them also appear to be WP:BLOGS and would not meet the requiremwnt that the sources should be WP:RELIABLE. Searching on google, google news, and google books yields no independent and reliable secondary sources with more than a trivial mention of the show. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If desired, a proper merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wooloo[edit]

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

Nominating this for deletion for the same reasons I nominated Drifloon, but essentially to sum it up, lack of significant coverage. The same coverage can be aquired for most of the other 800+ pokemon:

Characteristics: This reads like a Pokedex entry. All fictional in-universe information. Can be acquired for any pokemon character.
Appearances: Just a list of appearances in games and the anime. Again, this could be done for any Pokemon character.
Reception: Dry surface level commentary that is fluffed up to seem like significant coverage, but it does not arrive at any meaningful conclusions. Same comments about Wooloo being cute over ...and over ...and over ...and over ...and over. There have been so many articles written about Pokemon over the years, that you could generate the same level of commentary for most species.

I'm seeing a lack of significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). TarkusAB^talk/contrib 15:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This nomination appears to be malformed and not properly argued on WP:GNG grounds. It is primarily concerned with article content, an editorial concern, as opposed to a proper discernment on whether suitable sources exist. Highlighting that there are 800+ other species or judging their subjective importance within a series is irrelevant, and demanding that a higher bar should be set just for Pokémon material is simply an other stuff exists or WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Why should articles about Pokémon species be scrutinized any differently from all other articles about fictional characters or elements, when they are all covered by WP:GNG and there is no special WP:SNG specifically dedicated to Pokémon articles which lay down rules on what qualities a particular Pokémon species must possess before they are entitled to a standalone article? The only consideration for editors to consider would be, either the subject have WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources or they don't, according to their own interpretation, and that is not hard to establish because the vast, vast majority of Pokémon do not get article-length coverage from a real world perspective anyway. A cursory look at available sourcing, both cited or uncited in this article per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, indicate there is sufficient coverage specifically about the character, and the article does not revolve around in-universe cruft or original research.

Several sources like Polygon reported a series-wide comparison of the character's popularity or significance to species from other generations like this article which is not cited in the article, not just its contemporaries, so the nominator's assertion that there is no credible claim of significance and that it is the "same coverage" for the other 800+ Pokémon is incorrect. A few more from Dot Esports, and US Gamer, suggests that there are more reliable sources out there who have taken notice of the character and that it is certainly not non-notable as represented by the nominator. According to the cited sources, the character somehow spawned a meme, and even PETA decided to get involved, so there is the real world relevance/notability for editors who believe that a topic should be "important to the world" somehow. Not liking the volume of coverage or dismissing critical commentary by professional journalists as vapid is not a valid guideline or policy consideration for deletion. Haleth (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nom cites "a lack of significant coverage". There's nothing "malformed" about it. czar 03:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the nom did not provide a source analysis by explaining why the cited sources or that the potential sources per WP:BEFORE were not suitable, only that "the same coverage can be aquired for most of the other 800+ pokemon" which is objectively untrue. The nomination mainly focused on the quality of the written content, which is inconsistent with the guideline provided by WP:ARTN. The notability guidelines does not indicate that notability of a topic can only be demonstrated by high quality, academically-vetted sources, only that it is reliable and independent/unaffiliated with the subject. This is not a BLP which by nature demands a higher standard of sourcing, and most of the sources do not seem to be promotional by nature in any way. If this was a merge proposal, I may be inclined to vote in favour for a merge, but I don't see any issues with the available sourcing which warrant deletion or that the topic lacks potential. Haleth (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nom isn't obligated to perform a source analysis, just as most of the !votes here haven't either. You're welcome to disagree with the nom, but as long as it has a reasonable deletion rationale, it isn't "malformed". czar 05:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, AfD nominators are not obligated to do a WP:BEFORE. Nominators who only leave a vague statement that the topic lacks WP:SIGCOV should not be surprised then if they receive criticism that the nomination is overly focused on article content at the time of the nomination as opposed to a proper critique of potential sourcing per the WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN aspects of the WP:GNG guideline, which is in line with Wikipedia's deletion policy. The onus goes both ways, the nominator should articulate why an article on a given topic should be deleted, and should not be entitled to a free pass just because they agitated over a content issue they claim is insurmountable. Anyone who oppose the deletion rationale should state their case, or at least defer to someone who does. Haleth (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Haleth. The controversy surrounding PETA combined with the coverage of the meme give it enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Link20XX (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of generation VIII Pokémon: even with reliable sources cited in the Reception section, they do not deeply cover the subject; the section is just a collection of random mentions, written in a fashion that gives an initial impression of Notability. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of generation VIII Pokémon: The PETA controversy is insufficient to establish notability; when was the last time PETA was taken seriously about anything? The rest of the reception section does not demonstrate enduring notability aside from a small cluster of coverage upon its reveal. They are largely clickbait-type articles, and merely state an opinion on its appearance._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "When was the last time PETA was taken seriously about anything?" is not a valid argument for deletion for reasons that should be obvious. "The reception section does not demonstrate enduring notability" is not a valid argument for deletion, as notability is not based on the current quality of the article, it is based on whether reliable sources exist (and Haleth has demonstrated that they do). "They are largely clickbait-type articles" is not a valid reason for deletion; thinking that the coverage is vapid doesn't change the fact that it's significant coverage from a reliable source. Mlb96 (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lack of mentions outside of its announcement is absolutely an indicator that it's non-notable, per WP:SUSTAINED. And let's face it, people aren't constantly writing articles about Wooloo, it was just the meme of the day.

Vapid content is also not significant coverage. That has been established many, many times in AfD, although some people seem to not realize that people use the fact that a source is reliable to justify keeping regardless of how vapid the article content is. Simply because a mention in a reliable source exists does not guarantee it is suitable to use._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except WP:SIGCOV is not concerned with whether the coverage is culturally important or vapid as that is a subjective judgment, but whether coverage of the subject consists entirely of mentions in passing out of a list of other Pokemon within some of the cited sources. "Lack of mentions outside of its announcement" is not true as I am still seeing recent hits on Google, even if they are only mentions as you said so yourself. I can understand concerns that there is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage, but unless we know for certain that there is a complete dearth of all trivial or non-trivial coverage about the topic going forward, I don't think that argument holds water. Either a topic entirely consists of an aggregate of mere passing mentions, or it isn't. As far as I know, there is no guideline that actually exists and vetted by consensus within numerous AfD's as you have claimed, which specifically defines what "vapid content" exactly is or legitimizes under what condition is WP:IDONTLIKEIT a legitimate rationale for deletion. What Wikipedia does prohibit is original research, and I don't see any on the article. I do however, see claims of significance about Wooloo being a "breakout" character among the new Pokemon introduced in the most recent main series game, here and here. Haleth (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources mentioned by Haleth. Mlb96 (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the PETA controversy, Twilight Wings, and the sources provided by Haleth; this definitly meets WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Bulk of the reception content consists of trivial mentions. Much like the bulk of these recent nominations, it looks well-referenced at a glance, but shows itself to be nothing but fluff when looking at the sources. TTN (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources Haleth mentioned are good and notable enough, and the sources do indicate a significant amount of coverage surrounding this Pokémon, especially compared to a few others that have a page as well (*cough, cough* Drifloon *cough, cough*). This really seems to be a big case of WP:OSE or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I'm not just saying this as a fan of the franchise. Compared to other articles I've edited/worked on recently, even ones that have already been deleted, this is better sourced and some of the arguments for deletion don't entirely seem valid. ChessPiece21 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation VIII Pokémon#Wooloo. This is the same situation as Klefki—the article is jam-packed with vapid sources to the point that it's painful to review. Why are we citing listicle-style brief mentions sources like [14][15][16][17] as the basis for an encyclopedia article? The fact that fans have produced fan art and memes about a Pokemon they deem cute is barely worth citing in the parent list article, nevertheless being the basis for the character's independent notability. With what overabundance of sourcing are we going to write an entire encyclopedia article that does justice to this topic? I was expecting a bunch of sources on PETA per the above discussion but even that is a manufactured controversy with no substance to cite. What are the WP:THREE for this article? It would be a generous stretch to say that any of these sources provide meaningful coverage of real-world perspective on the fictional subject. Same goes for the Polygon, Dot Esports, and USgamer sources cited above. Each provides no basis for speaking to the importance of the character. Polygon's points have already been made by the listicles. Dot Esports is a soft news story in which Wooloo is trivia. USgamer recites basic plot details from an animated short—it is in no way significant coverage, as the nom originally stated. All we have is trivia. I'd expect those reviewing these articles to have a keener eye for that kind of low quality coverage. Nothing worth merging that isn't already said in the list article. czar 03:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment about the lack of coverage on PETA, I can see as examples, three more websites which did not seem objectionable as sources at first glance: one in English, one in German and one in Mandarin Chinese which also weighed in on the PETA issue, but you are of course entitled to your opinion about the coverage being trivial, even though the cited non-listicle sources on the article which does specifically discuss the subject were not addressed. Looking at the page curation log, the NPP editors who did review the article left notability tags, but did not redirect the article back to the list or take it to AfD, so perhaps the issue with notability isn't as insurmountable as you are suggesting. Haleth (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those three PETA sources are substantive either. This is content of a failed, minor viral marketing campaign written by a breathless games press, not an indication of a tangential character's independent notability. Surely you can see that after these recent noms, right? NPP is doing a minimal assessment of the topic—it isn't their responsibility to adjudicate on the quality or depth of the sources. czar 05:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it's their responsibility, I am saying that it is within their discretion to do so as part of the role, and indeed, there are countless instances where NPP editors have not hesitated to boldly redirect articles they deem unsatisfactory, or send it to AfD, and surely that would reflect their judgment of the sourcing. PETA is not endorsed by or affiliated with Pokemon's IP owners, and therefore this is not a viral marketing campaign which is promotional in relation to the character, but a publicity stunt since PETA clearly wanted to co opt the character's surge in popularity following the release of the game it debuted in. As someone who does not follow the series and never heard of the character until this AfD, an overview of the non-listicle sources clearly paint a picture that this particular character has achieved some significance to stand out among others: whether there should be a standalone article is another matter entirely. And I don't see how any of the other recent AfD noms involving Pokemon is relevant to this discussion, because not every one had the same outcome, and isn't that just a WP:OSE argument? Haleth (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per TTN and Czar. It's irresponsible to go on a wikilawyering rant about how the nom doesn't understand policy while offering such inadequate sources as evidence that the article should be kept. Avilich (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per another editor who very recently warned you on your talk page, you are supposed to comment on content or the editing rationale, not make personal attacks on other editors or label them "irresponsible". If you have nothing constructive to add to what TTN and Czar has to say, perhaps your "vote" should be discarded by the closer. Haleth (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take from the article this source for instance. Basically relates some player's experience in grinding and beating the game with the creature in question. Even if you think "it's possible to beat the game with Wooloo" is encyclopedia-worthy, that's just a single sentence that can fit into a list. Then there's those you posted just above, which are little more than a listing of angry tweets in reaction to an activist group's take on the subject. Fleeting, unencyclopedic, and failing in the basic requirement of significant commentary in reliable secondary sources. Avilich (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The salient point I took from reading that article, as someone who is not interested in Pokemon in the slightest, is that a person interviewed by the article stated the case that the character has become "a sort of pseudo-mascot for the game, with a lot of fan art for Sword and Shield featuring Wooloo", not how to beat the game with just Wooloo. Is it enough by itself to demonstrate notability? Of course not. But there are other sources, cited or otherwise, which do not cover Wooloo as part of a list or in mere passing mentions, and are considered reliable sources independent from the Pokemon IP owners, to consider. And the sources are clear that the character's surge in popularity drew attention from PETA, when the organization could have picked any other Pokemon character for their stunt. That said, at the end of the day, you are still entitled to your opinion. Haleth (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage of the PETA controversy and the meme is enough for notability, standing out from many other Pokemon articles.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge at the very least - Personally I think this article is way too long and detailed to be outright deleted. Looking at the List of gen VIII pokemon though I lean more towards keep than merge bc it wouldn't fit into the table format, there's too much information to merge it there. I agree that some sections could be cleaned up but I don't understand why this went straight to deletion rather than cleaning it up. If it Going through the GNG: 1) significant coverage - the Wooloo has been individually covered in a number of articles cited therefore not trivial mentions, 2) reliable, secondary, and independent sources - some of the sources come from independent news orgs that cover games. Additionally the people arguing that the PETA stunt is insignificant should consider the fact that some PETA stunts related to pokemon have their own page PETA satirical browser games. I will admit though my opinion may be biased bc I'm quite fond of the Wooloo due to one meme that the article doesn't mention that plays on the similarity between the word "Wooloo" and the acronym WLW sometimes pronounced "Wooloowoo" (see the end of this article) Contrawwftw (talk) 04:11, 29 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 List of generation IV Pokémon#Drifloon. Daniel (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drifloon[edit]

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

Considering the fact that there are over 800 Pokemon species (!!!), there's a reason we set the bar high to give one a dedicated article. When reading this, I ask myself "What makes Drifloon so much more important than the other 800+ Pokemon that it needs its own article?" Let's take a look:

Characteristics: This reads like a Pokedex entry. I get that it's sourced to an RS, but it's ultimately all fictional information pulled from the games anyways. This can be done for any Pokemon character.
Appearances: Just a list of appearances in games and the anime. Again, this could be done for any Pokemon character.
Reception: Dry surface level commentary that is fluffed up to seem like significant coverage, but it does not arrive at any meaningful conclusions. This section is full of excessive quotes of journalists finding creative ways to describe how creepy Drifloon is over and over. Most of the sources are "top 10 scary Pokemon"-like lists and not specific to Drifloon. There have been so many articles written about Pokemon over the years, that you could generate the same level of commentary for most species.

So answering my original question above, I came to the conclusion that no, there is nothing significant about this Pokemon such that it needs its own article. I'm seeing a lack of significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of generation IV Pokémon after a cursory look at available sourcing per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, as there appears to be insufficient dedicated coverage about the character. However, the nomination appears to be malformed and not properly argued on WP:GNG grounds, and it is primarily concerned with article content, an editorial concern, as opposed to a proper discernment on whether suitable sources exist. Highlighting that there are 800+ other species and demanding that a higher bar should be set is irrelevant and simply an other stuff exists or WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. So what? Why should articles about Pokemon species be scrutinized any differently from all other articles about fictional characters or elements, when they are all covered by WP:GNG and there is no special WP:SNG specifically dedicated to Pokemon articles which lay down rules on what qualities a particular Pokemon species must possess before they are entitled to a standalone article? And no, the so-called Pokemon test does not count and it was never a vetted and accepted guideline to begin with. The only consideration for editors to consider would be, either the subject have WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources or they don't, according to their own interpretation. Haleth (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of generation IV Pokémon#Drifloon per Haleth, all of the sources except this one are all listicles or about something else entirely and give it just a passing mention. Link20XX (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Link20XX. The sources are mostly WP:PASSINGMENTIONs and not enough to represent WP:SIGCOV for this topic. A merge is a decent compromise considering the existence of a larger list. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the corresponding list. The Appearances section proves that even within the Pokémon franchise this character is not relevant, and the Reception section is written in such a fashion that gives an initial impression of Notability, but it is just a collection of mentions from reliable sources but that do not deeply cover the subject. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per others, the article is largely fancruft on a minor Pokemon._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:17, 22 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. Daniel (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas S. Nolan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or the political guidelines. FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Can't find any coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - After reading WP:NPOL; I guess this guy does meet the "state-wide" criteria for presumed notability. Frankly, that criteria seems a little nutty to me as there are probably thousands and thousands of state delegates about whom little is known and about whom few care to know. But the rule seems clear.... NickCT (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of google book results. He was elected to state assembly ("Thomas+S.+Nolan"+state+assembly), so passes NPOL.--Chuka Chief_talk 14:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL as a state assembly member. Mccapra (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of the Wisconsin State Assembly. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – members of state-level legislatures are presumed notable under WP:NPOL. (There's also plenty of coverage available via Newspapers.com: it might be enough for a GNG pass as well.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep state legislators are notable. Thank You-RFD (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article needs some improvement — but people who have verifiably served as state legislators are inherently notable under WP:NPOL #1 even if the current state of the article is inadequate, because they are always improvable. A person who served 100 years ago is not going to Google well, so his sources will have to be retrieved from newspaper archiving databases, but that's why we have an WP:NEXIST rule. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyavazhi (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF, deproded without addressing concerns BOVINEBOY2008 13:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major mainstream film with top name stars, most of whom have Wikipedia entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, User:Roman Spinner, notability is not inherited, please read WP:NOTINHERITED. I have seen that you were directed to also read WP:NINI and WP:GNG in another AfD, but appears you have not. Films must be judged based on their own merit. Who appears in them, who directs them, and whether or not there are Wikipedia articles on the English Wikipedia for those actors/crewmembers, or an article on the film on another language's Wikipedia are all arguments that have no merit in a deletion discussion. Therefore, unless you can provide reviews to this film, or other coverage on the film that passes WP:NFILM, I am afraid that your Keep comment will be ignored by any admin closing this discussion as you have not addressed the concerns of the notability of this film adequately. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is indeed a major mainstream film then where is the significant coverage and where are the multiple reviews that one would expect? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 18:38, 26 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) 00:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Height 611 UFO incident[edit]

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

Only sources in the article are the same ones that were there 8 years ago. One is a Discovery, Inc. 1996 TV show and the other is a self-published book. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. The claims of a glowing object depositing metal of supposedly mysterious origin are limited to decidedly WP:SENSATIONAL stories in the Russian press and WP:FRINGE writings by a UFOlogist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing looks v. weak. NickCT (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing dug up in the first round still doesn't look sufficient: Some of it's not RS, and the rest just isn't enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's an excerpt from ISBN 5-17-041429-3, containing an account of events without needless sensationalism. If you dig around for more Russian sources, they are there to be found. The event is no Roswell incident, but has plenty of coverage and is thus notable on just those grounds alone. This doesn't mean the UFO claims should be taken at face value, of course.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2021; 14:43 (UTC)

ISBN 5-17-041429-3 directs to this book (the one with the dramatic flying saucer illustration on the cover), entitled "Secrets of UFOs and Aliens" by the author Михаил Борисович Герштейн (Gershtein Mikhail Borisovich), which does not appear to be "an account of events without needless sensationalism", but rather a sensational book by a Russian ufologist. "Litmir.me" appears to be a website that provides an online library of some sort that is simply hosting pages from the book. It's not a WP:FRIND source. I’ll not bludgeon the discussion further, however I urge reviewers to make use of Google translate to evaluate additional Russian sources presented. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot judge the book as a whole as I have not read it in its entirety (unlike you, I can't read that fast). However, in the section that pertains to the incident (which I did read) I see nothing "sensationalist". It combines the accounts of people who saw the events, lists the findings, and draws no conclusions of the "UFOs must be real" variety (which would be a red flag for me personally). As for the Litmir link, I provided it merely for ease of review. The actual source will be the book itself, not the website. The author is a ufologist, yes, but that does not automatically invalidate every single thing he has to say. I also do not suggest using this book as the only source, but it can and should be a good starting point for further sourcing.

If that book is too much for you, there is plenty of neutral, objective press coverage that can be found (but of course there's plenty of sensationalist fluff to weed out too). This article, fairly recently published on Takiye Dela, is just one example. Whatever your views are on the incident itself (and as someone who lived there when the incident took place, I think it's a bunch of BS), there's no denying it is notable, of only in a way conspiracy theories and hoaxes can be notable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2021; 15:57 (UTC)

If the author is taking the claims of UFOlogists seriously (which seems likely, as the author is a UFOlogist), then the author is necessarily an unreliable source, unless and until such time as their beliefs about aliens visiting us are proven accurate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating those claims is his job, is it not? One can bill oneself a "ufologist", yet still be capable of considering the claims on their merits (one would hope someone is doing that?). Anyway, like I said, the text I linked to merely lists the facts and presents possible explanations by others (including government officials and researchers). The actual conclusions are left to readers, which is, really, the best one can do in such a situation. The subject matter itself naturally means the sources will be of a... certain variety (many of the sources used in the Roswell incident article, for example, could be dismissed on exactly the same grounds). What would be your ideal source, one that you'd see and can tell right there, "that's it; it works"? I could be wrong, but I feel much of the rationale for deletion here is that the subject matter is one that naturally arouses suspicion, its notability is mainly outside of the Anglosphere, and the sources are mainly in Russian (with so many of them being pure junk). None of that can be helped, but it doesn't make the topic any less worthy of inclusion. An incident that people are returning to over and over, which has not been conclusively confirmed or debunked, is absolutely a part of "all human knowledge", if not one that's vital. We should cover it the best we can.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2021; 16:45 (UTC)

Delete - No good sources for anything worthwhile. The book by a Russian UFOlogist suggested above does not change that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and may I know your opinion on the other source? Trying to figure out here what kind of sources people are looking for. It's a bit hard to satisfy sourcing expectations without knowing what they are.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2021; 17:20 (UTC)
The necessary information is covered at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that by "the other source", you mean the "Takiye Dela" thing. I have no idea what it says and what its reliability is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for two reasons. One, it's supposedly a famous Russian case, yet no stand-alone article on the Russian-language Wikipedia (see why below). Two: See the quotes below.

Source of quoted material immediately below here.

Dvuzhilni received a report from the IZMIRAN Institute of Earth magnetism, ionosphere and radiowaves propagation (the Leningrad branch). ... They conducted analyses of lead balls from Height 611. The conclusions arrived to by scientists were as follows: the balls were made on Earth, but the lead was not from Dalnegorsk deposit, but from the Kholodnensky deposit, in the North Baikal region. Source: Visota 611: zagadki ostayuts, article by A. Lyakhov, published by Sostialisticheskaya industriya, issue dated July 9, 1989; Inopanetyane dobivayut nash svinets, article by N. Ostrovskaya, published in Komsomolskaya Pravda, issue dated June 9, 2003.

Dvuzhilni was certain that the alien probe that crashed on Height 611 was capable of using metals from Earth deposits for its repair needs.

Source: NLO pod mikroskopom, published in Priroda i Chelovek magazine, issue 12, 1989.

Source of quoted material immediately below from Russian Wikipedia here (translated; a subsection of the Russian article "Unidentified flying object").

There is still no consensus among scientists about the origin of the object. However, most experts believe that all debris is of terrestrial origin, and there is no reliable evidence of extraterrestrial technology or materials [57].

The most popular hypothesis is that the object was an automatic drifting balloon (ADA). Since the 1940s, such balloons were launched by the United States for espionage purposes and could rise to an altitude of 30 kilometers, which made them inaccessible to Soviet fighters for a long time. [...]

A study was published in the American magazine Sky & Telescope, which claimed that the object in Dalnegorsk was the wreckage of a secret American military spy satellite [58].

Continuing, I came into this with an open mind, but if the Ru Wiki doesn't feel it deserves a stand-alone article, then neither should we. 5Q5|^✉ 11:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, the on-location 7-min Nov 6, 1994 segment (IMDb) on Sightings was recently uploaded to YouTube by a UFO group here as part of a longer compilation of Russian cases shown on the series. It's the first clip on the video. As expected, no skeptical explanations offered except for a policeman witness who described it as a traveling "fire balloon" in quick voiceover translation, which means he could have said "balloon on fire." 5Q5|^✉ 10:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @5Q5: I changed the formatting of your comment because we suspect that it is screwing with AnomieBOT's DeletionSortingCleaner task. See User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 12#AfD erroneously archived on delsort pages for more details. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was erroneously moved to archives on the delsort pages. This has been undone. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) erroneously archived this AfD on the delsort pages shortly after it was listed. I just reverted this a second time. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Pirates[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable film. No apparent coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. FiddleheadLady (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 14:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fred Olen Ray is a cult filmmaker with well over 50 films listed in Wikipedia. (See Template:Fred_Olen_Ray). No need to single out this title for deletion. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, User:Roman Spinner, notability is not inherited, please read WP:NOTINHERITED. I have seen that you were directed to also read WP:NINI and WP:GNG in another AfD, but appears you have not. Films must be judged based on their own merit. Who appears in them, who directs them, and whether or not there are Wikipedia articles on the English Wikipedia for those actors/crewmembers, or an article on the film on another language's Wikipedia are all arguments that have no merit in a deletion discussion. Therefore, unless you can provide reviews to this film, or other coverage on the film that passes WP:NFILM, I am afraid that your Keep comment will be ignored by any admin closing this discussion as you have not addressed the concerns of the notability of this film adequately. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Breaker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF found WP:BEFORE, no other indication of notability in article per WP:NFO BOVINEBOY2008 12:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable film. No apparent coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 14:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable film that has a corresponding entry in Spanish Wikipedia and the director Sergio Esquenazi has entries in English Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia and Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, User:Roman Spinner, notability is not inherited, please read WP:NOTINHERITED. I have seen that you were directed to also read WP:NINI and WP:GNG in another AfD, but appears you have not. Films must be judged based on their own merit. Who appears in them, who directs them, and whether or not there are Wikipedia articles on the English Wikipedia for those actors/crewmembers, or an article on the film on another language's Wikipedia are all arguments that have no merit in a deletion discussion. Therefore, unless you can provide reviews to this film, or other coverage on the film that passes WP:NFILM, I am afraid that your Keep comment will be ignored by any admin closing this discussion as you have not addressed the concerns of the notability of this film adequately. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Camellia Productions[edit]

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

Companies are required to pass WP:NCORP. Please note that this has been sent to draft twice; Draft:Camellia Productions and Draft:Camellia Productions (2) so I don't believe that sending an identical copy there for a third time will achieve anything. The best sources that I can find are Telegraph India and TOI, both of which are passing mentions, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and Spotboye, which publishes the occasional article where a tweet by Camellia Productions is copied and pasted, this violates WP:ORGIND.

This therefore fails the primary criterion of NCORP, which is that A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Weak delete - I'm not seeing much or any direct coverage, but this place did seem to produce a number of notable films and has a slew of indirect coverage in Indian media. NickCT (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article depends on a non-reliable reference YouTube. Multiple attempts to make it live as explained by nominator. I have doubt as creator might be connected with subject or Undisclosed paid. DMySon (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable production company, fails WP:NCORP. Bapinghosh (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and above. Kolma8 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just one unreliable reference --Rupertdonovan (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Pallala[edit]

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

Entrepreneur and worked for many films and Independent music artists. Fails WP:GEN and WP:ARTIST. Draftified twice, but now it is unnecessary to move this into draftspace again. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have given sufficient detail to this article upto my knowledge and related citation link provide to this article, I request you review and removed the deletion tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojasrireddy (talk • contribs) 09:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet GNG or any SNG. Only two of the cited sources (Hans India, Telangana Today) are reliable, which are possibly press releases and do not mention the subject. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability. Peter303x (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, fails WP:GNG Nitesh003 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hasan (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But I have only this source of links which talk about him and other links to his company source only there.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nineteen Eighty-Four#Surveillance. Content can be merged from behind redirect if desired. Daniel (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telescreen[edit]

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

I am having trouble seeing how this meets WP:GNG. In my BEFORE I see that this term appears in numerous plot summaries, and can be easily defined in a single sentence as "the two-way video system used to monitor citizens", but outside them, there is very little discussion of this (also because while the concept is interesting Orwell didn't really use it as any major plot device, it's just part of the world-building/background with a cool name). I see some short mentions that it forms the part of Orwell's panopticon but I am having trouble finding anything that meets SIGCOV and would allow us more than a sentence or two of analysis. As things stand, there is nothing to rescue from our plot summary . OR-ish article (note: tagged as OR since 2010, the only reference present currently is to the book itself), and the term should redirect to the novel (Nineteen Eighty-Four - ideally the Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Major_concepts if anyone feels like adding a section on this there - I volunteer to do so if there is consensus to redirect); it probably deserves a brief mention in articles on panopticon (which does mention it), or mass surveillance (which currently does not), but right now I am not sold this needs a dedicated article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is not unique to Orwell – it was a commonplace contraction of television screen and appears in early SF as an anticipated short form, before people went further with TV. This technology is continuining to evolve but we should retain the link and concept to help our readers understand the history of the technology and its terminology. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IF the article had any independent sources, I wouldn't be averse to seeing the referenced content merged somewhere... sadly, this is not the case. Neither Keep OR nor Merge OR seem like a good solution to me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd rather see this merged to a hypothetical Television in fiction article which could absolutely exist._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nineteen Eighty-Four. Currently, the topic lacks sources to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Surveillance (maybe that section?) per TTN. This article is sourced only to the novel itself, and in the unlikely event we were to spin out a whole sub-article with secondary sources, I suspect it would be Surveillance in Nineteen Eighty-Four rather than Telescreen, since the device itself is not the point really. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a significant number of third party sources that mention the Telescreen as a reference to today's devices. 1, 2, 3... Do these have bearing on the notability? If so, I can work on adding the citations to the article. FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FiddleheadLady the problem is the lack of WP:SIGCOV . The sources you found do allow us to say that the such and such has been linked to telescreen, but they still don't show us the need to have a dedicated telescreen article. As @Roscelese noted, this is more related to the general topic of in this book (or. I'd argue, mass surveillance in fiction, which I'll add to my to-do list), rather than this particular gadget. In other words, the broad topic is likely notable, but the examples used in it, like the telescreen gadget, much less so. We should have big overview articles which mentions small articles, and redirects from there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. This makes sense! FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Surveillance per all. As someone who sees the deep literary merit of 1984, the only keep !vote seems completely counter productive when it suggests rewriting this as some sort of article about television screens in science fiction. Merging would be such an obvious compromise that would preserve the content and address this non-notable topic within the highly notable literary work. I am sometimes baffled by people who would completely rewrite an article just so it counts as a keep, to the point that they would destroy what value it had to readers in the first place. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker How did I miss this section? That's a perfect redirect target. Good find! But the problem of merging anything is the lack of references in the discussed article. I oppose merging unreferenced content on principle. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also opposed to articles that are mainly WP:OR essays from primary sources. But within the context of a notable article, some primary sourced material can enhance the secondary material, as long as there isn't WP:UNDUE weight. Leave the amount to merge to the editorial process. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Surveillance. FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:02, 22 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) Enos733 (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Spencer Law[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Only sourced to Burke's peerage and an obituary of one of his non-notable sons. A BEFORE brings up nothing except WP:CIRCULAR. JBchrch talk 08:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 08:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 08:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He was Private Secretary to the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1846 and President of the Board of Control - notable!Looking glass 563621 (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking glass 563621 disclosed on WP:COIN that he has an external connection with the Law family. [18] JBchrch talk 13:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a citation of his obituary in The Times. An obituary in The Times (or another major national newspaper of record) has always been considered sufficient for notability. This consensus has been established over many AfDs and many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. The assertion regarding an obituary in The Times is unsupported, it depends what the obituary says. Page is more about his much more famous relatives (including his brother the First Sea Lord) than him. Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What does this mean? That the claim of a consensus is unsupported? Rubbish. The consensus is very clear that a full obituary in The Times is sufficient. Or do you mean that because you can't read it you don't believe it exists? I would remind you that sources do not have to be available online. They merely have to exist. I have stated it exists and provided a citation to it. So what precisely is your argument? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Necrothesp: Could you provide links to AfD discussions that establish this consensus? Honest question, I would be happy to learn. JBchrch talk 13:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here are just a few examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Morris (engineer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Blanco White, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Somerset, Duchess of Beaufort, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Cope Morgan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Fisher (educationalist), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandos Hoskyns (British soldier), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Tempest, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George G. Imeretinsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Ash, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Griffiths, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aline Mackinnon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.J. Goldsmith. There are many more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you very much for providing these links. I am not convinced, however, that the outcome of each one of these discussions relied solely on the publication of an obituary in The Times, although it is certainly an indication of notability (which I'm not objecting to, of course). In any case, I don't think that such a policy would not conform to WP:GLOBAL, since it distinctly favors Britons. JBchrch talk 17:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again a consensus/policy is claimed when it does not exist. I certainly agree with the inherent bias of a claim that a Times obituary establishes notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Why does it favour Britons and why is it inherently biased? It is quite clear that this consensus relates to any newspaper of record, not just The Times. And I didn't say that the keep results there solely relied on the obituaries, any more than consensus has to be unanimous to be valid (although some editors mistakenly think or claim it does). But in all of them it was clearly a major element in the result. This is just another attempt by deletion-orientated editors to claim a consensus does not exist when one clearly does. As usual, I find it very sad that some editors are so keen to argue that an article on a clearly notable person who held notable positions clearly supported by reliable sources should be deleted. That mentality in people supposedly working to build an encyclopaedia, I'm afraid, escapes me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        As usual, I find it very sad that some editors claim a consensus or policy when it doesn't exist and are unwilling to accept that some minor British noble just isn't notable. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        There is some hindsight bias in using old British newspapers as references and considering them "papers of records". Aside form their great political bias, a great many newspapers have come and gone since The Times was first published (just see here). If The Times had gone under in the 1800s and wasn't considered a paper of record 150 years later - would we consider Law notable on the basis of this one article? Probably not. My !vote is still keep though as unfortunately I have to live in the world as it is. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It clearly does exist. You just don't like the fact it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You claimed that SOLDIER was a policy... Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I never said that, as you very well know. I said it was generally accepted as a notability guideline. Which it most certainly was before you and others decided you didn't like it and strenuously campaigned to get it deprecated to assist in your deletion campaigns. Please try to avoid misrepresenting what other editors have said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        It was only ever an essay. If you want to avoid misrepresenting what other editors have said then start with not misrepresenting that I "strenuously campaigned to get [SOLDIER] deprecated to assist in [my] deletion campaigns" when I did no such thing. Mztourist (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        An essay which was generally accepted as a notability guideline! It doesn't matter how much you claim it wasn't. It obviously was and I have proved it was over and over again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done some work and this article is now sourced to six sources: two substantial sources (Burke's, and The Times obituary, now linked) and several other good quality sources that support and build on those two. There will undoubtedly be other reliable sources not easily accessible online given the age of the subject. The most recent ones did require a specialist subscription to find, so no criticism to the nominating editor here, but overall I think this is pretty decent sourcing for someone who died well over a hundred years ago. ninety:one 11:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Ninetyone, the sources added are just public records with no form of significant, in-depth coverage (see WP:BASIC). It's simply the 19th century equivalent of Martindale. JBchrch talk 13:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources which I added relating to his appointments are as you describe, yes. The Times obit and his Burke's Peerage entry are not - they constitute "significant coverage in multiple, published reliable secondary sources". A third would be nice, but for someone from that era I think that's a solid pass of the BASIC criteria. ninety:one 14:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak (and reluctant) Keep The Times obituary (which I have now read) does provide some notability although its content contradicts much of the information on this page (obit. says he's 4th son, this page says 5th, Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough implies 3rd) and doesn't reflect the extensive record of public service that this page speaks of (I think these claims being true are essential to its notability). Unfortunately I am now discovering the inherent bias of WP's guidelines which reward British nobility (WP:GLOBAL) who really have no notability themselves but were born into the right station. Part of this birth right was being named and feted in the publications of the day which are now considered papers of records. Hard to believe a similarly distinguished member of the Bhutanese royal family (for example) would be considered notable. Either way I would really recommend that editors look at thoroughly vetting this page and all related pages edited by Looking glass 563621 who has a close familial connection to the subject and Ellenborough Barony. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with your critique of the inherent bias here. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears sufficiently notable, with the above comment noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with sufficient sourcing, such as the obituary. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been significantly improved with additional reliable sources references so that WP:GNG is passed. VocalIndia (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is enough sourcing to meet GNG, including the Times obituary.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:00, 28 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 two, third one already redirected. Daniel (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the Stars in the Universe[edit]

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

This editor has created three pages, and duplicated the same page three times. None have references, and the pages basically duplicate existing articles. Does not meet GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for All the Stars in the Universe and All the stars discovered as being covered by existing articles and not a plausible typo/misnomer. Redirect for List of Stars as it is a plausible typo to Lists of stars, similar to List of stars. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 08:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced WP:FORK of Lists of stars. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect List of Stars to Lists of stars. Delete the other two, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the preceding comment: Redirect List of Stars to Lists of stars, and Delete the other two. Let's also note that the creator of these pages seems to be a new editor who is learning how Wikipedia works, so let's be friendly here. RomanSpa (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of Stars (which already has been done) and delete the other two per above arguments (implausible redirect) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first two. Useless, redundant articles; neither are plausible search terms. Dronebogus (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of Stars now redirects to List of stars. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CSD A10. An article that duplicates an existing topic. The title made me think this was a book. enjoyer -- talk 11:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G7 also applies since the author blanked the article. enjoyer -- talk 11:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and I just noticed that they've been blocked as well. enjoyer -- talk 11:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enga Veettu Penn[edit]

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

Undersourced, and fails WP:NTV. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, references indicate this is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL TV series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5, created by a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Dayrit[edit]

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

This article was proposed for deletion by @HueMan1: a while ago (this 07/21/2021). The proposed deletion would have started its "7-day countdown" to automatic deletion if uncontested. I myself objected it as I found some sources that may support the subject of this article (an artist). However, as the PROD nominator has concerns on the creator's alleged connection with another user, a normal Articles for deletion process, involving discussion, is made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources that I found

https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/143191/Business/Erwin-V-Dayrit-Inspired-by-art
https://www.philstar.com/pang-masa/pang-movies/2017/03/18/1680153/artist-na-nag-viral-sa-social-media-tampok-sa-magpakailanman (source in Flipino)
https://coconuts.co/manila/lifestyle/artist-bone-disease-shares-amazing-portrait-apo-whang-od/
https://www.thesummitexpress.com/2017/02/artist-with-rare-bone-disease-erwin-dayrit.html

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poll and discussion[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brianne West. There is a clear consensus in this discussion that the article shouldn't be retained outright. Opinions and arguments are split as to delete or merge (and the 'delete's came before the merge proposition), so closing as merge per WP:ATD. The amount of content merged before the redirect is put in place can be anywhere from 0 to all of it, at editorial discretion. Daniel (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethique[edit]

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

Regardless of any possible notability , this is hopelessly promotional; if the promotionalism were removed there would be no content besides a list of funding and a list of promotional awards. I actually made an effort at this, despite the fact that it was by a paid editor, but gave up when I realized it wasn't possible.

I recognize this is an area where it is difficult to distinguish exceptionally promotional writing, because the entire industry is based on promotionalism -- but that is no reason why we should be a contributor to it. NOT ADVERTISING supersedes all considerations of of notability, though I doubt notability also--all the support for this is essential mere notices of funding and PR, none of which meets NCORP.

The article begins with a paragraph about the founder's "passion " for riding the world of plastic . There was presumably equal passion for making money, or at least for being in a fashionable business. The least we can expect paid editors to do is to not write such obvious advertising here, whatever they may be in the habit of doing elsewhere. That the company should think this worth paying for shows we here at WP need to make a much greater effort at explaining the purpose of an encyclopedia. The first step in explaining it is to remove such articles, but then we also need some more positive outreach.

And we should probably re-examine every article about something other than entertainment or sex that refers to passion. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - fundamentally promotional article, probably qualifies for CSD G5. By the way, I have a passion for the world of crowd-sourced encyclopedias :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non notable company, the only coverage I could find is also semi-promotional and even if completely true would not set this company apart form most others. Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may have let my revulsion at the self promotional nature of the page get the best of me. Put Ethique into the Stuff search bar[19] and more stories come up than for about half the pages I have created. That said either Brianne West or Ethique would be preferable. I don't have the stamina for that fight and am bowing out. Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company gets heaps of media coverage. Given that I live in the city where they are located, I’ve seen a lot of coverage in The Press over the years that lifts it well clear over the WP:GNG hurdle. And that’s not a local rag; it’s one of the country's largest papers. A copy edit can deal with promotional language. Schwede 66 19:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Brianne West. Part of this article is about West anyway, and West is notable only for Ethique. We don't need two articles for such closely related topics. Nurg (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably written by her but it is notable. Just needs to be cleaned up. Nexus000 (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brianne West noting that both articles have their genesis with people directly related to the company. Needs a lot of work on both though as they are written in an advertising style. NealeWellington (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment use of the company logo may be a breach of copyright. NealeWellington (talk) 10:55, 24 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. WP:G5, created by a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrex Basalo[edit]

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

BLP of an elected councillor in a third-class municipality of the Philippines. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to @Mccapra: it seems like the author's writing style is similar to User:Begunpyrex's. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nungleppam Buddhimanta Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, not covered by any WP:RS except official government websites. May meet WP:ANYBIO through awards, but many Kirti Chakra recipients do not have their own pages, and again, the subject has no RS coverage for the awards. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a Google Books and newspapers search shows he does not meet the GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in RS. Coverage is basically limited to his awards only, very little general biographical information is available. The highest award he has received is the second highest non-combat award, roughly equivalent to a non-gallantry British DSO in the old money. Not high enough to meet the ANYBIO standard of receiving a "well-known and significant award or honor", IMHO. Perhaps if he goes on to higher ranks he will become notable, but not at present. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet WP:GNG Nungleppam Buddhimanta Singh was awarded with India's Second highest peacetime gallantry award the Kirti Chakra, third highest peacetime distinguished service award Vishisht Seva Medal and the Sena Medal for gallantry.

Meet WP:RS

Kirti Chakra award is cited in the two official websites https://www.gallantryawards.gov.in/awardee/3560 and (Gallantry Awards Government) https://www.theindiapost.com/defence/kirti-chakra-awardees-2008/amp/ (India Post)

Vishisht Seva Medal is cited in the two government websites – http://sainiksamachar.nic.in/englisharchives/2008/sep01-08/h13.html (Sainik Samachar) http://pibmumbai.gov.in/scripts/detail.asp?releaseId=E2010PR168 (Press of India Bureau)(User_talk:Kumarsaikat), 9 July 2021

All of these are just government award listings that offer neither the significant coverage nor the independence required by WP:GNG. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 07:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple articles in English about his awards and also providing some background. With the amount of coverage in English there would surly be many more and in-depth articles in Hindi. Meets WP:Basic, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are multiple articles about his awards, even just looking at English sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide examples of some of these? All I'm finding are webpages and articles that always list him as one of many honoured in that year, lacking WP:SIGCOV. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 23:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, nor WP:NBASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the points already made by Jamesallain85 and Kumarsaikat. Particularly it would be good to hear from someone who can speak the local language and may be able to find better non-English sources. NemesisAT (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sourcing still a bit on the weak side, can someone please look for non-English sources and report back?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mannavan Vanthanadi[edit]

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

Has not been progressing for a very long time, shoot never seems to have concluded. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk 12:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. There is not enough coverage for an unreleased film. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of passing mentions but not enough for WP:GNG or indeed WP:NFF Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 27 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volumography[edit]

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

I can find few sources that aren't either commercially related to the concept or Wikipedia database clones, and searches of the term in academic literature actually seem to turn up more references to different technical concepts and theories with the same name, but few if none to this version. Furthermore, the article seems to have been created by an individual involved in creating the concept, at least judging by the username in the article history. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." That appears to be the case here. Vexations (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kot Guraya[edit]

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

I am unable to verify this. As best as I can determine, the original source is GEONames or some predecessor to it, as I find a 1962 listing which matches these coordinates. Given that there are no seconds given, this is way too imprecise to identify with a map or aerial feature. Other hits seem to be false or clickbait. I'm inexperienced in dealing with Pakistani locations, so I'm not sure what official resources can be brought to bear, but if someone can point them out, or better still update the article, I'd be happy to withdraw this, but the imprecision of the coordinates is already a bad sign. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Vohra[edit]

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

Bio of an actor and youtuber who died of COVID in May. The first thing that struck me as odd was that all the sources were about his live hospital updates just before his death, and the article says nothing about his career. I went to look for sources and discovered that there are several Rahul Vohras, one a businessman and another, confusingly, also an actor. What I could find about this one was just the sources in the article about his final days, and nothing about his career or activities. My conclusion is his social media posts from hospital were picked up and gained brief global coverage for their poignancy, but that the subject is not otherwise notable, and WP:BLP1E applies to subjects who have recently died. Mccapra (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABLE, not much is known about him during his lifetime. -Cupper52^Discuss! 07:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blenheim Avenue[edit]

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

Apparently random, "dead-end" road in Hong Kong. No notable history or other geographical details - by my assessment this fails WP:GEOROAD. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not going to vote on keeping or deleting right now, however going to say that the user who created this article (Wishva de Silva) has made a number of other similar articles, including Hart Avenue and Hanoi Road (both appear to be minor streets, but I wouldn't know about their notability). There's also a lot more similarly-structured short articles like these listed at List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. There could be a long list of these types of articles incoming for deletion if it's decided that more than just the above be deleted. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 05:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, though it is still worth noting that due diligence should be performed on the part of anyone who wishes to scan through those articles prior to AfD-ing, and it should also not be assumed that all of that user's articles are suspect without a fair assessment. I didn't just nominate this article because of the lack of sources, but because after searching for any suitable references to the road I was unable to find any. Not to say that you were implying either, of course, but it's worth specifying here for any onlookers who choose to pursue that assessment. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this looks like it fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet any presumption of notability under WP:GEOROAD. Having said that, there have been many recent AfDs on Hong Kong roads all of which have been rescued and kept by User:Cunard and User:Citobun so I suspect, if anyone can find significant coverage on this dead-end road, it will be one of these two contributors. Failing that, is there a useful redirect target? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The road is apparently named after HMS Blenheim (1813), but ahead of any potential redirect discussion, I'd caution against that article as a target, since there is no other connection aside from an ostensible namesake. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable road, it's a dead end street with nothing of interest on it. Streets get their names from all sorts of historical figures and events, doesn't mean they are notable because of it. Ajf773 (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong per nom. It's more useful as a redirect. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I don't know why we'd choose to redirect it there, since there are Blenheim Avenues in Charlottesville, VA; Redwood City, CA; Las Vegas, NV; etc. If the article is deleted per redirect, why keep the association with the Hong Kong instance of the street name? /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage and doesn't appear to meet any other guideline. I would also oppose redirecting due to Blenheim Avenue being such a common road name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run-of-the-mill street with no sourceable notability. Do not redirect, based on the rationales given by Tpdwkouaa and Spiderone above. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:08, 27 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. But for the record, Wikipedia:Gazetteer does not supersede the WP:GNG. czar 06:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Gniewek[edit]

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

GNIS ventures to another continent, this time with a mountain which gets only 464 GHits (plus two more for "Mt. "Gniewek"), the only seemingly substantive one being, apparently, a verbatim copy of our article. There's no claim to notability except in the word "conspicuous", but other than in its oroginal naming it appears to have drawn no other interest, so I'm not seeing the notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." Not much more, but enough. Also, why would you assume that the source copied the Wikipedia article rather than the other way round? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm increasingly having trouble with appeals to WP:GEOLAND as a means of avoiding satisfying WP:GNG, which latter standard I do not see this entry meeting, as I do not see the bare description in GNIS as "significant coverage". And I do apologize: the other reference is (besides the NZ Gazette entry, which is no more than an entry in a list) is, I see upon closer examination, a verbatim copy of the GNIS entry rather than of our article, but in any case to doesn't increase the coverage of this peak. Mangoe (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia:Gazetteer is only an essay, it seems to be the de facto standard and routinely supercedes GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yup, meets the criteria of WP:GEOLAND. WP:GNG is not the be all and end all, as WP:SNG quite clearly says (although often ignored or sneered at by those who favour deletion). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend and Necrothesp. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ferranti valve[edit]

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

As far as I can determine in my searching, a "Farranti valve" is a vacuum tube or valve made by Farranti, except that a "Hopkinson–Farranti valve" is some kind of check valve used for boilers. I am unable to verify the claims of the article. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling is "Ferranti". Ferranti were a noted producer of electronic components. The component in question is a guard ring diode, primarily used in educational demonstrations as a way of demonstrating the magnetron approach to assessing the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron. The physics looks right to me, but I'm not a specialist. However, this link seems to support this. I don't think this particular valve merits an article in its own right - it seems reasonably clear that other equipment could be used in the educational environment, and there's no obvious reason to impute notability to a particular electronic component, even an interesting one like this - but it would be useful if the magnetron method for assessing the electron's charge-to-mass ratio were better covered in Mass-to-charge_ratio. Accordingly, I suggest we Delete, but request a suitable specialist to expand this section of the relevant article appropriately. RomanSpa (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Paytm. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nearbuy[edit]

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

Not having significant coverage. And somewhat doesn't fulfil the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability - Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Paytm. -Hatchens (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Hatchens: This topic is not having major link with Paytm. But yeah that's a good idea. - Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Certainly, it is a good idea to merge with Paytm.--Chartwind (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Paytm th eparent company. Webmaster862 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion was never transcluded to a daily log page. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the article at this time. @Iamrajdeepdas: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 22:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles R. Miller (general)[edit]

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

Unable to locate independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. The only reliable independent source cited is the Oxford University Press book, which only cites his thesis (not significant coverage). Other sources are published by his employers (US military and Stanford University), and are therefore not independent. WP:SOLDIER, which granted a presumption of notability to generals, was deprecated. Attempted PROD rejected. (t · c) buidhe 01:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given his high and important positions as a military officer and coverage in sources, he ~~definitely and obviously~~ probably passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What independent, reliable sources cover him significantly? If they exist, you should list them. (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was unable to quickly find such sources. I was talking about sources cited on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stanford University did not employ him. KingEdinburgh (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article states that Miller was involved with the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford University. The Stanford coverage is related to this role so it can't be considered independent. (t · c) buidhe 03:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES, general officers are generally considered notable. --John B123 (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. A non-independent source would be one produced by him, not by the US Government or Stanford University. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete fails WP:BASIC. General officers are not presumed to be notable. The sources are largely primary. Mztourist (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is mentioned in two 2010 books on 2nd Iraq War history [1]. Additional citations are difficult to find for a staff officer whose output is largely classified. – Maliepa (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. The two books and the newspaper article look like just about enough to pass WP:GNG. Article has been improved following a PROD and again after nomination for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High-ranking officer who served in important roles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Case of the Dirty Bird[edit]

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

Nominating entire Culpepper series. Fail GNG and NBOOK. None have reviews in RS, or otherwise have in-depth (or any) coverage in RS. Author appears notable, but someone took this to mean all of his books needed articles. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, these sub-stubs should all be merged; however I don't see enough coverage for even one article on the series. Not sure if these should redirect to the author or be deleted, so no !vote. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Paulsen is definitely wikinotable having won the Margaret Edwards Award, and three of his novels being Newbery Medal honor books, but that doesn't mean that all of his 200+(?) books necessarily warrent standalone articles, anyway, have not been able to find many reviews of any of the culpepper adventures series of 30 books, The Case of the Dirty Bird has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly here, and Booklist here, Culpepper's Cannon reviewed by School Library Journal here, so even an article on the series doesnt look promising, if there was a "List of Gary Paulsen works" article "redirects" there might be ok but there isnt. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The School Library Journal review (mentioned above) covers the Case of the Dirty Bird, Culpepper's Cannon, and Dunc's Doll all together. On the Internet Archive, I found 4 sources about the Culpepper Adventures as a series, each a paragraph long: [20][21][22][23] I also found one very short newspaper article about the series[24] and a passing mention that it was planned to be turned into a tv series (which is either incorrect or didn't seem to have happened).[25] I've seen other mentions of the books, but many aren't substantial (just passing), and/or are just in terms of giving an overview of Gary Paulsen's written works.

I don't think the individual books are independently notable, based on the sources, and I haven't had time to look at all the sources in depth. But with the sources above, I'm leaning more towards the pages being merged into a single series page, Culpepper Adventures (or something similar), with the individual book articles redirected. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:58, 28 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. Claims that sourcing meets WP:NCORP to establish notability are not particularly convincing. Consensus seems to be that this is a run-of-the-mill group of car dealerships with no particular claims to notability. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hudson Automotive Group[edit]

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

Promotional article, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed that the article needs rewriting to sound less promotional, but there is already WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG and a quick Google reveals more coverage not yet cited here. NemesisAT (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to look at WP:NCORP, not GNG. Also "coverage" doesn't make an organization notable. Can you post a link to a decent reference that meets NCORP here? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage lacks depth to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have improved article, removed promotional and un-sourced content and added some new sources. Here are in-depth articles: [26], [27], [28], [29]. I added more, but they are not as in-debth. However, overall this company have many more news in Google news and meets WP:NCORP. Above voters and nominator HighKing, MrsSnoozyTurtle , Shellwood should revisit their votes.Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As explained above, this topic should satisfy WP:NCORP - and CORPDEPTH in particular and - it does not. The sources added here by Lesliechin1 do not satisfy notability criteria. The first two are routine information as delineated by COREDEPTH here. The third source appears to be about the owner of the company. Notability is not inherited and coverage must be about the company itself. I'm not sure the fourth source is actually in-depth coverage of the organization. It gives a brief overview of the company and that is about it. I think User:Lesliechin1 should probably stop advising other editors about their ivote. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trek Thunder Kelly[edit]

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

Does not appear to have been particularly notable. May have received a few mentions in national media, being used as an example of the type of “eccentric” individuals running long-shot/vanity candidacies in the 2003 CA gubernatorial recall, but that does not really demonstrate individual notability. SecretName101 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no indication that this artist is notable, the article "sourcing" is all external links that are 404's, or go to low quality sites (not reliable sources) that do not mention him (other than the one interview by his alma mater, which is a primary source therefore does not count towards notability). A search brought up blogs, user-submitted listings, social media, and PR-advertorials. Other than the fact that he has a cool name, I'm not finding that he passes WP:GNG for WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion. Netherzone (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is this eight minute LA Times video for starters. There are other mentions across books and newspapers, in addition to the coverage of the election. I would not say he meets any aspect of NARTIST, but a weak case can be made that he meets GNG. --- Possibly ☎ 19:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Possibly. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newsjack[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only trivial mentions in a few sources. One could maybe argue that the show meets WP:RPRGM simply because it was on BBC, however, the SNG states that "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone" and I would argue there are not enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I wouldn't be opposed to the show being merged into BBC Radio 4 Extra. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This certainly passes WP:RPRGM as a long-running BBC radio programme – there have been 24 seasons so far! It seems easy to find detailed coverage such as this and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:RPRGM is part of WP:Notability_(media) which is an essay, and an RFC proposing to elevate it to guideline is currently being opposed by 2-to-1.[30] I haven't evaluated this article for Notability, but a rationale of WP:RPRGM is dubious. Alsee (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'd prefer to see this rescued but I don't see how this passes GNG. Sources are mentions in passing or not independent. Ping me if any independent source is found that either provides in-depth coverage of at least one long paragraph (and that's stretching SIGCOV a lot); or that clearly says the program is cult/classic/significant/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BBC Radio 4 Extra#Programming. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:RPRGM with improvements in the article. SBKSPP (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A broadcast from a national radio station that has lasted over ten years. I believe this now passes WP:GNG thanks to the source provided by Andrew Davidson above, and others including this interview and this RadioTimes article. Several sources have been added to this article since nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Award-winning, long established, major national broadcaster, several hosts with major careers in British comedy. I'm surprised this was nominated for deletion. OsFish (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasco Dry Cleaners v Twycross[edit]

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

I can't find anything that suggests this is a notable case. It's from the second-tier South Africa Appellate Division. The case is not generally reported on; I found a law review article ([31]), an academic dissertation ([32]) and a blog entry ([33]); but none give any particular attention to the case, they're all just passing mentions. TJRC (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - I have no idea how to evaluate notability for legal cases, but it seems the case is at least well-cited in South African law journals: quite a number of references on Google Scholar. Suriname0 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All just string-cites, though, with the exception of this one, which only has a couple paragraphs. TJRC (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That Hutchison article seems pretty good! Definitely not a passing mention. One more article of that level of substance would lead me to vote Keep. Also, there may be more info in the Broomberg journal article, which is excerpted in the dissertation you linked above, but I don't have access to check its contents. Suriname0 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous Google Books hits indicating citation of the case in texts. Thousands of judicial cases are decided in any given jurisdiction every year. Very few end up being widely referenced in texts. BD2412 T 02:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/weak keep The characterisation of the Appellate Division as “second tier” in nom is inaccurate. It was, at the time, the apex court in South Africa and remained so for non-constitutional matters until 2013 when Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa was passed. I haven’t had a chance to further research the notability, and I would defer to others on that count at this point, however would suggest that the article be rewritten to make it more accessible to non-lawyers. Park3r (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with respect to it needing the re-write, although that's not what directly led me to bring it to AFD (I recognize that AFD is not for cleanup). It did indirectly lead me to AFD, in that my first impulse was to do exactly that rewrite (as I did on, for example, Giglio material when it was up for AFD). It was only when I dug in and tried to find sources -- and couldn't -- that suggests to me that it does not meet WP:GNG. TJRC (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep treated as an authority case in South African contract law with regard to simulated transactions.^[1]^[2]^[3] Quoted in apex court decisions outside South Africa more than 30 years later.^[4]

References

^ Sanders, AJGM; DUTKIEWICZ, ER; PATEL, CN; MAQUTU, WCM; HAYNES, CEP; MACHIKA, MRE; STOOP, BC; AMOAH, PKA; SIVUKU, ELM; NDULO, MUNA; DONOVAN, IAN; SMITH, PAUL (1979). "Current legal developments". The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa. 12 (2): 231. ISSN 0010-4051.
^ Hutchinson, A; Hutchinson, D (2014). "Simulated transactions and the fraus legis doctrine". South African Law Journal. 131 (1): 69–87.
^ Olivier, Lynette (1997). "SALE AND LEASEBACK". DE REBUS. It is settled law that if this form of delivery is the only way in which ownership can be transferred, suspicion arises (Vasco Dry Cleaners v Twycross 1979 (I) SA 603 (A) 6IOF-H)
^ "Philip Fanelo Dlamini v. Frederick Hawley t/a Penrose (1494/2011) [2014] SZHC54" (PDF). High Court of Swaziland. 3 April 2014.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. P. Asharafali[edit]

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

Article about a Youth Leader who fails WP:SIGCOV Slovenichibo (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Slovenichibo (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Slovenichibo (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Slovenichibo (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The majority sources are about some events. The person has not recieved enough coverage. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The amount and quality of English sources is disputable but nevertheless he seems to be a well known person in his region.Tec Tom (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Crook[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG Tulkijasi (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. GSS ^💬 17:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is sufficient coverage of sources.You can look at songs on Spotify credits Urboysummy (talk) 14:36, 05 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify credits are not acceptable sources, they are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES which would be WP:OR to use. Also, this is your first edit in five months, discussing an article you've never edited. It might seem strange to some. Geschichte (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange indeed. Urboysummy is now blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Mike Crook is a well known producer and he produced one of Doja Cats biggest songs nikeboy16 (talk) 18:44, 05 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of Urboysummy. ✗plicit 03:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. the producer mike crook took the rapper Blueface to another level by giving him platinum records such as Daddy and Bleed It, and has been shaping the west coast even doing one of Doja Cats biggest records madman202020 (talk) 19:25, 08 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of Urboysummy. ✗plicit 03:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS coverage whatsoever, fails WP:MUSIC as well. It should be noted that the past two keep votes both appear to be single-purpose accounts. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges and universities in American Samoa[edit]

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

There is exactly one real life accredited institution in American Samoa, the American Samoa Community College. A list should at the very least have more than one entry in it. Admittedly there's a fictional "University of American Samoa" that is briefly mentioned in the Breaking Bad universe but it isn't a real school. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

We need this template to stay complete, can't have one thing missing from it. Dream Focus 01:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just make it a redirect to Lists of universities and colleges by country#Polynesia. That way you keep the bluelink without the single entry list. Ajf773 (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe Lists of American universities and colleges#Insular areas. Ajf773 (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, just have the template link to American Samoa Community College though. Dream Focus 12:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A "list" with a single entry is not a list. Lists need multiple entries. The notion that the "completeness" of some template requires keeping this list is without merit. Just remove American Samoa from the template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete American Samoa Community College specifically says that it is the only institute of higher education in the territory. Essentially like WP:SMALLCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The template could just point to the community college, but remain pipelined as "American Samoa". The same situation/solution (with the template) seems to apply to the Northern Marianas (currently ~~wrongly~~ linked to Education in the Northern Mariana Islands, ~~which doesn't mention the only college I could find~~) and Northern Marianas College. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single article in a list isn't really a list and it doesn't look like there's any way to expand it since there's only one university in American Samoa. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not really a list when it has only one entry. --MuZemike 15:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While there appears to be some agreement that the content should be merged back to the parent article, there isn't sufficient consensus here to do that immediately. If desired, a proper merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners of the Revolt[edit]

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

The article refers, in general, to people who have been kept in prison for a longer-than-usual time because of presumed crimes during the 2019-2021 Chilean protests. I don't believe there should be a separate article when the topic can be summarized in the protests articles (because... they may have been detained because of their participation in these protests, in the first place). Subject is not notable enough to merit an article for itself. It should be merged into the article on the protests. Kuatrero (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also up for deletion is Anti-Barricade Law under the same grounds. Kuatrero (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is not taking a stance if they may or may not be or done X thing. The article discusses a topic that originated with the 2019-2021 Chilean protests but has now transcended it and has become a political topic in Chile in its own right. The fact that a large number of Chilean politicians, the President of the Constitutional Convention Elisa Loncón and media such as Emol, El Mostrador, Radio Bío-Bío and Radio Universidad de Chile have discussed it clearly points that this is a topic of interest in the present-day national debate in Chile, not something that has practically ended like the 2019-2021 Chilean protests. Its also worth noting that there is a number of 2090 Chilean protest-related topics that have their own articles such as Primera Línea, October 2019 Chilean protest march, Anti-Barricade Law etc. Merging them into 2019-2021 Chilean protests would clearly make the article unmanageable. Also, be aware that Kuatrero attempted to delete the content[34] without any previous discussion and not merge as he is claiming now. Kuatrero should clarify his stance. Dentren | ^Talk 06:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They refer to the detainees at the protests as "prisoners of the revolt", but that doesn't make them a topic that deserves an article in their own right. They can still be described in the protests article. Regarding your last comment, yes, I attempted to redirect the article because I don't think it merits to exist. In fact, it only summarizes some comments related to the "prisoners of the revolt" without actually describing in extent who are these "prisoners of the revolt", which should be the main topic (?). I do not oppose having information about this topic, but where it belongs: the protests' article. Please note that Dentren is the article creator. --Kuatrero (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree~~, by the same reason Kuatrero said before. Also, as "Prisioners of the Revolt" is a name that's used by a specific political group to express a specific political opinion over this theme, I think we should add the information in the protest's article under a more neutral name (e.g., "Controversy about alleged political prisioners"). Regards, James2813 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still should be merged into the protests' article. I agree calling them "prisoners of the revolt" (being myself a left-winger) is biased and should not be used while purposing it to be neutral, when it's not. --Kuatrero (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending to delete this article because it is not neutral would be like deleting Neoliberalism because it is not a fully neutral term (market liberals and much of the Worldwide right reject the label "neoliberal"). It makes no sense to adduce to a non-neutrality of the term when there is no alternative concept and the term is already in wide circulation among mass media. Let me remind you all that the common Spanish name for the 2019–2021 Chilean protests, Estallido Social was also originally "left-wing" and just like Presos de la Revuelta it diffused becoming the standard term. At the end of the day widespread use triumphs non-neutral origin (WP:Non-neutral but common names). Dentren | ^Talk 06:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dentren, respectfully, you're missing the point. Not only it's article is non neutral and biased, it's subject is also non notable enough to merit a separate article. Merge. Kuatrero (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the use of the term in mass media is always linked to a so-called by the List of the People or similar acclaration. The sole use of this name as common denotes a political position. Also, I would like to clarify that I got confused: I agree with the deletion of the article, not of the content. As so, Merge. James2813 (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and Anti-Barricade Law into 2019-2021 Chilean protests, I guess. Article also seems pretty slanted against the Chilean government, though I don't know much about the politics there to know whether that's a good thing to me or not; regardless, that's POV. If this doesn't get merged, Anti-Barricade Law definitely should, since it's two lines. AdoTang (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Delete. Rename article to "Prisoners of the 2019–2020 Chilean protests". Dentren's argument makes more sense as the scope of the "prisoners of the revolt" extends beyond the protests, but I would recommend a renaming of the article to more clearly identify what it is about. Deleting or merging and summarizing this well-referenced encyclopedic article into the main protests article seems like an attempt at censorship based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so word of caution to the wise.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 04:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The topic is clearly relevant, being one of the first topics discussed by the Constitutional Convention. It is a controversy developing in Chile and has its own merit to be an article separated from the protests. However, I think it probably should be extended to cover the different allegations of human rights violations during the protests. After all, if the prisoners are political prisoners (or not) is a controversy of human rights. -B1mbo (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I believe that separate articles are unnecessary. While the information in the Anti-Barricade Law and Prisoners of the Revolt articles is useful, this information can easily be included in the 2019-2021 Chilean protests article. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Anti-Barricade Law is to be considered for a merge, it should be into Penal Code of Chile, as the law has despite its origin an existence separate to the 2019 protests. As the article states the Anti-Barricade Law has been discussed in the light of subsequent protests such as the truck driver's strike of August 2020 which has not much to do with the 2019 protests. Dentren | ^Talk 11:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is more logical. Thank you. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dentren, MarshalN20 and B1mbo. The 14 inline cites appended to the article confirm its positioning as a stand-alone entry, instead of being subsumed into the 100,242-byte entry for 2019–2021 Chilean protests. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Painful World Spikes Kaizo[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. With nary a single reliable source, it doesn't warrant mention in List of unofficial Sonic media either. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 01:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails the WP:GNG with zero third party reliable sources to be found. (The article originally claimed to have commentary from IGN, but it was a fake source linking to hacking website.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now warned the editor, as I spot-checked a number of sources, and they did not verify the prose they added. I try to assume good faith, but I find it hard to believe so many bad mistakes and misrepresentations were made in succession. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was about to nom this myself. Seems to be a self-promotional article. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not covered to any significant degree by reliable sources TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Absolutely no notability, all sources are primary. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fangame and the article looks like some kind of advertising. Wario-Man ^talk 07:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication from any sources that it has any kind of following or notoriety within Sonic fandom. Haleth (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob P. King[edit]

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

Almost all the references are to his own publications. Is he notable? Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did not have any luck finding anything at all on this photographer, except when I searched by "Robert P. King" I found two links to two photo credits with the Duluth newspaper. No exhibition history or collections or publications about him and his work. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's a freelance astronomy writer for Duluth News Tribune and other Astronomy sites under the name Astrobob. His book was reviewed by Emily Lakdawalla [35]. If you read astronomy news online anywhere, he's got to easily be one of the top-10 regular writers of new articles you'll find on visual astronomy and other astronomy news. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For living people we need some external references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary source of personal information for Bob used in the bio was from this interview [36]. I'll see what other independent sources I can find. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, Reliable source coverage is available like [37], [38] and[39] etc to qualify the subject for WP:GNG. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- JaredDaEconomist, is that second link correct? I get a splash page for what looks an Astronomy blog, but there is no mention of him. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: From the discussion I saw at least one confirmable reliable source with significant coverage. Relisting to see if there is more that can be surfaced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to try and reach consensus on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Other than the Mayfield review in the Duluth paper, I couldn't find any other strong reliable secondary sources. However, I think the smattering of coverage that does exist is probably sufficient. Here are the sources I found: a passing mention in the Star Tribune,^[1] a review of his book in Astronomy Now magazine (apparently),^[2] a short bio for an event at the Bell Museum (unclear independence),^[3] and some interviews with community radio stations.^[4]^[5]^[6] The Bell bio and the book review together seem like reasonable coverage, but additional evidence that this person has attracted interest beyond regionally is still missing. Suriname0 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further passing mention in a book:^[7] "American amateur astronomer and author Bob King, author of the widely read and respected “Astro Bob” blog ...". Suriname0 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.startribune.com/currents-bob-king-author-photographer-and-skywater/566350802/
^ https://twitter.com/Alpha_lyrae_uk/status/1053223681797881856
^ https://www.bellmuseum.umn.edu/event/swsp-2020-fri/
^ https://beta.prx.org/stories/192848
^ https://beta.prx.org/stories/373281
^ http://ampers.org/mn-art-culture-history/bob-king-astrobob-blogger-talks-junes-full-moon-spacex-launch-and-more/
^ https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-33855-2_8

Keep per Tom Ruen, JaredDaEconomist and Suriname0. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article does not state the importance of its subject.--Épine (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Épine, thanks for participating in the discussion! I agree the present article has some serious shortcomings (see WP:RUBBISH), but I'm wondering what you think of the notability of the subject independent from the current article content i.e. do they meet WP:GNG? Thanks, Suriname0 (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Cheng-Chi[edit]

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

Non-notable swimmer, fails WP:SPORTCRIT. News sources in Mandarin don't show significant coverage. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't easily search in Mandarin, but the article fails WP:GNG in English, so if it can't be remedied by other sources it should be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 08:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't speak Mandarin either (sadly) but via Google Translate I found [40], [41], [42] and quite a few other sources. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Berrely: 1 and 3 are primary news sources reporting on Cho's failure to qualify for the Olympics. They both only report his time and get a quote from him; the rest of both articles is about other swimmers. 2 goes a little more in-depth, but IMO ETToday's reliability is like mid/low. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Cho Cheng-chi - which shows him to be a four-time competitor at the FINA World Swimming Championships and a two-time competitor at the Asian Games. (Although he seems awfully young to have competed at the 2014 Worlds.) Therefore he meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further review of sourcing, with eye to achieving consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2021 Moghbazar explosion. No consensus to delete 2021 Moghbazar explosion (potentially due to the difficult nature in achieving consensus when lots of participants are talking about there being two separate articles). No prejudice towards an immediate renomination for 2021 Moghbazar explosion. Daniel (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moghbazar Blast 2021[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, fails WP:NOTNEWS. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating article on the same topic but under a different title, that I only now realise existed already:

2021 Moghbazar explosion

Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can see reports by India Today, Dhaka Tribune, The Independent, Al Jazeera and DW (and the unreliable Daily Star) on a glance. That's coverage widespread enough for me to say it passes WP:DIVERSITY. Further, with probe reports coming out in a week's time, I think that WP:PERSISTENCE may be met too. Java Hurricane 02:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That said, "Moghbazar Blast 2021" should be redirected to "2021 Moghbazar explosion". Java Hurricane 02:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I recommend to delete beacuse it is not useful and it is not necessary and in many countries this event were not heard by the people.(Fade258 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]
The same is true of many, if not most, events that otherwise would still pass NEVENT. Java Hurricane 13:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep per JavaHurricane —MdsShakil (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom fails WP:NEVENT. DJRSD (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DJRSD: try searching for "Moghbazar explosion" on Google once. Java Hurricane 10:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JavaHurricane, ThankYou and i tried to search on Google and found a duplicate article of "Moghbazar Blast 2021" on top, created by the same user. DJRSD (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per JavaHurricane. — Meghmollar2017 (U T C) — 12:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Moghbazar Blast 2021 , leaning delete for 2021 Moghbazar explosion We do not need two articles on this no matter what, and the first is poorly named and contains less info. As to the second, this is WP:NOTNEWS territory: it's typically impossible to know only a few days after an event like this whether it's going to have any lasting impact. This perhaps stands a somewhat higher chance of long term notice, but I'm still dubious. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- To clarify, of course it received coverage when it first happened; it was a blast of unknown origin that killed people. But as soon as foul play was ruled out, it is just another tragic accident in a third world country which will have no lasting impact, no lasting interest, no sustained coverage.
We can discuss the notability of the topic without worrying about individual articles. If it's a keep, they will be merged, so AFD doesn't need to choose one. If it's a delete, both will be deleted. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. They illustrate why we shouldn't rush to create articles based on breaking news. It's too early to tell whether the gas explosion will have enduring historical significance or a significant lasting effect, but based on similar past events it seems unlikely. The explosion had narrow geographic impact. It has been widely reported in national sources, and to a lesser degree in international ones, but with little or no analysis. It's too early to tell whether the explosion will receive further coverage. At present it does not meet WP:NEVENTS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. If editors want to write about the explosion, they are welcome to rework the text for Wikinews, with a soft redirect from Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JavaHurricane. ~Yahya (✉)
Merge OR delete the article 2021 Moghbazar explosion talks about the exact same topic, and the event isn't big enough to have seperate articles of the same thing, therefore I think that this and the other article should be merged, if this isn't possible then I would suggest deleting both. RandomEditorAAA (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 09:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Telegram Open Network. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Network[edit]

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

The article fails to comply with WP:RS. It only links to Pavel Durov's blog post, the white paper by Nikolai Durov, and some random Telegram channel.

I'm also concerned that it may be a promotion of the NewTON that mimics another TON-based blockchain project (that actually got covered in mainstream media).

This article should rather be redirected to a more detailed Telegram Open Network article. Myuno (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Myuno (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tiny notice to make the last statement clear. As stated in the white papers, "The Open Network" is the other name of "Telegram Open Network" (not a separate blockchain project). Myuno (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

The claims to the article from the user Myuno are not substantiated.

Most of the information in the article is based on an article from Pavel Durov's Telegram channel (1.6 million views) and on the technical documents from Nikolai Durov posted on https://ton.org. In my opinion, these are very good sources.

There should be different articles about Telegram Open Network and The Open Network because they are different projects. Telegram Open Network is a project that was developed by the Telegram team and Telegram was forced to close TON due to pressure from the SEC. You can look at the technical papers (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) and see that the name «Telegram Open Network» is used everywhere, and «The Open Network» is not used.

I think that this article will have a very high public importance in the near future, because quite recently the Telegram team, in response to an open letter, agreed to transfer the domain https://ton.org and the account https://github.com/ton-blockchain to the open-source community (The Open Network project).

I think that the article should be kept.

Mourrit (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources you provided are related to the subject, meaning they are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. Do you have any sources that meet the requirements of WP:GNG? (independent, reliable, and significant) Jumpytoo Talk 22:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I have provided above are independent, reliable, and significant. Regarding independence, the open-source community project «The Open Network» has nothing to do with Telegram. Mourrit (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mourrit your statement about the name is incorrect. Check the Telegram Open Network (TON) ICO Whitepaper, pages 3 and 19. Given that, the separate article is almost certainly unnecessary, and the information based on reliable sources can be added to the relevant section of the article with a more recognizable name. Myuno (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The document provided by Myuno is not an official document of the «Telegram Open Network» project and was made by third parties. Please do not mislead us by referring to documents from third parties. Mourrit (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote: "TNW has been able to confirm the authenticity of the white paper leaked by Cryptovest with an independent source". Myuno (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very dubious confirmation of authenticity. Mourrit (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is that cryptocurrency news outlets and blogs seem to be considered non-reliable. That means that the claims for notability should be supported by publications in mainstream media. Myuno (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Telegram Open Network - the The Open Network project is absolutely a continuation of this project. There are not two separate projects. There is nothing to be gained by having two pages, and it will likely cause confusion. If the new development becomes more notable then that page may renaming to The Open Network. Pavel Durov per this claims Telegram was forced to stop. But then there is the fact the name change and Telegram stepping back was planned in 2018, see. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

«Telegram Open Network» and «The Open Network» are two different projects, like BSD and FreeBSD. If the articles «Telegram Open Network» and «The Open Network» will be combined, then people will think that this is the same project and this will obfuscate them. Many inexperienced people will think that «The Open Network» is a Telegram project and will invest their money in it.

Plus you are linking to an article that is based on an unconfirmed document.

Mourrit (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, The Open and Telegram Open haven't got a separate history or enough separate information to make two separate articles useful. One is simply a continuation of the other. If the Telegram Open page is renamed The Open page this might better reflect the current situation. With BSD and FreeBSD both projects ran concurrently, have substantial separate history and are highly notable - see BSD timeline . Also, consider the example of Gill, Sodipodi and Inkscape drawing programs. Sodipodi and Inkscape have there own pages as there is enough separate info. However, Gill doesn't have a separate page from Sodipodi; just a mention in the development. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Telegram Open Network: Per reasons above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Classic catch-22 situation. -Hatchens (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: please expand on how this issue is a Catch-22 situation. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think I have worked out what is going on, after searching "The Open Network" and "Free TON". There are two projects continuing Telegram TON, Free TON and TON Foundation (aka Newton). This page mainly deals with "TON Foundation" where as "Free TON" only is mentioned on Telegram TON page. I've edited page to reflect this. Merge still stands, both Free TON and TON Foundation should be on Telegram page for now. ref Jonpatterns (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.facebook.com/SolaceCSLtd/photos/basw.Abq1JFTDpF0rLj2UmoJA0z7YPsZ1CAERZf3m0pS6Srf6pKKPAg9RtmuJ3aCNUvFdDYCIxcOrovHO39XPT1khZWdTN2_DMjySXIH-eC0Yp781exkVxNfr20temxGfSV9uVco2_hdhkZpK0Yw3Lkg_Ttq8bM_9oen8Qj1389WfgCTm7Q/3286732584672343/?opaqueCursor=Abr2inaIEKDFEqiRYLthBj6bCsKa7wYp97aj-2gjKUjKcPa2im2zxUJP9EGPBp52BiMgro--wvb0EsjLzmhpxjiXTZyRyq6zO4crE-4ZVyhhjZLksBrsxs_vzKZW5ji-P-ePEHTt9_WJVTUQ9XjZv19piQ9xi5JeForqP9zZdrgb_QvFkzjjBz8GnDwKXVXuC0inSjgpx5e8MDHf8_PuGqWdJaWHLkrO7llmd_7N1Frtcqsw6Fep7EvaqbNtQxByeHTTs0k52BdPHToq7B70grv23k7fMpfvE09ghedR_l8Uwwxk6-U2FDT1As-rKi7YajOKkV3L9NpdipNgqVLz6taMIyQbyd-r3UXAJa9puwt8bQrXYH1-WNLP2ZpnO8kf4OhVMJA4bibyRqY19sUcTLquFgY9hiXRC0zk-Al1rAeEGvjX6KS3h0avCZ-VhaKkkOlEvOtZtXbL8CoENkmAyTJJoGR5YHUR1qsfKK30tM3CNd6D1uFoJia2WBTc0epWKcBj9tkQk_aqP86wbYCiF8gHg3JEDVsqfMmwL5fNIrUf1ON_tQTji9FN91_i6KMZDl0VrDg3EwLQToyGuFwqPnacN4sBwBwu1q8z9LjdGJpDVw

[2] ttps://www.facebook.com/aspirecsswirral/photos/basw.Abq2OO7x-uNk7i_Y8qN0S_AagEQ9X2NvTMDHd0P-uzE1-KnOkvfGO49yByInm0DNVkx3mG6zeaJ6psk2U-59aQpNhXvA9wfV54fkfpz-Uz3-yFrfVgRDUSFAzH8ngVV11M327xcDzpRcDCSxQwAaRHC5JlpZQ44p1Q54IP1EGksAoQ/1637672086411343/?opaqueCursor=AbotLEYR8BQDXLqBxv4X2BruRSwFSlAACZZKe5OcBrIqipukHY6llg-hgF46v2mtK3np5LIltfuJpFiF8mrwQSvUrIly7g1a7vM32IAKHRX1AdM-zY5dnj_CVwS0h-LRdrvBOAPyPj7a0h9nVdzyZHLOQ75AbnfjqeWp8fLEX_CpJT-2KpHw8d89oea6fsp9uzYJpBVL62siJ6NmPdJ_KrC6-0kBh-kIcPrEniUKz5sp35G-SNljXU99qpwJ8u1ZbBHerwx7pXfcl29ffrFtF0Xmh6BwExiQSS_FZ8xkrLPdRvycYDPHdiFyX_x6itmSOdaA6fwh52i4iHm-fP7EWTOUzgx_PIWWuWtkk8E8fXvUAH4KBvnVb1vP9WAKf4nJWSEoJ2VeK8YdgPC0XvM0ciE4gHZXR0DPFkJtGkoCOqCkZE-NZjopMiVsPQOJThaQyyzEPq-T58QUwaIMDtLqDqFO1A779oMtkVHiIQogyZQKXjwV03Wu9GHQzkmy3rxlgF3mk81ZxM324t0cnBJOtb2InyoxxK3lx74vRPORaweIvE3gAKCIwQkCjcevxBBRFp8

[3] Sanders, AJGM; DUTKIEWICZ, ER; PATEL, CN; MAQUTU, WCM; HAYNES, CEP; MACHIKA, MRE; STOOP, BC; AMOAH, PKA; SIVUKU, ELM; NDULO, MUNA; DONOVAN, IAN; SMITH, PAUL (1979). "Current legal developments". The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa. 12 (2): 231. ISSN 0010-4051.

[4] Hutchinson, A; Hutchinson, D (2014). "Simulated transactions and the fraus legis doctrine". South African Law Journal. 131 (1): 69–87.

[5] Olivier, Lynette (1997). "SALE AND LEASEBACK". DE REBUS. It is settled law that if this form of delivery is the only way in which ownership can be transferred, suspicion arises (Vasco Dry Cleaners v Twycross 1979 (I) SA 603 (A) 6IOF-H)

[6] "Philip Fanelo Dlamini v. Frederick Hawley t/a Penrose (1494/2011) [2014] SZHC54" (PDF). High Court of Swaziland. 3 April 2014.

[7] ttps://www.startribune.com/currents-bob-king-author-photographer-and-skywater/566350802/

[8] ttps://twitter.com/Alpha_lyrae_uk/status/1053223681797881856

[9] ttps://www.bellmuseum.umn.edu/event/swsp-2020-fri/

[10] ttps://beta.prx.org/stories/192848

[11] ttps://beta.prx.org/stories/373281

[12] ttp://ampers.org/mn-art-culture-history/bob-king-astrobob-blogger-talks-junes-full-moon-spacex-launch-and-more/

[13] ttps://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-33855-2_8

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

v t e Lists of American universities and colleges
States	Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Federal district	Washington, D.C.
Territories	American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands
By type	Community Dental Historically black Law Medical Men's Military Defunct Liberal arts Online Research universities Vocational Women's
By measure	Alphabetical index Endowment Enrollment Public Undergraduate