Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 06	July 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stojan Krstić[edit]

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

Non notable soldier. PROD removed with " there's enough potential notability here to mean that this shouldn't be deleted without discussion" However, none have been added or found. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even taking into account the difficulty of Google Books searches when the name is probably rendered in Cyrillic in most cases (Стојан Крстић), this guy fails GNG. Not even mentioned in passing in Jozo Tomasevich's seminal 1975 work on the WWII Chetniks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfilfilled potential. I see that the Prop was made and removed in 2007. Since when nothing has been added to the article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Basic, possible there is notability, but as it now stands, I was unable to easily find any sources and there is no substance to the article. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Oba Thaniwela[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM, lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The Films.lk is just a listing/credits for the film nothing else. I have searched through most Sinhalese sources and can't really find much more on the film. Dan arndt (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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) 23:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John McIlwain[edit]

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

Poorly sourced; unclear notability. PROD removed in 2008 as "sources probably available for notability". Sources added since then do not establish notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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) 23:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SSPX Resistance[edit]

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

From what I see, there is only one secondary source which mentions - only very vaguely - this movement, and only one part of it, Bp Williamson. The other secondary source does not mention the topic. The other sources are an unrelated note from the Secretary of State from Vatican.va, loosely related DICI articles, primary sources from websites the contributors to the article consider as part of the FSSPX Resistance (mainly the newsletter (?) of Bp. Williamson, Eleison Comments), and forum posts (Cathinfo, christusvincit.clicforum.com). I believe this article is a very nice work for a blog post or a page on a Wordpress website - I salute the hard work of research the various contributors have put into it! -, but that it does not have its place on Wikipedia. I believe so, because no secondary RS talks directly about this movement - which is already a very strong argument for deletion -, and that therefore there is no way to reliably define the scope of the article and which groups are part of this movement. Veverve (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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) 23:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NASA eClips[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The longest mention in any news source is an Atlantic piece that dedicates less than 100 words to the subject, which includes WP:INTERVIEW content. The only book I found that had more than a trivial mention of the podcast was published by NASA and NASA is also listed as a contributor. The show might qualify for WP:WEBCRIT due to the emmy, but the SNG also states that "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying web content about which Wikipedia should probably have an article. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website." TipsyElephant (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L-Bank[edit]

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

No significant coverage; only sources in this article are primary. Fails WP:GNG. Redirection to Landesbank Baden-Württemberg not plausible as there is no evidence that this is the same financial institution. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible translation, no proper sourcing currently. TNT. But a Google news search quickly turns up lots of RS like [1], [2], [3] , [4]. Clear pass of WP:GNG. Whatever happens, do not redirect to the completely different Landesbank Baden-Württemberg. —Kusma (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:BLP. If anyone wants to take on the task of moving this article to a new home and then reformatting the content to cover the event, not the person, contact me on my talk page and I will undelete, draftify and blank so that can be worked on. But for now, we can't let this sit in articlespace in the hope that this will eventually happen. Daniel (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Hamilton[edit]

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

Local level politician who does not meet Wikipedia:Politician Mpen320 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 06:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 06:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being chair of the board of a community college is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, but the article is not making a particularly strong case that she could be seen as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of significance. On a check of the footnotes, I'm seeing a considerable number of primary sources and/or blogs that are not support for notability at all, as well as a considerable number of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people — there are very few footnotes that are actually contributing toward getting her over WP:GNG by being substantively about her, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is really an article about the controversy about the administration and funding of the College of DuPage that has been shoe-horned into a biography format. That controversy does seem to be notable, based on the newspaper reports, but I'm not sure whether it would be better for it to have a stand-alone article or to be merged into College of DuPage? Furius (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, this seems like a WP:BIO1E violation. I agree with Furius that this should probably be about the DuPage trustee controversy, although I do think the coverage of Kathy Hamilton is sufficient to meet GNG. Most likely a new article should be created about the controversy and this should be a Merge and Redirect situation. Strange that the College of DuPage article doesn't mention Kathy Hamilton, and has much less discussion of the controversy in general. Suriname0 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being chair of the board of a community college never is a sign of notability. She may merit passing mention on the page on the community college, but does not merit her own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan M. Ferguson[edit]

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

Not notable KnightMight (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KnightMight (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? Superficially it appears to be well, or at least amply, referenced. Do these sources fail to support the content? Does the content fail to support the notability of the subject? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mutt Lunker: although there are a large number of citations, many of them say nothing more than "video directed by Bryan M. Ferguson" or do not mention the subject at all. I believe the nominator thinks that there is a lack of reliable in-depth coverage. More than one editor has expressed concerns over possible COI issues with this article. Richard3120 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's the kind of steer required. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...though where have the COI concerns been expressed? There's nothing on the talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sludgepop They're on the article creator's talk page CiphriusKane (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James More[edit]

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

Questionable notability for a biographical article, thus could possibly contravene criteria for WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There are only two citations - one that no longer exists, the other being a YouTube clip that would possibly be a primary source - which don't cover all the information given. This is practically a stub that has not been expanded or improved upon, and as such is now mostly a stale biographical article. GUtt01 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any working links to reliable sources. We have one non-working link, that might not have been reliable or indepdent anyway, a link to youtube which is not reliable and a link to his website that is not indepdent. This is not at all the level of coverage we need to show that anyone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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) 23:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Schroer[edit]

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

This article should be a redirect to The Caledonia Soul Orchestra per WP:BANDMEMBER. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no significant coverage of the artist on their own. There are lots of sources where the artist is mentioned briefly in context of Van Morrison's band, but no coverage where the artist himself is the main subject, or his career is discussed or analyzed in detail or length. For those reviewing the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music), please remember that while a band may be clearly notable for charting, that doesn't extend to individual musician members of the band unless they are themselves the main subject of sources. Hence why we redirect band members to articles on the band.4meter4 (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some references to the article, but I agree that they are mostly general in nature, and that a redirect to Caldeonia Soul Orchestra is justified. I am surprised that I could not easily find sources that discuss Schroer’s sax solo on “Moondance”. Thank you. Design (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was surprised myself that there wasn’t more out there. This is one of those cases where someone should have sources, but for whatever reason, writers on music just dropped the ball and overlooked them. I can’t find an obituary which is a shame.4meter4 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emrah Gultekin[edit]

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

Apparently promotional bio written in non-Wikipedia style by SPA. No evidence of notability as a businessman or under WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE shows no coverage except company funding news and press releases. I would have PRODed this, but it was PRODed soon after creation. David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely unsourced BLP. None of the external links are usable as reliable sources either. Curbon7 (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Matthew 25: Ministries. Daniel (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Mettey[edit]

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

Advert created by a sleeper UPE account (actually predates our UPE policy improvements) to advertise their boss; prior editing was to advertise their boss' operation. Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this article was written according to Wikipedia policies and general notability guidelines.(Fade258 (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Matthew 25: Ministries: The sources touch more on the company itself than on the subject. A redirect is probably the best option here. Curbon7 (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It has been demonstrated by those taking part in the AfD that there is not sufficient reliable sources to enable the current article to remain at this present time. That is a situation that is likely to change in the future and when reliable sources exist, I have no issue with the article being recreated (I explicitly permit this to occur). Nick (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Krishna Bhakto Meera[edit]

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

Notability not established for this television show that has not aired- sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple trailer released on TV ; See [5] and [6] are promos that were telecasted on Star Jalsha in April 2021 and available on YouTube; passes WP:NTV where it specifically mentioned Care must also be taken with projects that have been announced to series and started filming; 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic saw the unexpected start of the "un-renewal" concept, where a series confirmed to launch or being renewed is instead cancelled by the network or streamer for economic reasons. It also has WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS like Hindustan Times, Sangbad Pratidin and others. The delay of launch date was only due to localized COVID-19 lockdown in West Bengal^[1]^[2] which is partially lifted now^[3] and scheduled to broadcast from July 2021. Also fails WP:TOOSOON criteria and inappropriate to WP:DRAFTIFY. The nominator has missed WP:BEFORE. Run n Fly (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those links to trailers are not WP:RS, therefore I dispute the comment that WP:BEFORE was missed. Delays to the airing date are separate to the issue that notability is not established by independent sources.

It is great to hear that the COVID-19 lockdown has partially lifted now, I hope the situation continues to improve. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again the nominator has got it wrong. I never said about the trailers as WP:RS. I said that the references used in the article like Hindustan Times (Bengali edition), Sangbad Pratidin, Anandabazar Patrika, Aaj Tak (Bengali edition) and others are well established WP:RS and have WP:SIGCOV. Also, the article was reviewed by Onel5969 as it passes WP:TVSERIES and WP:GNG. The shooting of the new TV shows including Shree Krishna Bhakto Meera^[4]^[5]^[6] has resumed now.^[7]^[8] Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Run n Fly, actually that's not why I marked it "reviewed", it's simply marked reviewed to take it off the NPP backlog, as the decision of the AfD will decide whether it passes notability requirements. I actually have no opinion on the article, but if I was to vote I would vote to draftify. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify would simply lead to nothing as I see that the creator of the article is blocked for sockpuppetry. Run n Fly (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Film, television shoots put on hold in West Bengal due to strict 15-day lockdown in state - Entertainment News". Firstpost. 2021-05-16.
^ "Covid লকডাউনে বন্ধ হওয়ার পথে জনপ্রিয় Bengali Serials!". EI Samay (in Bengali). 26 May 2021.
^ Dasgupta, Priyanka (18 June 2021). "West Bengal: Row resolved, serial shoots to return to normal from Friday | Kolkata News - Times of India". The Times of India.
^ Dasgupta, Priyanka (30 June 2021). "Row over for now, shooting of new Bengali serials from today | Kolkata News - Times of India". The Times of India.
^ চৌধুরী, সৌমিতা (29 June 2021). "Television Shooting: অবশেষে জট কাটল বৈঠকে! বুধবার থেকে শ্যুটিং শুরু নতুন ধারাবাহিকগুলির". Aaj Tak বাংলা (in Bengali).
^ Samadder, Tulika (2021-06-29). "হাঁফ ছাড়ল টলিউড! বুধবার থেকে বিনা বাধায় শ্যুটিং হবে নতুন ও পুরনো ধারাবাহিকের". Hindustan Times Bangla (in Bengali).
^ সংবাদদাতা, নিজস্ব (29 June 2021). "Shooting: জট কাটল বৈঠকে, টালিগঞ্জে ধারাবাহিকের শ্যুটিং শুরু হয়ে যাচ্ছে বুধবার থেকে". www.anandabazar.com (in Bengali). Anandabazar Patrika.
^ "Shooting for new Bengali TV shows to start tomorrow - Times of India". The Times of India. 29 June 2021.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:11, 30 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) 20:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity The subject should be move in to the draft space, as the trailer has been released. When the show will be released then only the draft should move into the article space. Bapinghosh (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bapinghosh, The creator of the article is blocked. The show is scheduled to be start later this month. Thus, drafity is a very weak option now. There are numerous TV shows and films that are scheduled to release this year per WP:NFF says Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. Also, it passes WP:TVSERIES with WP:SIGCOV. Run n Fly (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I think WP:SIGCOV, WP:NTV can override/take precedence over WP:DRAFTIFY here. Run n Fly (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Run n Fly: okey. Still draftify. After that when the show will air me or you or another editor will move it to the article space. As simple as that. Bapinghosh (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bapinghosh, But instead of WP:DRAFTIFY we can give the article a chance for a month to stay. Definitely the dates will be announced soon as the shooting is in full swing and as they did with Dhulokona announcement^[1]. I am not convinced to WP:DRAFTIFY only because specific date is not announced ignoring important requirements of article like WP:NTV and WP:SIGCOV being clearly fulfilled. Run n Fly (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Bapinghosh: Also WP:DRAFTIFY says clearly It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. It was already WP:DRAFTIFY once earlier once. Thus, repeated moving to and fro between main-space and draft-space creates confusion among WP:NPP patrollers. Many American TV shows whose dates are not announced have article in main-space. See List of 2021 American television debuts so same should be applicable for Indian TV shows as it satisfies WP:NTV. Thus, I find your point not convincing.Run n Fly (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Note: The schedule date before the lockdown was 24 May 2021 9:30 PM.^[2] So its anticipated to start by end of this month. Also, we can find more new news coverage of the show and its characters.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] Run n Fly (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS mentions Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias. Sometimes the nomination of one of a series of articles that have relatively equal merit would further the bias. I see this happening here. Also, see WP:BIAS that clearly says As a result of this systemic bias, some cultures, topics and perspectives tend to be underrepresented on Wikipedia applicable here Run n Fly (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCTest takes precedence over WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for me. Run n Fly (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mukherjee, Priyanka (10 July 2021). "'মিঠাই'কে টেক্কা দিতে 'বরণ'-এর জায়গা নিচ্ছে 'ধুলোকণা', শেষ হচ্ছে 'ওগো নিরুপমা'?". Hindustan Times Bangla (in Bengali).
^ "Sree Krishna Bhakto Meera Serial (Star Jalsha) 2021: Cast, Start Date, Story, Telecast Time, Real Name". Indian Talents. 5 May 2021. Retrieved 10 July 2021.
^ Majumder, Rahul (8 July 2021). "মাথা মুড়িয়ে 'খলনায়ক' হয়ে ছোটপর্দায় ফিরছেন ভাস্বর চট্টোপাধ্যায়". Hindustan Times Bangla (in Bengali).
^ Das, Sampita (8 July 2021). "ছোট পর্দায় ভৈরবনাথ হয়ে ফিরছেন ভাস্বর চট্টপাধ্যায়". EI Samay (in Bengali).
^ "ছোট পর্দায় আসছে নতুন সিরিয়াল শ্রীকৃষ্ণভক্ত মীরা, মীরাবাঈ-এর চরিত্রে কে? রইলো বিস্তারিত". BharatNews 24x7 (in Bengali). 16 April 2021.
^ Misra, Akash (8 July 2021). "ন্যাড়া মাথায় লম্বা টিকি! ভিলেন লুকে ছোটপর্দায় ফিরছেন ভাস্বর চট্টোপাধ্যায়". Sangbad Pratidin (in Bengali).

Keep agree with Run n Fly 2402:3A80:6D1:DFD2:FACA:E45A:38E:2E64 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through most of the sources and I'm not finding much reliable here.
- Times of India appears to be a press release/interview from text and by-line
- Ichorepaka.in - Also appears to be press release, no by-line, they attempt to write it like a journalistic article but it looks more like an attempt to namedrop as many people as possible -- also seems remarkably similar to this article from bongtrend, like it's a rehashed press release
- Aajtak - Obvs an interview
- Times of India 2 - Clearly a press release, no by-line and speaks in press release tone
- BanglaHunt - Has a by-line, but the article starts with "BanglaHunt Desk:" which usually indicates a press release and is remarkably non-critical in it's tone
- Anandabazar.com cites the subject's own words and his social media page, and not much else, so WP:PRIMARY
- Times of India 3 - Clearly an interview

So essentially we're looking at a whole bunch of WP:PRIMARY content here in my view. Thus, it's not yet notable in my view. It's WP:TOOSOON. Wait for real reviews of the actual show, not speculation and clear attempts at promotion and hype by the studio. Waggie (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The show will be telecasted from 26 July 2021 at 9:00 PM announced by Star Jalsha

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox (console) special limited editions[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as well as having a large chunk of it being WP:OR. More fitting to a fansite rather than an encyclopedia of general knowledge, with a great deal of it being trivial minutiae like how many were sold and what the price was. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of special editions being notable at all. Not enough reliable sources.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This sort of thing would be trimmed out of the main article for being unimportant cruft, let alone be split out into its own article. Too close to fansite material. Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sergecross73. Wouldn't have known to which policy to point, but now I do! I mean it's obvious that this can't be on Wikipedia, but it's good to know we have a policy for it specifically. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources discussing most of these. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 00:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The content of article is Fandom/Wikia material. Wario-Man ^talk 10:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox (console) modchips[edit]

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

Article appears to be largely original research or unreliable sources besides one sentence, and therefore fails WP:GNG. Probably interesting information to a hacker, but no context for why it would be important to a general reader, so it also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is almost entirely original research. Additionally, the few sources that exist seem to be primary sources. However, I don't believe that this is an appropriate use of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as the lede does establish the context. Curbon7 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reliable source whatsoever.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic of Xbox modding is arguably notable, but it can be covered adequately at Xbox modding. Don't need a separate article on just the chips. Do not redirect because it's an unlikely search term. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 00:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:CONTENTFORKING. We already have Xbox modding which can be expanded by sourced and notable content. Wario-Man ^talk 10:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agra (2007 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 20:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search of ("Agra" film 2007) returned nothing except the IMDb and a couple of sites to watch the film. No reliable sources exist. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no sources, no coverage, not at all notable. Ratnahastin(t.c) 03:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced and doesn't meet notability. Nitesh003 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agonia (2006 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage from reliable sources, fails GNG and NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and fails WP:NFILM Nitesh003 (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agni Pariksha (2006 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found a passing mention here, but nothing of substance. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftershock: Beyond the Civil War[edit]

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

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

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

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

Delete, fails NFILM and maybe GNG. I found no coverage outside of tv listings and databases entries like IMDb, as well as loads of passing mentions (which no matter how reliable the source is does not make an article). Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this fails WP:NFILM and possibly even WP:GNG. Pahiy (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FAILS WP:NFILM Nitesh003 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zaria Mimano[edit]

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

Seven of the eight references cited are unavailable for varying reasons, the eighth one includes the fact that she likes tall men who are more intelligent than her. Interesting for an Oil Magnate. The external link to her foundation isn't worth clicking if you need information about, sorry, ... her foundation. The original Author of this article has made one edit on this project. What exists to give her any notability at all?

She very well may exist, but this seems somehow odd. (in a sensible world I'd PROD, but you know. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oil businessman who has opened a foundation. Current references are primary and what is available looks like new PR for the foundation and interviews.Not a single secondary source. Not notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am also concerned about the state of this page. I made edits yesterday on 17:03, 7 July 2021‎ to attempt removing completely unsourced content and fluff that did not pertain at all to Mimano, such as nit-picky info on her oil business. I did not even look into all the sourcing so thank you User:Roxy the dog for looking through to vet those. 172.58.70.155 (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 18:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Sajan[edit]

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

Somewhat promotional, and I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject in a significant way. The sources provided in the article comprise two press releases and one short interview. Google search brings up much of the same: articles/interviews/"brand posts" with no byline and photos supplied by himself. ... discospinster _talk 16:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While the first comments supported merging or deleting, almost all comments after HumanxAnthro's policy based analysis of the sources were in favor of keeping, several of them referencing the analysis, making it a relatively clear keep. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Game & Watch[edit]

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

Article was created after it was rejected from AfC with the edit summary "send to AfD if you disagree", so I am nominating it for deletion as I still believe it fails WP:GNG. The reception section is filled with exceedingly WP:TRIVIAL mentions, and is the textbook definition of a WP:REFBOMB made to look impressive with little to no substance. Mr. Game & Watch was only made into a real character around the time of Smash Bros. and he was just a generic figure beforehand. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Game & Watch - Plausible search term, and there's probably like a paragraphs worth of noteworthy, sourced info. But the article is extremely bloated with pointless passing mentions to create the illusion of a reception section. Endless, vapid "(Website X) found him (one word descriptor)" type commentary. The "controversy" section is equally bloated. A tiny aspect of the character was seen vaguely offensive so they removed it". It needs a sentence at most at the respective Smash Bros article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge as per Sergecross73's suggestion. Pahiy (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems a lot of its content was used from my old draft when I was still new to Wikipedia, but that might be coincidence. Since my old draft was merged to Game & Watch based on memory I don't think there's much here that can be salvaged. Panini!^🥪 18:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note, if this stays, I'll do a fix up of it in August. There's a lot of room for improvement. Panini!^🥪 04:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Game & Watch#Mr. Game & Watch - Its definitely a useful search term, but there really is nothing here that isn't already covered properly on the main article, and I see no compelling reason for it to be WP:SPLIT to a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The most common concern here seems to be that the article is beyond stub-length only because it depends on mentions in sources mainly about other topics. Apart from the statement that they're just mentions, this is technically valid as a lot of the citations are sources about Smash Bros (the game itself and worst-to-best lists of all characters), but there are aspects of the available sources indicating non-trivial coverage and some independent notability, such as a Washington Post article mainly about the character, the incident of a notable Smash Bros. player getting hated for using such a despised character to obtain success, the character's rank on the UGO.com's listing of "50 Cutest Game Characters" (of all video games, and definitely not just of Super Smash Bros.) and the racism allegation controversy specifically directed at the character, which, whether you thought the problem wasn't that serious, got a serious online response and publication interest nonetheless.

Since trivial mentions are a frequent complaint here, I'll bring up this part of an essay (WP:AVOID) to remind people about the letter and spirit of WP:GNG: "On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." For instance, the UGO list, even though it's not mainly about the character, gives the character non-trivial coverage by calling it one of the cutest gaming characters and elaborating why.

To continue this in relation to the sources listing Smash Bros. characters, I'll admit to not being a fan of the repetitive sentence structure Sergecross73 brought up, but that is not an indication the coverage was trivial, and to be honest, it was quite loaded for Serge to call the coverage "pointless passing mentions". Lists like those from Polygon and Dan of Geek gave detailed elaborations for why they ranked Mr. Game and Watch where they were:

Den of Geek: "Mr. Game and Watch is to Nintendo icons what Bosko was to Looney Tunes. He’s such a delightful deep cut. It’s been eighteen years since his Smash debut and I’m still in awe over what a brilliant addition he was. In a game about mismatched properties and characters, nobody seems like more of an oddball than this janky gentleman. Yeah, he’s just an amalgam of Game and Watch figures and he has not actual backstory, but consider this: Smash is the only time anyone’s ever had actual fun playing an LCD game. That’s impressive."
Polygon, who ranked the character the worst of all Ultimate characters: "Mr. Game & Watch is a fun fighter with plenty of old-school personality, but he also has never appeared in a game outside of Smash Bros. He’s not a real classic character, merely an amalgam of our collective memory of the Game & Watch handhelds. What a sham!"

To be fair, the article's current state doesn't take advantage of these, and only short quotes are given, but that's the fault of article quality, not topic notability and the potential of this article's length being beyond stub-class.

Basically, I think the article fulfills well-enough (although not the best) the standards we all look for for an article to be kept: enough material to be beyond stub-length and aspects of coverage that give it independent notability. I'm not !voting Strong Keep, however, because he's only appeared in one game, and like others said, the cited sources are mainly about other topics. I'd also would clarify that I wouldn't use Screen Rant to determine a topic's notability, as Screen Rant's reliability has had a mixed reception from Wikipedia users, although there's no clear consensus on it as there is with sources like the NY Post and Daily Mail. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, to the nominator of this article, ZXCVBNM, you probably didn't intend this, but a shortcut you used in your rationale, WP:TRIVIA, links to an essay page stating that calling coverage "trivial" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. It's also the essay I cited for proving my argument. Just want you to be aware of that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically, no, it says to avoid asserting that trivial coverage is significant, or making an incorrect assertion of trivial coverage. However, I think I meant to link to WP:SIGCOV instead, sorry._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Game & Watch: I see no reason why this shouldn't just be a condensed section in the Game & Watch article. There does not seem to be enough relevant content to warrant a separate and bloated article. Curbon7 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article is to be believed, Mr. Game & Watch was created for Super Smash Bros and not actually as part of the Game and Watch series. That, the controversy, and the Amiibo demonstrate notability outside of the Game and Watch series. Article passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those things prove notability in the Wikipedia sense. How is "being created for Smash Bros" (??) or there being an amiibo ("plastic toy" for the non-video gaming crowd) supposed to be contributing to the GNG? Sergecross73 msg me 00:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it has received press coverage for both. WP:GNG is all about receiving press coverage. As much as I personally don't care about Super Smash Bros or Amiibo, they're clearly both notable. NemesisAT (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to distinguish simply "press coverage" from "significant coverage". Plenty of games get press releases of a few sentences, that does not indicate notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of them are press releases other than the Business Wire ref. NemesisAT (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments and source analysis by 👨x🐱 which indicate that the aggregate coverage is not trivial. A recent RfC indicated a consensus that Screen Rant is reliable for entertainment or pop culture topics, but inappropriate for BLP's where sourcing standards are meant to be higher, and this is not a BLP. Iterations of the character have appeared in multiple games so the assertion that it only appeared in one game or was created specifically for Smash is clearly incorrect. As for the proposal for the article to be merged back into the Game & Watch parent article due to the state of its quality, there is room for improvement, but article content does not determine notability per WP:ARTN as per the notability guideline page. There's a lot that can still be written about the Game and Watch series which does not involve specific discussions about the title character or the Smash-related topics. Haleth (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 👨x🐱's analysis makes pretty clear that the character is independently notable. Although the article quality leaves much to be desired... Mlb96 (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per HumanxAnthro analysis, there's a possible chance that this article barely meets notability. 180.194.130.4 (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOURCESEXIST, it should be a certainty that it meets notability before it is allowed to remain as an article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also per SOURCESEXIST, the sources cannot be sexist to women or men. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per analysis by 👨x🐱 and also Haleth. Feels a bit weird to me personally that there should be separate articles (and can see why this was nominated), but I have been convinced that it's within policy and acceptable here. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is a well referenced Meme that passes WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with others, 👨x🐱 makes a great case. Dream Focus 14:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes as a notable video game character per the cited sources and rationales (keep votes) provided by the other users here. However, the article needs expansion and some improvements. Wario-Man ^talk 10:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aneesha Ummer[edit]

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

Her only notable role is in Ente Hridayathinte Vadakku Kizhakke Attathu, a short film of 23 minute in length. She does not have any notable roles in any single feature films and has not won in any notable beauty pageants competition. The deccan chronicle source talks about how she became viral after the release of the short film, has not enough coverage to have an independent article. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single event really for a shorts, character actor. Far too early to decide if she will make it and be notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Beloglovsky[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP (possible WP:AUTOBIO) of a writer, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for writers. This is written in a promotional tone rather than a neutral one, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability -- her own website, her own staff profiles on the websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations, GoodReads, her own books metaverifying their own existence on online bookstores, and on and so forth. But the notability test for a writer is not passed by using her own self-published web presence to verify that she exists, it's passed by using reliable source media coverage about her work to externally validate that it's actually as significant as her PR agent wants to make it sound. Even the "awards" section doesn't clinch her notability all by itself, as even that is sourced entirely to the self-published websites of the awards themselves, rather than any evidence of media coverage to establish that any of said awards are notable awards. Not a single reference here is reliable support for notability at all, and nothing stated in the text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have considerably more reliable sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia articles need to be built on 3rd party sources, not on souces connected with the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Igloo[edit]

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for films. The strongest notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor regional film festival that is not prominent enough to clinch inclusion under NFILM's award criterion -- that's looking for film festivals on the Cannes-Berlin-Toronto-Sundance tier of significance, not just every single film festival that exists -- and after that, it's non-winning nominations for awards that are even less noteworthy, such as the Leos (a regional film award that is incredibly difficult to properly source at the best of times) and a film festival of even lower prominence than Yorkton. And while the Yorkton claim is at least citing a news article from the local community weekly (which is a start, but not enough all by itself if it's the only non-primary source that can be found), both the Leo and Oakville claims are cited only to those events' self-published websites about themselves rather than any evidence of media coverage. But for any film award to become a notability claim that assists inclusion of a film, it has to be an award that gets media coverage, in order to establish that it's even a notable award in the first place, and you cannot claim that a film is notable on the basis of awards that can be sourced only to the awarding organization's own website because media coverage about the awards is nonexistent. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have considerably more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - this is a bit tough. It's new film, so this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. It has gotten attention at festivals, but these are minor festivals. The Golden Sheath award, in my view, does not qualify as "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". NFILM does not say won any award, but a major award. I am unable to find coverage of the film, including no sight of any reviews from my search. Again, this is a 2021 film so it may one day meet our criteria, but now, I don't see that as being the case.‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add, reading my own comment reminded me of a certain holiday film: "It's a major award!" ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat:, @El cid, el campeador: The film has won Two news award recently at 2021 Leo Awards: Best Sound Award and Best Musical Score Award supporting by [7]. I think all the received awards would be enough for a animated short film, to be notable for Wikipedia. I believe Keep Regards.황83보 (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, NFILM does not just indiscriminately accept every film award that exists on earth as an automatic notability clincher for a film: we're looking for major awards that get media coverage, such as Oscars, BAFTAs, Canadian Screen Awards or major film festivals on the Cannes, Berlin, Toronto or Sundance tier of prominence, and not for regional awards that get so little coverage that you have to rely on the award's own self-published website about itself to source the claim. It's not the presence of the word "award" in the text that determines whether a film is notable or not — it's the quality of the sourcing you can or can't show to demonstrate that any given award is recognized as a significant award by the media. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film has not received awards at the level that would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banknote Mitch[edit]

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

Non-notable and inactive rapper. Have been unable to find any reliable non-trivial coverage of him or his music. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one source from Hype Magazine, but that's about it. Fails WP:SINGER.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 13:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ought to satisfy WP:SINGER but doesn't. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are just more or less announcements and presentations of video premieres. That's fairly run-of-the-mill for Hip Hop websites. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian the Christian[edit]

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

My BEFORE search using a popular search engine, plus Gale Onefile, ProQuest and Rock's Backpages, failed to uncover the significant coverage in reliable sources to argue that the subject meets WP:GNG. This article currently doesn't include any citations - Lackthereof is a potential merge or redirect target. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Found reviews in Tiny Mix Tapes and Cokemachineglow, unsure about the reliability. But that again isn't enough for a standalone article on the album. --Ashley yoursmile! 14:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lackthereof#Discography. Couldn't find any coverage beyond the above linked reviews, which don't seem to provide enough coverage to pass WP:NALBUM or GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lackthereof#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond Tiny Mix Tapes and Cokemachineglow, both which are reliable. SBKSPP (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Alfred Kahnert[edit]

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

Kahnert was an economist, and published a few works. I was not able to find actual reviews, and the passing mentions just do not seem to be enough to pass academic notability 1. He clearly does not pass standard notability by GNG, and he is no where near any other acdemic notability. This was an unsourced article from 2009 until earlier today. Other than adding references to Kahnert to pages connected to deaths in 2002, creating this article was the only edit done by the article creator. I see no claim to notability in the article, and do not think the passing mentions to works he was an author, editor or co-author on are enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found it really hard to find anything substantial about this person. His most important book (Economic integration among developing countries) has around 100 citations on Google Scholar, which does not bode well for his notability under WP:PROF. I also agree that WP:GNG looks to be out of reach. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, while it is strange that nothing can be found for an OECD vice president, there is no real claim to notability or RS here. --hroest 21:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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) 12:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Hitchcock[edit]

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

I genuinely do not think this person meets the WP:GNG. There is certainly going to be local coverage in Phoenix given her long TV news stint here, but even if it was in this article, I'd have my doubts. (If you think she's notable, let me know and I can add newspaper citations galore.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I live in Scottsdale, and she's certainly notable in the Arizona area, but does that meet WP:GNG? Not sure. One thing which would make me vote keep, is that her TV3 bio mentions that she's won multiple Emmy Awards. That would make her notable. Don't have time to search in-depth, but my very brief BEFORE did not turn up an independent source to verify that claim. Please ping me if anyone comes up with good sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. This is a weird one, I have to admit. I could not find a single source corroborating the alleged Emmy win, even though it's parroted across every single mention of her. Not even through a historic entire Emmy-award search could I find her name! She clearly fails general notability, so I would be inclined to !vote delete unless someone can provide a reliable Emmy reference. PK650 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- PK650, I know I'm replying to an expired AfD, but those are probably regional Emmys, common in the TV news business. There are a variety of regional Emmy chapters that reward work in their own local areas. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Act of Grace[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFILM and GNG. Cannot find any reviews or other coverage. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NFILM and GNG. Research was hard since I kept finding an unrelated novel of the same name, but all I found for this film were comprehensive database entries and no coverage or reviews. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FAILS NFILM Nitesh003 (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time for Wikipedia to stop being an IMDb mirror. We have ruled IMDb not reliable. Even if it was reliable, having it as a lone source would not be enough. We have never agreed that every film ever made commercially is notable, which is the underlying assumption of IMDb. Well, at least they seek to include all such films, they may not actually think in terms of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McGowan (performance artist)[edit]

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

Not a noteworthy individual, article is nearly totally reliant on primary sources and written like an extensive curriculum vitae. James ^{(T • C)} • 03:13 • 11:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has a full profile in the Guardian and a lot of his pieces were covered by BBC with full articles. I would not be opposed to a WP:TNT delete, however, because this article is excessively detailed and sourced with YouTube videos and the like. I do think he is notable, though. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, an attention seeker who does indeed attract lots of sustained attention in multiple news sources. As per the previous AfD outcome. Of course the article still needs some clean-up, but that is no reason for deletion. Sionk (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a really bad nomination. There are multiple good in-depth sources ((BBC, Guardian etc) in the article that indicate that the nom clearly did not do WP:BEFORE. --- Possibly ☎ 10:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject clearly passes GNG. Article needs editing, not deletion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Comfortably reaches GNG. The article fails verifiability due to heavy reliance on non-reliable sources, but there is no TNT case, since the problem can be solved by simple pruning. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, McGowan can be considered rather niche, but he is an artist, produces work considered worthy of discussion in secondary sources, and clearly passes GNG. I agree the article requires the attention of an interested copy editor, but that is not a reason to delete. Poltair (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odisha Administrative Service[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. References are all primary sources. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – seems to fail the GNG; I'm not finding any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamojit Dasgupta[edit]

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

Being a runner up in a reality show doesn't confer presumptive notability. The article is mostly likely created by a COI editor and it heavily relies upon YouTube and music streaming sources. Fails WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. just another promotional puff piece. RationalPuff (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 10:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:SINGER and GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Raheja[edit]

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

Blatant advertisement. Do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. fails WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient sources, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Very hard to find anything that would count. The page is basically a résumé. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 06:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Merely being rich doesn't necessarily equates to notable. Fails wp:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes basic notability Germartin1 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 10:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coverage fails criteria for significance and independence in the GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. None of the citations discuss him in any depth (he has only a bare mention) - except the Forbes article, which does not establish notability by itself. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FAILS WP:GNG, doesn't meet notability Nitesh003 (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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) 08:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erlan Bastos[edit]

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

Brazilian journalist, local in scope, with no proven relevance. Already had article deleted in native version. Half of the fonts listed are of poor quality. J ^talk 15:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A suspicious IP added more information about the biographee. It is possible to note, again, that half of the sources mention third parties without proving their notoriety (besides the low quality of the publications). Some of the portals mentioned are linked to the biographee. J ^talk 23:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems a case of WP:PROMO to me. The article's tone, the nature of the sources, and the creator behavior all suggest that. The person in question has a lot of mentions on media, but it lacks in-depth coverage. Furthermore, most of the sources (if not all) are of bad quality, not reliable and some are even obscure. I can find only a WP:RS that could justify an article here, but it's not enough. Perhaps, it's too soon for him to have an article here. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Nothing to merge. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Chronicles[edit]

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

No sources have come out about the game since its release. Not notable for this site Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail the Metacritic test and GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 10:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Call_of_Cthulhu_(role-playing_game)#Cthulhu_Chronicles per the above. Fails NGAME. Bizarrely there is a Newsweek review, but I don't see any other reliable sourcing ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valitor[edit]

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

Delete. Routine not deep enough media coverage. Actually, it doesn't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Easily passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in the Icelandic media as a WP:BEFORE would have shown [8][9][10][11][12][13] Alvaldi (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alvaldi's comment. --Bensin (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 10:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As there is significant coverage in Icelandic media.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alvaldi proved there are reliable sources in the Icelandic media. The Wikileaks source should be removed though. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prototype JavaScript Framework. Anyone is free to merge any content to the target article if necessary. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Script.aculo.us[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. There are no reliable third-party sources online. This library hasn't been updated since 2010, so it is unlikely to get more coverage. As an altrnative to deletion, this article could be merged to Prototype JavaScript Framework, but I don't see content which could be used in Prototype article (all content here is unsourced and written like a gude, not an encyclopedia article). Anton.bersh (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prototype JavaScript Framework, I found some coverage in old coding blogs, and a couple of passing mentions, but nothing that would contribute to notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telman Hasanov[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. He is not National Hero of Azerbaijan. NMW03 (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced since August 2013! Fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, I cannot find anything online that does not come from this wikipedia page. Fails every standard wikipedia has. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gratitude (band). Daniel (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gratitude (Gratitude album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM some sources exist but they don't represent extensive coverage. Per WP:NALBUM: Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography. Polyamorph (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom's rationale of NALBUM. Not enough in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The nominator says so themselves: "should be merged into the artist's article". The album clearly had enough reviews to be regarded as a topic of interest in the music scene. This being the only album and the band article being short, merging is sensible. I also found this review in addition to several blogs. I also searched the paper press and the result wasn't great, one teen section review in the South Florida Sun Sentinel, May 6 2005. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The band article says the album charted 39th on Billboard Heatseekers. Geschichte (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gratitude (band): The sources in the article are reliable. I also found some more sources which talk about the album: [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18]. It is also talked about in an interview. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. However, since this is the only album from the band, merging it to the band's article is the way to go per Geschichte. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to West Salem High School (Salem, Oregon). Daniel (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Titan Spectator[edit]

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

No independent notability, does not meet WP:NME. All sources are either primary sources or local news websites, meaning the paper barely notable ~~within Salem, let alone~~ elsewhere. Propose redirecting to school per WP:STUDENTMEDIA Yeeno (talk) 🍁 07:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 07:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect/Merge~~ to West Salem High School (Salem, Oregon). One could argue that this technically passes GNG on the basis of coverage from the Salem Reporter and KATU. But if we're being technical, there's WP:1EVENT to consider, and it certainly doesn't pass WP:NORG, which would be the relevant guideline standard (NMEDIA doesn't—yet—have guideline status). Fundamentally, high school papers are generally only notable when they have a significant history, and founded in 2014 just isn't enough. It's a decently written article by student newspaper standards, so I'm glad it'll at least be kept in the page history. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm updating my !vote to Neutral in light of the additional sourcing added by Alecpalm, particularly the Oregonian coverage, given that it's from Oregon's newspaper of record and that it demonstrates that coverage has been ongoing rather than only pegged to the 2019 cuts controversy. This is still definitely a borderline case, but I think there's enough sourcing available to write the article using primarily secondary references. The COI is something to be cautious about but not a reason for deletion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure about the authorship (and editorial oversight) of the Oregonian article, though; the byline is "Special to The Oregonian", while the end of the article is marked by "Nina Lopez, Parkrose High School". Could it be some kind of guest column? Yeeno (talk) 🍁 06:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeno My assumption was that it was apart of an internship program or this journalism institute . The Oregonian uses a different tag mark for guest opinions. Alecpalm (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets Notability Criteria The article provides 5 secondary, significant, independent and reliable sources. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

These articles are not trivial in nature and are full independent features. So this article is notable under general notability guidelines and WP:NORG. Addressing concerns about Wikipedia:AUD I included an article from the The Oregonian^[6] which is a statewide publication; with the addition of this it should appease Wikipedia:AUD.Alecpalm (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge per User:Sdkb. Also note COI for above user - Alec Palm is apparently the editor of the paper.Pipsally (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Obvious COI (if I recall correctly I was the one who notified them of it), and not notable. But redirects are cheap, I guess... Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 13:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note the corresponding draft. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 13:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.salemreporter.com/posts/758/west-salem-student-newspaper-class-cut-for-2019-20-school-year
^ https://www.oregonlive.com/teens/2015/06/casey_chaffin_journalism_bring.html
^ https://clypian.com/2019/05/15/is-this-the-end-of-the-titan-spectator/
^ https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/education/2021/04/09/salem-student-journalist-recognition-delayed-after-article-political-school-board/7166816002/
^ https://katu.com/news/local/west-salem-students-fighting-to-keep-their-school-paper-alive
^ https://www.oregonlive.com/teens/2015/06/casey_chaffin_journalism_bring.html

Redirect, somewhere. The COI editor has bypassed AFC, and the sources here are mostly related to a one-time event. --- Possibly ☎ 17:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of places with only vowel A in their name[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Such a list constitutes WP:LISTCRUFT because "A" being the only vowel in a word is not notable, unlike something like a Palindrome, which has the List of palindromic places. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 07:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 07:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial list of a non-defining attribute. There must be thousands of places this applies to. I can think of at least half a dozen small villages near me, and I bet most other editors could think of similar locations too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. So trivial and arbitrary my head aches. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete trivia.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 15:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely trivial. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Specifically, WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As has been noted by other editors above, this is not a defining characteristic. To get a sense of how common this is, I typed "Malma" into the search box, which led me to Malma, Nepal, which in turn transcludes Template:Baglung District. That template about one of the 77 districts of Nepal links to no fewer than ten places that qualify for inclusion on this list: Argal, Dhamja, Jaljala, Baglung, the aforementioned Malma, Nepal, Narayansthan, Rayadanda, Salyan, Baglung, Taman, Nepal, Tangram, Nepal, and Tara, Nepal. A second search for "Bara" turned up a list of no fewer than 27 places called "Bara" or some diacritic variation thereof. The previous assessment that there must be thousands of places like this seems likely to be correct (I'm sure it would be possible to write a script to check some database or other, such as GeoNames, if we really want to come up with a rough figure). With that in mind, it's difficult to see what WP:LISTPURPOSE this could possibly serve. TompaDompa (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. desmay (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, novel topic. Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, though I must give points that it made me laugh. A funny idea to compile such a list (which, as noted by TompaDompa, would probably end up huge), but please on a personal website or blog. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to indiscriminately list every possible thing that we could list. What next List of red haired kings?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by someone else. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Anadkat[edit]

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

Non notable actor with small roles to his credit. Searches didn't turn up anything that would help to establish notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a notable Actor. Mr.Siddharthrajvanshi (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per (WP:N). He is a popular television Actor, In this article there are some references.Mr.Siddharthrajvanshi (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Rogers Kniffen[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Sources are mostly unrelated or are so vague as to make their connection to the subject completely opaque. Searching found nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a puff piece, the writer is a banned sock, fails gng. Hyperwave11 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Staphylococci phage G1[edit]

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

This article is an incorrectly titled duplicate of another article (Staphylococcus virus G1) and is unlikely to be used as a redirect. By incorrect, I mean the plural "Staphylococci" is never used in virus species names. Velayinosu (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe Speedy Delete?. It looks like this is effectively a duplicate of the correct article that gets some details wrong. Because of this it makes me wonder if this would be ground for speedy deletion. If not though, it's still an obvious superfluous article and can be deleted. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 05:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under a10 Hyperwave11 (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - yes, this seems to be a definite A10 candidate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#5: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). I don't know that this qualifies per WP:A10, since it was created in 2015 which is hardly "recent" (though I wouldn't mind applying it regardless per WP:IAR/WP:NOTBURO). I was at first confused because the two articles do not give the same Family (biology) or Genus (making me think maybe it wasn't a duplicate after all), but then I found this which makes it clear that this discrepancy is due to the article under discussion being several years out of date, taxonomy-wise. There is nothing to merge—all the information and all references on this page can already be found at the correctly titled article—and as noted above, this is not likely to be used as a redirect (and I'll note that the "correct" outdated title Staphylococcus phage G1 already redirects to Staphylococcus virus G1). TompaDompa (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Daniel (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's JerryTime![edit]

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

Nothing comes up on Google. This article does not meet WP:GNG. It looks like no more than a couple dozen episodes where ever released and it's been inactive for over a decade. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an Emmy seems notable? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Likeanechointheforest: I don't know how I missed that, but you're right because that would meet the second requirement of WP:WEBCRIT. The subject of the article is never going to generate more coverage and will never be more than a stub. Would anyone be opposed to merging the article into Jerry Zucker and Kristen Schaal? Or is it acceptable to simply leave it as a stub forever? TipsyElephant (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this a little more and realized that WP:WEBCRIT uses the wording "may be notable" not that an award determines notability. I would question whether the subject is notable despite the award based on the fact that there are absolutely no independent and reliable secondary sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: I think it'd be appropriate to merge it! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, as winning two daytime Emmys and córdoba best animation is quite notable, but this page doesn't have enough about the show to justify it having a page just yet. Hyperwave11 (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of public art in Eugene, Oregon. Daniel (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trapezoid E[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Insufficient in-depth sig cov. The only source is a database listing. Searching finds mirrors of the database, mirrors of this article, and another fountain/sculpture of the same name. Since neither the artist nor the building where it is located have articles, no good target for a merge/redirect either MB 01:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MB 01:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MB 01:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be possible to merge Trapezoid E and TriMet (sculpture), with some additional sourcing on Maki in to a single article that does meet the notability guidelines.Maki himself would meet WP:NARTIST, with his work in at least two museum collections: the Seattle Art Museum (SAM) [19] and the Smithsonian American Art Museum (SAAM) [20]. The oldest review of his work that I've been able to find is from September 1969. [21]. From what I can quickly tell, Sculpture (magazine) has done a feature on him [22] Vexations (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few sources, and posted a few more on the article's talk page. Might need to visit a library or two, once open, to do more research. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The article does not offer enough to stand on its own; however, the article for the mentioned courthouse already has an art section. This could be merged into that section. Coopman86 (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Artwork is not notable merely for being public artwork, and sources and database listings here do not indicate notability beyond the generic. Coverage with its location is optimal. Reywas92^Talk 04:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Coopman86, Reywas92, this sculpture was installed in 1975 at the Federal Building/Old courthouse that is a couple of blocks away from the suggested merge target, the Wayne_Lyman_Morse_United_States_Courthouse which was built 1999-2006. Therefore, the new courthouse is not an appropriate merge target. I couldn't find an article on the Federal Building where this artwork is located. MB 04:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case delete. I don't see what makes this any more notable than the other scores of generic art pieces at federal buildings (listed at [23][24]) or elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 06:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect the page to List of public art in Eugene, Oregon. The redirect is potentially helpful to readers. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the redirect to the List of public art. The Trapezoid E is already listed there. Coopman86 (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alirezaz[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced as the only references provided are links to his social media or links to download his mp3s. No reliable coverage found during English or Persian searches. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:GNG.--Juror134 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Which sources show GNG? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, sources are either primary or unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to show notability. The sources in the article are mostly primary, and there doesn't appear to be much else out there. firefly ( t · c ) 06:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Copernicus Programme. Daniel (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BOSS4GMES[edit]

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

promotion of non-notable temporary project fgnievinski (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Delete. Best I got was this crappy-looking blog post that masquerades itself as a professional magazine. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copernicus_Programme and perhaps merge a sentence or two there. Insufficiently notable for a discrete article. firefly ( t · c ) 06:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copernicus_Programme, though I am unsure what if anything could be worth adding there about this temporary coordination project during its set-up. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Mikheev[edit]

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

Article was created as an WP:ATTACK article and the subject is not notable. See the ANI discussion PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under g10 Hyperwave11 (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will specify for this user that the article (upon creation) was an attack page. The content has been removed and discussed in the link above. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after removing the BLP attack content there's very little in the way of content. At minimum the history should go, so WP:TNT applies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Fedotov[edit]

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

Article was created as an WP:ATTACK article and the subject is not notable. See the ANI discussion PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, the article was created by User:Kendalandrew for the sole purpose of connecting various individuals involving a political contribution controversy (TLDR the entire article was written for the last section of the article). See the ANI discussion for more details. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under g10 Hyperwave11 (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's very little in the way of reliably sourced content. At minimum the history should go, so WP:TNT applies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G10. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narahalli Balasubramanya[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Do not pass general notability criteria WP:GNG. And hence failed WP:NACADEMIC. Draft declined multiple times by Theroadislong, Bonadea, Dan arndt and Kylietastic. DMySon 02:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DMySon 02:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon 02:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If an article was declined through AfC, we should not have it. I really think we should make all new articles go through AfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lubov Chernukhin[edit]

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

Article was created as an WP:ATTACK article and the subject is not notable. See the ANI discussion. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under g10

Hyperwave11 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will specify that the article (at the time of creation) was an attack page. The article has been stripped of the attack content per the ANI discussion. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not Strongly. A GNews search shows articles about this woman from sources of all political leanings, from right-wing tabloids to the left-wing Open Democracy to the most known publications like the BBC the Times and the Guardian. She seems to have gained notability as a Russian briber donating to UK polticians. Additionally, you'll find articles in 2018, 2019, 2020, and last month, indicating long-term interest in the subject beyond a WP:NOTNEWS-violating item. However, the only coverage is in relation to recent political scandals and not much else. Perhaps a merge into an article about political bribery may do as well, though I haven't search to see if there are any.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after removing the BLP attack content there's very little in the way of content. At minimum the history should go, so WP:TNT applies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG - significant coverage exists from the BBC, The Guardian, Sky News, The Times, The National, The Telegraph, etc... NHCLS (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is in-depth coverage of Chernukhin in many of the UK's leading reliable news sources, mostly 2020, but dating back to 2018. Passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Addo[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and her position does not qualify for WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is WP:SIGCOV in multiple cited sources, easily meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is cited in multiple sources and is a head of a reputable government agency in Ghana meets WP:GNG criteria. Owula kpakpo (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject of the article has been quoted in multiple independent, reliable and newsworthy publications Ghanian Times,Star Fm,Modern Ghana because of her role as the Director of Public Affairs of the Parliament of Ghana. Addo is an individual of public interest and as such should not fail WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. HeyitsRay (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with plenty of independent sourcing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Nitesh003 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No, this does not "easily" pass anything, but it passes. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NEXIST. Clearly a highly visible commentator in Ghanaian media over multiple years; simplest of searching shows this to be the case. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Arvizu[edit]

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

Fifteen-year stub on a musician with no particular indication of notability. He was born, played jazz with some famous players, endured a tragic injury, and some years later died, none of which adds up to encyclopedic notability. The one album named in the article is really an article by another artist for whom Arvizu is merely listed as personnel on the album. BD2412 T 02:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 02:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is visible in a fair number of album credits as a backing musician, and some fans have created remembrance videos. But he did nothing on his own and received no media coverage in his own right, only being briefly listed as present at various sessions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While normally Elmidae's comment could be discarded as 'other stuff exists', in this case they are spot on - a centralised discussion around the notability of these glaciers should be had, which has the ability to generate a consensus to redirect if that is indeed the community's wider viewpoint. Daniel (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Edward Glacier[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND Hyperwave11 (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep: The information on where it drains, the derivation of its name, etc is "information beyond statistics and coordinates" (quoting from WP:GEOLAND). Solidly sourced little article, represented in several other wikipedias, worth keeping. PamD 09:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of glaciers in the Antarctic: I–Z. Knowing the Prince Edward Glacier is named after Prince Edward and its location is not substantive information beyond statistics and location, or else there is literally no named feature that would not meet GEOLAND. The eponym can be merged there. Reywas92^Talk 00:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas, as it seems that about all we can reliably source this thing is where it is, that it drains a specific plateau, and that it's named after Prince Edward. I wouldn't consider that to be substantive coverage per Reywas. Hog Farm _Talk 06:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD JarrahTree 15:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the simple reason that we have many dozens of glacier stubs of exactly this extent, and I see no cause to treat this one differently than the rest. Just take a few random samples from the above-linked List of glaciers in the Antarctic: I–Z and see what you get (note how the list is entirely bluelinked?). If there is to be a general consensus that glacier stubs of this size are unacceptable, then let's have a centralized discussion and sort out all of them, rather than introducing inconsistent treatment in bits and bobs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rename has already happened. Daniel (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating Panorama[edit]

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

No notable sources, fails wiki:gng and nfilm Hyperwave11 (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep based on citations below. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Cheating in Panorama per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "騙術大觀" [Cheating in Panorama]. Shin Min Daily News (in Chinese). 1972-03-10. p. 5. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  The article discusses the movie in detail.
2. "「騙術大觀」半夜場及早場" ["Cheating in Panorama" midnight and morning showings]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). 1972-02-14. p. 22. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
3. "騙術大觀" [Cheating in Panorama]. Sin Chew Daily (in Chinese). 1972-02-23. p. 12. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
4. "一個拍「騙術大觀」一個拍「騙術大王」一個氣得暴跳如雷一個充耳不聞不問陳鴻烈氣煞李翰祥潘迎紫下月將諧秦晉譜" [One makes "Cheating in Panorama". One makes "The Deceiver". One was furious. One turned a deaf ear and was indifferent. Chan Hung-lit. Angry. Li Han-hsiang. Angela Pan. Next month will be harmonised.]. Sin Chew Daily (in Chinese). 1971-12-11. p. 18. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
5. "發達之人騙術大觀俱旺" ["A Man of Wealth" and "Cheating in Panorama" entirely flourishing]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1972-02-18. p. 12. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
6. "趙雷因演發達之人接着再拍騙術大觀" [Zhao Lei filmed "A Man of Wealth". Afterwards he filmed "Cheating in Panorama"]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1972-01-26. p. 7. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
7. "騙術大觀" [Cheating in Panorama]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1972-02-06. p. 12. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
8. Passing mentions in English-language sources that verify the movie's English name is Cheating in Panorama, not Cheating Panorama:
  1. Stokes, Lisa Odham; Braaten, Rachel (2020). Historical Dictionary of Hong Kong Cinema. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 293. ISBN 978-1-5381-2062-0. Retrieved 2021-07-07.
    The book notes about Li Han-hsiang: "He left Shaw in 1963 and went to Taiwan where he created his own film company, Guolian, making twenty films; he returned to Hong Kong in 1970, rejoining Shaw in 1972, and worked there for another ten years, introducing the theme of duplicity in movies such as Legends of Cheating (1971) and Cheating in Panorama (1972)."
  2. Wong, Ain-ling (2003). The Shaw Screen: A Preliminary Study. Hong Kong Film Archive. pp. 164, 320. Retrieved 2021-07-07.
    The book notes on page 16: "The ascendant popular culture of this period includes the films of Bruce Lee, Cantonese TV series and Canto-pop, but there were many other film genres of the crude and vulgar variety that have been largely forgotten in the nostalgia for the 1960s and 1970s, which collectively falls under what John Chan Koon-chung / Chen Guanzhong has described as 'slovenly aesthetics'. In this category are Li Han-hsiang / Li Hanxiang's series of 'duplicity films' (such as Cheating in Panorama / Pian Shu Da Guan, 1972) and his later soft-core fengyue (literally 'wind' and 'moon' ) films (described as the 'Aesthetics of the Cynical'), ..."
    The book notes about Li Han-hsiang on page 320: "He returned to Hong Kong in 1970 and shot The Legends of Cheating / Pian Shu Qi Tan (1971), Cheating In Panorama / Pian Shu Da Guan (1972 ) and Cheat to Cheat / Pian Shu Qi Zhong Qi (1973), starting off a trend for films on duplicity."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cheating in Panorama (simplified Chinese: 骗术大观; traditional Chinese: 騙術大觀) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cunard. Easily meets requirements. Donald once again showing his value to the project...† Encyclopædius 06:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Encyclopædius I didn't nominate it. Keep personal attacks out of it. Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor". Voice your opinion on the ARTICLE, not on any EDITORS. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What?? I simply said you were showing your value to the project. Not many people take the time to comment at AFDs these days. I don't agree with deleting it, but know that your input is appreciated my friend!† Encyclopædius 12:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I misunderstood. Based on some of our past interactions I took this this as an attack on my character and that you were saying that I wasn't adding value. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Have a great day. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage from Cunard. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Ratnahastin(t.c) 04:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above by Cunard that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polite Sleeper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears from google search to be non-notable. Everything I'm finding is just directory listings. I'm thinking in the ten-year test, not notable. —valereee (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's just nothing here. No big record label, no hits, no nothing--and no coverage. Delete. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - pinging doomsdayer520 who did a lot of work on this when it was at AfD last time Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was back in 2010, when I was more of an inclusionist than I am now, while music notability guidelines were more lenient. At the time I believed the band had gotten some helpful reviews, but nothing has happened with them in the past 11 years while Wikipedia guidelines have gotten tougher. I will cast a true vote shortly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I defended this article and added some sources back in 2010 when dinosaurs walked the Earth. Of the five sources added back then, four are now extra dead and one is only available via Web Archive. Furthermore, they were all from small and local media outlets, which was acceptable back then but not under the WP guidelines of 2021. There are still a few brief blog-like album reviews floating around, but the band now has no reliable coverage that has stood the test of time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing any real indication of lasting notability. Per above, the sources used in the article are all dead links, which, IMO, indicates a lack of importance. I could be convinced to change my mind, but im not going to put in the effort to try and save this article. Bonewah (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The band is not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep , with an encouragement to explore a potential split on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malaysians of Chinese descent[edit]

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

The Chinese listed on this page can only be a part of them, and the Chinese in Malaysia account for a lot, so the category is enough. angys (Talk Talk) 23:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. angys (Talk Talk) 23:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator - there are far too many notable Malaysians of Chinese descent. This list is far too broad and will never be complete, and the category suffices for organisation. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Malaysians of Chinese descent" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Ho, Khai Leong (2014). 馬來西亞華人人物誌 [Malaysian Chinese historical personalities] (in Chinese). Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Institute of Chinese Studies, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman. OCLC 903533846.
  The book series has four volumes that span 1,838 pages. From the Google Translate of the book's description at https://bookstore.mentor.com.my/product/malaysia-huaren-renwuzhi/:
  "Malaysian Chinese historical personalities" is structured as a biographical book. It recruits and writes Chinese people in Malaya and Malaysia who have had social influence and achievements in the past 100 years. It records their lives and major events that they have experienced, highlighting their responsibilities in their fields. , Participate and contribute, and describe the characters’ ideological sentiment, personality characteristics, and historical status. Its real connotation is a genealogy of the Malaysian Chinese community. The book is divided into "Inner Chapter" with 420 people and "Outer Chapter" with 12 people. The "Inner Chapter" includes people with strong Malayan and Malaysian attributes or who have no objection to their status, such as Chen Zhenlu, Lin Lianyu, Fang Beifang, etc.; while the "Outer Chapter" includes short-term residence in Malaya, and the final identity attribute belongs to China. However, his actions have a certain influence on the local people, such as Huang Zunxian, Yu Dafu, Lin Yutang and so on. This classification is an extremely bold innovation of this book.
2. Ye, Guanshi, ed. (2010). 馬來西亞華人先賢錄 [The profiles of Malaysian Chinese leaders] (in Chinese). Selangor: 名人出版社. OCLC 864463194. Archived from the original on 2021-07-06. Retrieved 2021-07-07.
3. Fu, Chengde (2001). 马来西亚成功小故事 (in Chinese). Kuala Lumpur: 大将事业社. Retrieved 2021-07-07.
  The book summary notes: "Anecdotes and accounts of successful Malaysian Chinese businessmen."
4. 彭成毅 (2018-08-30). Aspinwall, Nick (ed.). "How to Understand the Confusing Spellings of Romanized Chinese Names". The News Lens. Translated by Li, Zeke. Archived from the original on 2020-08-13. Retrieved 2021-07-07.
  The article notes: "Let’s use famous Malaysian Chinese leaders as an example: The founder of Kuala Lumpur and its third Kapitan Cina had the romanized name Yap Ah Loy (葉亞來), following Hakka pronunciation. Tan Hiok Nee (陳旭年) and Wong Ah Fook (黃亞福) took their Latin names from Teoswa/Teochew and Cantonese pronunciation, respectively. The name of Penang’s first Kapitan Cina, Koh Lay Huan (辜禮歡), comes from Hokkien."
5. Yip, Lynnett (2020-01-02). "From Michelle Yeoh to Lawrence Wong, 10 Malaysian- and Singaporean-Chinese celebrities who are huge stars in China". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2021-07-06 suggested (help)
  The article notes: "Numerous Malaysian-Chinese and Singaporean-Chinese actors and singers have become huge stars in China. From Malaysia, we are blessed with Ipoh-born Michelle Yeoh of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon fame as well as talented voices like Bahau-born Fish Leong, Ipoh native Michael Wong and Kuching-born Nicholas Teo, all of whom are often thought of as Taiwanese." The article also discusses the Malaysian Chinese people Rujing Yan, Penny Tai, Azora Chin, Gary Chaw, and Lawrence Ong.
The list might never be complete, which is fine.
It is fine for the list never to be complete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists:
Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac and a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time.
Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the {{Expand list}} template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:Hatnote templates for lists. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the {{Dynamic list}} template.

For example, List of people from Italy likely never will be complete. It was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italians, where there was a strong consensus for retention.

It is fine to have overlapping categories and lists.
From Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative:
It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Redirects of list articles to categories are highly discouraged: list articles should take the place of the redirect.
Consider that lists may include features not available to categories, and building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant.

List of Malaysians of Chinese descent and Category:Malaysian people of Chinese descent are "complementary, not inappropriately duplicative".

General notability guideline
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly radical suggestion: Split? Chinese Malaysians account for about 30% of Malaysia's population so one list for all notable people in the group won't do the job. But lists like this have value, as they give one-liner introductions to the listed people. I would split the list into a list of lists by occupation. Deryck C. 21:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Americans and Lists of British people have done splits like what you have described, and the splits have worked well, so I would be supportive of this approach. Cunard (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the list is fine as it is for the reasons set out by Cunard. There may be a benefit in splitting it at some point in the future though I don’t see the need at the moment, and anyway I don’t think we need discuss that at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You raise several good points. At the moment, the list is not too long, so it is fine to leave it as is for now and split it at a later time once it gets too long for a single list. I agree that this is a matter for editors to decide at Talk:List of Malaysians of Chinese descent instead of AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is rather incoherent but the gist of it seems to be to favour the equivalent category. This proposal is contrary to our long-standing guideline WP:CLN and WP:NOTDUPE which state that "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists ... arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." To confirm that that the list passes WP:LISTN see From Michelle Yeoh to Lawrence Wong... and Southeast Asian Personalities of Chinese Descent: Biographical dictionary. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard,but the list is largely unsourced i recommend users to only add entries of blps with RS or even better self identification.Ratnahastin(t.c) 04:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Film, television shoots put on hold in West Bengal due to strict 15-day lockdown in state - Entertainment News". Firstpost. 2021-05-16.

[2] "Covid লকডাউনে বন্ধ হওয়ার পথে জনপ্রিয় Bengali Serials!". EI Samay (in Bengali). 26 May 2021.

[3] Dasgupta, Priyanka (18 June 2021). "West Bengal: Row resolved, serial shoots to return to normal from Friday | Kolkata News - Times of India". The Times of India.

[4] Dasgupta, Priyanka (30 June 2021). "Row over for now, shooting of new Bengali serials from today | Kolkata News - Times of India". The Times of India.

[5] চৌধুরী, সৌমিতা (29 June 2021). "Television Shooting: অবশেষে জট কাটল বৈঠকে! বুধবার থেকে শ্যুটিং শুরু নতুন ধারাবাহিকগুলির". Aaj Tak বাংলা (in Bengali).

[6] Samadder, Tulika (2021-06-29). "হাঁফ ছাড়ল টলিউড! বুধবার থেকে বিনা বাধায় শ্যুটিং হবে নতুন ও পুরনো ধারাবাহিকের". Hindustan Times Bangla (in Bengali).

[7] সংবাদদাতা, নিজস্ব (29 June 2021). "Shooting: জট কাটল বৈঠকে, টালিগঞ্জে ধারাবাহিকের শ্যুটিং শুরু হয়ে যাচ্ছে বুধবার থেকে". www.anandabazar.com (in Bengali). Anandabazar Patrika.

[8] "Shooting for new Bengali TV shows to start tomorrow - Times of India". The Times of India. 29 June 2021.

[date-9] Mukherjee, Priyanka (10 July 2021). "'মিঠাই'কে টেক্কা দিতে 'বরণ'-এর জায়গা নিচ্ছে 'ধুলোকণা', শেষ হচ্ছে 'ওগো নিরুপমা'?". Hindustan Times Bangla (in Bengali).

[10] "Sree Krishna Bhakto Meera Serial (Star Jalsha) 2021: Cast, Start Date, Story, Telecast Time, Real Name". Indian Talents. 5 May 2021. Retrieved 10 July 2021.

[11] Majumder, Rahul (8 July 2021). "মাথা মুড়িয়ে 'খলনায়ক' হয়ে ছোটপর্দায় ফিরছেন ভাস্বর চট্টোপাধ্যায়". Hindustan Times Bangla (in Bengali).

[12] Das, Sampita (8 July 2021). "ছোট পর্দায় ভৈরবনাথ হয়ে ফিরছেন ভাস্বর চট্টপাধ্যায়". EI Samay (in Bengali).

[13] "ছোট পর্দায় আসছে নতুন সিরিয়াল শ্রীকৃষ্ণভক্ত মীরা, মীরাবাঈ-এর চরিত্রে কে? রইলো বিস্তারিত". BharatNews 24x7 (in Bengali). 16 April 2021.

[14] Misra, Akash (8 July 2021). "ন্যাড়া মাথায় লম্বা টিকি! ভিলেন লুকে ছোটপর্দায় ফিরছেন ভাস্বর চট্টোপাধ্যায়". Sangbad Pratidin (in Bengali).

[15] ttps://www.salemreporter.com/posts/758/west-salem-student-newspaper-class-cut-for-2019-20-school-year

[16] ttps://www.oregonlive.com/teens/2015/06/casey_chaffin_journalism_bring.html

[17] ttps://clypian.com/2019/05/15/is-this-the-end-of-the-titan-spectator/

[18] ttps://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/education/2021/04/09/salem-student-journalist-recognition-delayed-after-article-political-school-board/7166816002/

[19] ttps://katu.com/news/local/west-salem-students-fighting-to-keep-their-school-paper-alive

[20] ttps://www.oregonlive.com/teens/2015/06/casey_chaffin_journalism_bring.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]