Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 16	June 18 >

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 redirect to DJ Zinc#Compilation albums. czar 02:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the Ride (DJ Zinc album)[edit]

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

Unsourced, was unable to find any reliable sources to incorporate. Was previously AFD'd in 2010 to no consensus because nobody responded to the discussion. Several other albums in the series have already been deleted due to lack of notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watch the Ride (Goldie album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watch the Ride (TC album), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watch the Ride (Skream album). Waxworker (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: reached number 69 on the UK Compilation Albums chart [1]... only reaching no. 69 on a chart specifically for compilation albums doesn't exactly scream notable. Redirecting this to the dab page Watch the Ride would leave that page with no entries at all, so this may have to be deleted, and the dab page too, possibly. Richard3120 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DJ Zinc. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Merge into DJ Zinc. I tried to find some refs to help this pass notability, but I could not after a brief search. However, I am not fully convinced someone more knowledgeable about the subject couldn't. Since the artist is notable, it might be best to put this into the main DJ Zinc article for now. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc is a very well known DJ in the drum'n'bass genre, and I agree with you that it's quite likely that reviews of this exist in print versions of dance music magazines. However, we have the same problem that always occurs when dance music records (and DJs) come to AfD, and it's that none of those magazines like Mixmag or DJ Mag are available online. A redirect to DJ Zinc would be the best solution until someone can find those print issues. Richard3120 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DJ Zinc - Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Found nothing that demonstrates that the recording is notable. Doesn't deserve a standalone article. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lash[edit]

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

Stereorock (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion The page was written without any third-party sourcing, and as an advertisement/vanity page. The article does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. For those reasons, I am nominating it for deletion. Stereorock (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, I must start with a disclaimer, and it's a serious one: I was responsible for initial drafts of the article about a decade ago. I also had done (mostly unpaid) freelance work for Chris during that same time, which itself would raise conflict of interest issues on this platform. Moreover, the article has next to no proper citations, partly as the Ohio Media Watch blog—which, additional disclaimer, I had briefly been a contributor for—was correctly determined by consensus not to be a reliable source so those citations were removed and never replaced. All that being said, I would still support this nomination. With the best possible means I can to be objective on this, I struggle trying to justify how Chris merits an article. Moreover, his past role of station ownership was always a fleeting and highly inconsistent one, frequently selling off or leasing away his radio stations within 1-2 years of having purchased them. By Wikipedia standards, it wouldn't meet the notability criteria. By structure alone, it comes off as advertorial and highly inconsistent in structure, with some repetition in parts, no updates from 2015-16 onward, and again, the lack of citations. In the present day, I would never have pushed a page like this live, at the very most, it'd remain in prod. If it even went that far to begin with. Nathan Obral (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted above, the originator of the draft and nominator points to a lack of reliable sources which assert claims of notability. I conducted my own WP:BEFORE search and turned up nothing of note in reliable sources. The subject fails our very basic notability policies and does not meet any SNG guideline either. Fails WP:GNG, Fails WP:N and no reliable sources can be found according to WP:RS. --ARose Wolf 21:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evariste Rugigana[edit]

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

Does not meet NPOL as "Director of Cabinet in the Office of the Prime Minister". Does not meet GNG, what I found in sources is a blurb on his appointment in amongst reporting of a bunch of other appointments. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; my searches suggest that no significant coverage exists. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no notable coverage available. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technique Recordings[edit]

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

Non-notable label. The article relies on self-published sources, press releases and minor media; I couldn't find sources elsewhere that would back a notability claim, either in print or available online. PK650 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable record label. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing other than primary sources or interviews. nearlyevil 665 14:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no reliable coverage available on google news. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor in violation of the block, and there have been no substantial contributions by other contributors. Because of this, it qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G5. Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghost (Pakistani TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, the sources in the article are unreliable and a passing mention respectively, and a search only uncovered other passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Montestrela[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced article about a writer who, at least according to its own introduction, didn't actually exist despite the article otherwise consisting almost entirely of very realistic-sounding biographical information rather than context for what might make him notable as a fictional character. I'm not an expert in Portuguese literature, so I don't know if the claim that he's an invented character is true or not -- but either way, the article needs sources: if he's a fictional character, then the article needs some properly sourced context for why he would be notable enough to have anything more than a redirect to Hervé Le Tellier, and if he's actually real and the claim that he's fictional (which was inserted later on) was vandalism, then the article needs sources to actually support his existence. But even the Arabic, French, Portuguese and German interlangs are all completely unsourced as well, so there aren't any footnotes that can be pulled over. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fictional or not, I was unable to corroborate any of the claims in the article.-KH-1 (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 4meter4 (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association for the Education and Guardianship of International Students[edit]

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

The article does not assert notability, and there are no independent reliable sources cited. A quick google doesn't come up with anything suggesting that this is a notable organisation Pi (Talk to me!) 23:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability is provided in the article; I have failed to find any. This article was the subject of a thread at the Help desk, when an editor who stated in the article that AEGIS has no official status was accused of vandalism. The article still provides no evidence of any official status. Maproom (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: The article includes an external link showing that the organization is a registered charity under the Charity Commission for England and Wales.[2] This is its official status. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. this is a WP:ROTM charity, with no assertion of, nor verification on notability. Why is it notable? See WP:SPEAKSELF Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WP:SPEAKSELF is an essay, not policy. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added information and references for WP:ORG. It is the leading UK accreditation organization for guardianship. See also WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:SURMOUNTABLE. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the added information and references according to WP:PRESERVE the evidence of notability is now provided and independent reliable sources are cited. Best, --ThT (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Now passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William da Silva Guimarães[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG even if it scrapes by WP:NFOOTY by skin of teeth, which I'm not even sure of. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, can't find any proof that he made any senior appearance and thus fails WP:NFOOTY. Footballdatabase is the closest source I could find for stats here.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and all above, it fails GNG and NFOOTBAL. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Show'N Tell[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ♟♙ (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and is therefore notable. I can do a source assessment to show my reasoning if you'd like. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please let us see what you found. I couldn't really find much, but I'm certainly not infallible. ♟♙ (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: any progress on the sources? ♟♙ (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response, I'll start a source assessment now. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 16:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending FormalDude's efforts. I'd think most trademarked things like this would probably have enough to be notable in some way, but maybe that's just my optimism. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Below is my source assessment. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 17:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
US Patent and Trademark Office.	From a government agency not affiliated with the subject of the article	Source is a public record of the United States patent office	Trademark is expired	✘ No
"G.E. Bows PhonoViewer for Kids"	From the newspaper/magazine Billboard.	Billboard is generally considered a reliable publication.	Displays an image and description of the subject of the article.	✔ Yes
"Show'N Tell advertisement"	It is an advertisement but it is not self-published as it is from the LIFE magazine.	Adverts are reliable sources for describing how the company markets its product.	Displays an image and detailed description of the subject of the article.	✔ Yes
"Show'N Tell History"	It is a profile from a website that covers vintage toys and games.	The author Todd Coopee is a toy historian.	Displays an image and detailed description of the subject of the article.	✔ Yes
"GE's Products for Youth"	It is a third-party article from Billboard magazine.	Billboard is generally considered a reliable publication.	Offers a relevant description of the subject of the article.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Thank you for providing this! I need to figure out how to do that. As you correctly mention, the trademark listing isn't useful for satisfying GNG, but it is helpful for Verification the product exists. Unfortunately, advertisements are primary sources, non third-party, so can't be used to satisfy the GNG, but could be used to verify facts about the product itself. The toytales.ca website is unlikely to be considered a WP:RS, so not helpful to satisfying GNG but would perhaps make a good WP:EL. So this leaves us with the two Billboard pieces, which are both Reliable and third party, however I'm not sure there's enough detail there. The second one is a very brief article about several products, not just the Show'N Tell. The first one does seem to cover the product in reasonable detail, but I'm not sure just one source is enough. Let's see how the AfD plays out. ♟♙ (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just used this template to create it. Below I have updated the source assessment table based on your comment. However, I still think toytales.ca satisfies GNG. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 17:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
US Patent and Trademark Office.	From a government agency not affiliated with the subject of the article.	Source is a public record of the United States patent office.	Trademark is expired and offers no other relevant details.	✘ No
"G.E. Bows PhonoViewer for Kids"	From the newspaper/magazine Billboard.	Billboard is generally considered a reliable publication.	The "Show N' Tell" toy is the sole focus of the source. Displays an image and detailed description.	✔ Yes
"Show'N Tell advertisement"	? It is an advertisement but it is not self-published as it is from the LIFE magazine.	It is an advertisement.	Includes an image and description.	✘ No
"Show'N Tell History"	It is a profile from a website that covers vintage toys and games. They only provide factual content and it appears to be neutral.	The author Todd Coopee is a well published toy historian so this seems very reliable.	The "Show N' Tell" toy is the sole focus of the source. Includes a photo and detailed description.	✔ Yes
"GE's Products for Youth"	It is a third-party article from Billboard magazine.	Billboard is generally considered a reliable publication.	While not the primary focus of the article, a relevant description of the "Show N' Tell" toy is included, and it is a significant mention.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep per FormalDude.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbullah Magomedov[edit]

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

They are famous and there is no doubting that but notability and fame aren’t one and the same and unfortunately their notability is very much questionable. A major claim to notability revolves around a trifling rumored boxing fixture between subject of the article and another Internet personality. There is no WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV that is required by WP:GNG for notability to be satisfied. Furthermore WP:TOOSOON and WP:1E applies here. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingual Sylheti Speakers[edit]

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

The article contains no sources showing that the topic itself is notable, only passing statements that most Sylheti-speaking people are bilingual, failing WP:SYNTH; not sure yet if content can be merged to Sylheti language. One of several problematic articles created by Slake000 (talk · contribs) in this topic area; more details at ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Many languages in the world have a significant number of second-language speakers from minority language communities. This is nothing remarkable and not a topic for an article, unless there is significant coverage in reliable sources. No reliable source covers "bilingual Sylheti speakers" as its main topic. In the sources given in the article, the bilingualism with Sylheti is only mentioned in passing. All this can be merged (without leaving a redirect!) into Sylheti language with 1–2 sentences. –Austronesier (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Austronesier. A brief mention based on two of the article's sources can be added to Sylheti language, but I agree that there's no need to merge anything or leave behind a redirect – the page title is way below the granularity threshold for redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If everyone agrees to delete and add partially into Sylheti language, instead of a separate page. I have no problem. My intention was to give a clear picture of different groups of speakers. - Slake000 — Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 18 June 2021
Redirect and merge into Sylheti language. Doesn't qualify an independent article. RationalPuff (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There isn't a page on bilingual English speakers for a reason. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 01:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Resources[edit]

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

Aware of the Prior AfD, and understand why it was a valid speedy keep, but I do not believe this company meets WP:ORG. The best source found via a BEFORE, which I'm not sure meets WP:RS, notes that the company formerly known as Pioneer: "is a classic small fry WA goldfields explorer with excellent management connections and a promising mix of gold, nickel and lithium assets." Nothing else found counters the "classic small fry" designation and I can find no significant, in depth coverage. Note: this is not the Dallas-based company with a similar name. Should this be kept, it probably needs moving to itsnew name. Star Mississippi 17:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:ORG. I cannot find any sources other than share prices and a few one-sentence descriptions therein. There are a few stories out there about the Sinclair Caesium Mine but none go into detail about the company itself, and it does not WP:INHERIT notability from that. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources via a Proquest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers, just a brief, incidental mention in a 2003 The Age newspaper article, and a 2006 The Australian article. Given the entity delisted in the early 2000s if there were any notable articles this search should have found them. Cabrils (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Steak[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, no significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:GNG and WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet NFILM, not much at IMDB page. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep, per the newly added sources. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep, per the sources added by Ffranc. Le Monde is especially important and reliable. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film is used as a soruce for at least four Wikipedia articles. It received nationwide distribution on television in at least Sweden, and also likely many other countries in Europe via Canal+ since it is a television documentary. It was part of the Alimenterre film festival of documentaries[3]. A search on the title "Demain nos enfants mangeront des criquets" gives a lot of hits when searching the internet strongly suggesting notability. --Bensin (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG after I've added a couple of reviews from French-language media. Both are full-length film reviews in major newspapers. Ffranc (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four major French language papers wrote about this film Libération, La Libre Belgique, Le Parisien and Le Monde. @Bovineboy2008: Does it perhaps look better after Ffranc added them to the article? --Bensin (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With to added reviews it is probably passes NFLIM. Kolma8 (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above with to added reviews it should now pass for NFLIM. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple French reliable sources including full reviews so that WP:GNG and WP:NFILM are passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seiichi Akamine[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The majority of the cited sources are self published or too closely connected to the subject. Those that are not do not rise to the level of what could be considered significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't find significant independent coverage of him that would show he meets WP:GNG. Most of the references are from biographies written by students of his, especially the one at his organization's website, which can not be considered independent. The remaining coverage is passing mentions. As a further check, I see he is not mentioned in the Gōjū-ryū article or among it's notable practitioners (Gōjū-ryū#Notable practitioners). I also found no evidence that the style he created, Ken-Shin-Kan, is notable. My search found no significant independent coverage of it, though I did find a number of dojos that claim to teach it. I don't believe that's enough to show notability, based on WP:MANOTE. A 2011 deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken-Shin-Kan makes the claim that Akamine introduced Gōjū-ryū to South America, but cites no sources for this claim. If independent sourcing can be found to support this claim, I will reassess my vote. Right now, this article clearly fails to meet WP:GNG and that's my default standard. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impi Linux[edit]

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

This page was proposed for deletion in 2020, and was deleted without objection. Until the other day, when an editor objected to the deletion on my talk page. So I have undeleted the contested PROD and am nominating for deletion. Independent sources are lacking. WP:GNG does not appear to be established. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP due to lack of quality references demonstrating significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Needleman[edit]

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

Delete Proposing this article for deletion. Being an oboist in an orchestra is not enough - if we did that for every orchestra we'd have tens of thousands of oboist Wikipedia articles. The notability criteria are at WP:MUSICBIO. The only reference on the page is to a 13 year old local news article when Needleman went to a school to teach 10 year olds how to play. Searching further I don't find much coverage except for promotional pages and a bullying incident involving her. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. As for my own opinion, it appears that the subject has only received run-of-the-mill local coverage in the Baltimore/Washington area, which doesn't satisfy WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG --Finngall ^talk 21:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. "BSO principal oboist Katherine Needleman soars through Rouse concerto" (Baltimore Sun; 2016), "BSO debut of ‘Oboe Concerto’ bursts with trills and colors" (Washington Post; 2016), and "Baltimore Symphony musician makes harrassment complaint against concertmaster" (The Strad; 2018). Finngall's complaint that coverage is mostly in the Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area isn't policy based (WP:TOWN failed), and besides, nearly 10 million people live there. pburka (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on sources provided above. I have added them to the article. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has received coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (WP:GNG) and appears to be a notable musician based on her pioneering work with triple oboe ensembles. Article just needs a little more work and research. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. This nomination from an IP is not based on a thorough WP:BEFORE and hence disruptive. gidonb (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all, enough sources available to secure a pass for WP:GNG. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep / delete arguments roughly equally split. As I can see some arguing, it's probably best not to carry on for another week. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warden Rock[edit]

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

Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. And rocks do play some role in navigation. Apcbg (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location imprecisely as 67° 32′ 0″ S, 67° 19′ 0″ W, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks it is! Nor is it necessarily worth mentioning a tiny, nondescript rock on some other article merely because it exists. Anyone using this article to navigate the Antarctic Peninsula is a moron, and your assertion is irrelevant original research. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The precise coordinates of Warden Rock are 67°31′44″S 67°18′28″W according to the linked reliable source, UK Antarctic Place-names Committee. WP:OR: “This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.” Apcbg (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it is irrelevant! A location is not notable by means of being a location! Reywas92^Talk 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The feature should pass WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources [4] [5] [6] [7] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins). Apcbg (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same basic information just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics. A namesake is not legitimate content beyond the name itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5P1 and WP:SIGCOV per the sources above demonstrating coverage in multiple reference works, including Antarctica: An Encyclopedia which I added to the article. Our mission statement per the first pillar is to do the work of an encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias. When a topic has an entry in a published academic encyclopedia, it automatically passes GNG because of the very first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars.4meter4 (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 South Shetland Islands with history left intact for those editors expressing interest in a merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Square End Island[edit]

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

Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >>South Shetland Islands as part of group and best AfD. Djflem (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. Apcbg (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location imprecisely as 62° 10′ 0″ S, 58° 59′ 0″ W, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks it is! Nor is it necessarily worth mentioning a tiny, nondescript rock on some other article merely because it exists. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The precise coordinates of Square End Island are 62°09'28.6"S 58°59'31.2"W according the linked reliable source, Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica. Apcbg (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The feature should pass WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources [8] [9] [10] [11] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins). Apcbg (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5P1 and WP:SIGCOV per the sources above demonstrating coverage in multiple reference works, including Antarctica: An Encyclopedia which I added to the article. Our mission statement per the first pillar is to do the work of an encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias. When a topic has an entry in a published academic encyclopedia, it automatically passes GNG because of the very first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars.4meter4 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 South Shetland Islands with history left intact for those editors expressing interest in a merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atherton Islands[edit]

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

Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >> South Shetland Islands. Djflem (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. Apcbg (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location imprecisely as -64.8, -64.25, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks it is! Nor is it necessarily worth mentioning a tiny, nondescript rock on some other article merely because it exists. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The precise coordinates of Atherton Islands are 62°05'15.3"S 58°56'45.7"W according the linked reliable source, Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica. Apcbg (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Noel Atherton#Honours, I could literally find no information on this place other than that it exists. Existing is not enough to pass WP:GEOLAND, and there is clearly not the coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. I do not think it is important enough to warrant a mention on any other page besides Noel Atherton's. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The feature should pass WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources [12] [13] [14] [15] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins). Other relevant coverage [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Apcbg (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GEOLAND per the sources above, and per WP:5P1. With an entry in the Composite Gazetteer Of Antarctica it should automatically meet GNG per the first pillar as doing the work of a gazetteer is in our primary mission statement.4meter4 (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kompany[edit]

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

Article fails to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:ORGDEPTH. Various WP:ADPROMO as well. Amigao (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move this dab page to this title. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the notable Austrian companies that operate on an international level and provide innovative technology in the financial sector. Previous editors deleted in the articel a lot of reliable sources which I had to restore with a lot of work in improving the contents (e.g. Austrian Computerwelt Magazine, der Standard Newspaper or German Payment and Banking which is one of the best independent Finance Blogs there). I would suggest to KEEP as part of WikiProject Austria and see how members from there agree on the notability aspect. In addition I am suspicious about the permanent deletion request by a user that got criticised recently a lot by the community because of vandalism and also is discussed to be blocked: User talk:Amigao. Anyway, I am personally very interested in anything going on around Austria, especially about modern culture here, and think that some of those things here need more international visibility. I wrote with Kompany my first english wiki article as I am also very interested in topics about changes in the financial world. Of course I am aware that an article about this company is a not a mainstream topic, but I did not think that this is a requirement for Wikipedia considering almost every company from lists like this one: List of microbreweries. Frottdog (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC) — Frottdog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep – Seems as article got fixed to satisfy WP:NPOV and notability WP:ORGCRIT (after quick research it seems to be a worldwide operating business data search engines as also mentioned in the articles). It is also a non-public stock corporation and for this fact already legit as Wiki-Article. The provided sources are also reliable in Austria (renowned daily newspaper and magazine like Der_Standard / Trend_(magazine) and https://computerwelt.at/ SokratesLehrling (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC) — SokratesLehrling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Has significant news coverage. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do have my concerns about promotionalism, and a number of the sources are likely not reliable/indy, factoring in the non-interview parts of interview articles, I do believe that NORG is met, if not by a wide margin. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I made some improvements so the article could be judged on the merits of its info and sources, rather than poor formatting. Sourcing is poor, and doesn't demonstrate notability. Several sources are replicated from press releases. It may be WP:TOOSOON. If sourcing can be tightened and improved with more coverage, I'd switch to a keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly "TOOSOON", doesn't demonstrate notability, PR releases, I think the 2 new SPAs who voted here should answer the obvious question about WP:COI (see WP:COIN Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Which sources are press releases? As far as I see it´s just one (crowdfundinsider) which undermines statements that are also mentioned in other articles that are clearly not press releases, or? Frottdog (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a case where our naming rules, specifically about partial title matches, fall down. Surely far more people entering "Kompany" would be looking for information about Vincent rather than about this company? At the very least, if this is kept, we should move this to a qualified title and move the disambiguation page to this title. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single one of the references are either PR, name-drops in lists of no significance or based on announcements/interviews/quotation where all the information is provided by the company and there is no Independent Content. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and we require multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article as follows:
- Der Standard reference has a lot of information about cybersecurity and risks but when it comes to the topic company the reference relies entirely on quotations from the CEO and other boilerplate descriptions from the company. There is no Independent Content and it fails WP:ORGIND.
- WKO reference is a standard directory entre with information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- Payment & Banking reference is an advertorial for a poscast with an interview with the CEO. The lede is written in a neutral voice but it is clear that the information was provided by the company and indeed, there is a "slip-us" in the second last paragraph where the text reads as "*we* expect". Fails WP:ORGIND
- Computerwelt reference is entirely based on an interview with the CEO with no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
- Silicon Republic is a mention in a list of an article promoting Vienna for start-ups. It includes a short summary of the company which is no different than lots of other articles but no in-depth information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- Spotfolio is based on a PR announcement from the investors, connected source, fails WP:ORGIND
- TechEU reference is based on an this PR announcement from the company, fails [[WP:ORGIND]
- This reference simply shows the logo, no information on the company, all PR anyway. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- These Trent. https://www.trend.at/themen/100-beste-startups references] include the topic company at rank 26, 32 and 22 in a relatively unimportant top 100 list for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 and includes a standard boilerplace photo and description of the comapany, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- FT annual list of Europe's fastest-growing companies shows the topic company at rank 544. It is a relatively unimportant list and position abd the reference does not provide any in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and the methodology disclosed that the ranking is also based on information/figures provided by the company (which is the information that is included in the article), fails ORGIND
- InsurTech reference is part of the topic company's sales assets, a case study written by the topic company and a consulting company, aimed at potential clients. Fails ORGIND.
- Fintech Times reference is an advertorial entirely based on an interview with the CEO and information provided by the company, no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- Crowdfund Insider reference is based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
- NewsHubAsia post is based on a press release identical article here but included a link to the press release on the topic company's blog, fails ORGIND
- Computerwelt's second reference is based on the topic company's announcement of the launch of the newest AML UBO discovery solution - powered by AI! The reference literally repeats paraphrases the announcement, add nothing, no Independent Content. Fails WP:ORGIND
- coingeek reference is based on a presentation given by the company founders. Fails WP:ORGIND

I've also tried to hunt down some analyst reports since the regtech sector is covered. I came across one on deliotte's website but the methodology revealed that it relied on information and figures provided by the company and the report didn't provide any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Perhaps another editor might locate some analyst reports but for now, this topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "there is no Independent Content" User:HighKing ??? Thank you for your effort back-checking the sources, but I think you are maybe a little overdoing :)... Sure, the company is not Apple and not of a huge importance for the mass, as the product is mainly in the B2B sector, but for people interested in technology and in finance/regulation (like me), it definitely is, as mass media coverage is rare in this branch afais. Also saying that there is "no independent content" even to articles where a journalist interviewed the CEO and had a closer look at the company, and the journalist also wrote his name under the article is the same, as if saying that the journalist of those (renowned) media did not do his job. This is quite a serious accusation taking the strict laws for independent media here in Austria/EU into consideration, especially about labeling requirements for allegedly paid content as you also accused all of the media houses covering the company. Further, please have a look at first sentence on Wikipedia:NIS. Don´t think that in the statements that were quoted here (that they got an investment) it is a problem taking a press release coverage, but if you want, maybe we can agree on this source by an established startup media which created a video interview about the investment?. However, I am somehow happy about the discussion as I learn here a lot!, but nevertheless I am quite surprised about the massive criticism. With this approach/benchmark you could instantly delete 80% of Wikipedia content with a programmable bot Frottdog (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response Frottdog, your criticism is entirely misplaced and reveals your own misunderstanding of WP:NCORP guidelines. I used the capitalised term "Independent Content" in the context and meaning of its definition in WP:ORGIND which I included in my initial !vote above. So yes, an article where a journalist relies entirely on an interview with the CEO and background information provided by the company *and* without providing any of their own analysis/opinion/etc fails ORGIND. Nor am I saying the journalist didn't do their job - in fact I'd go so far as to say that the journalist did an excellent job. I'm sure that each quote was quoted and the descriptions were accurately and faithfully reproduced. You assume and imply that the journalist's job was to generate "Independent Content" but it isn't, their job is more likely to report "news" not to analyse or comment on it. Nor did I say it was paid content. The entire point of requiring "Independent Content" is to ensure that we move out of a topic company's "echo chamber" of interviews, quotations, announcements, reports, etc and look for independent content where a journalist/analyst provides their own analysis/opinion/etc on the company. This is not a criticism of the company - in fact the sheer volume of references available indicates a well-oiled and functioning marketing department. Instead (and because of the large budgets available to companies' marketing departments to generate "noise") it is simply the application of our own guidelines on establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please explain me in detail (honest request) why those sources do not count as you even admit that the journalist did an excellent job and why the benchmark is set that extremely high here. I do not get it where the problem is, if a journalist interviews a CEO on a relevant topic and also portrays the company to give the reader some context to what this company is doing (how should he get this information besides asking the company?! Would you assume that the CEO of a joint stock company lied to the journalist?). Having said that, I know and also read WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND, however, the criticised articles by you - those we are talking about - are "independent(✔) primary(✔) third-party(✔) source that are NOT(✔) self-published" like stated in WP:ORGIND. And also there is "significant coverage (✔) in multiple reliable secondary sources(✔) that are independent(✔) of the subject" as stated in WP:NCORP @ WP:ORGCRITE. I must say that in this case your criticism is entirely misplaced and reveals your own misunderstanding of those guidelines. Besides, yes, you stated above that the fintechtimes article is an advertorial (which would be paid content), and this is not the case after having another closer look on the article and also after checking the other used sources. --Frottdog (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Frottdog, no problems answering. I know I've said this before but please take a look again. Look at the definition in ORGIND. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Lets look at the article based on an interview with the CEO. The first question to be considered is: what is the source of the information and detail in each article - and the answer is either directly from quotations from the CEO or common descriptions provided by the company. The next question is: does the journalist offer any of their own opinion/analysis/etc - and the answer is No. That is not therefore Independent Content, the article has merely repeated information provided by sources connected to the company. Indeed, it may be the case that it is all factually true and correctly transcribed by the journalist. It is also the case that these articles may be used to support facts within the article. But they cannot be used to establish notability. The application of the definition of "Independent" is applied to a high and strict standard in NCORP for good reason - most companies aren't notable. Getting your CEO interviewed, or having a newspaper repeat a company announcement, doesn't establish notability to the standards required. If, for example, the journalist were to provide their own analysis or opinion on whatever is being said by the CEO, then we're closer to meeting the criteria for establishing notability. None of the articles that I say fail ORGIND contain Independent Content. The fact that you check the "independent" box above demonstrates to me that you fail to understand what "independent" encompasses as laid out in ORGIND. You cannot check "independent" without the article containing "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to HighKing: I totally get your point, however I strongly disagree in this particular case with you. As said, using such an interpretation of NCORP standards for Wiki would immediately kill 90% of the articles here. Since when does a company need several extensive investigative portraits in top level media? Or, could you demonstrate a similar case how notability is granted at those levels? Also, please have a look at similar companies, e.g. even from the same category Vendors_of_proprietary_enterprise_search_software. Should this whole section including the listed companies be deleted? From my interpretation of NCORP: I would consider a company notable when several different journalist independently of each other spend their time to speak with a company and want to discover and showcase more about this company, because this company provides an important technology to prevent worldwide money laundering or improves the banking / finance / insurance sector with it.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup. The target article being too large is an argument for splitting it, or for applying WP:NOTSTATS, not for deleting this one. The arguments based on WP:ATD are more convincing. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Junior Fed Cup Final[edit]

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

Mentioned very briefly at Inside the Games and US Tennis Association's website. The coverage is not substantial at all and the second source above is not even an independent source anyway. No evidence of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT as with many other junior matches that have had articles created recently. Information already covered well enough in other articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 05:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup per above. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a merge cannot be done here. There are 35 years of these finals and the article they would be merged to is already a huge list. Plus many of these jr finals have already been deleted (some redirected) so having only one or two merged would make the article a lopsided laughing stock. It can be redirected but really cant be merged. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Redirect is okay but merge would give undue weight to one final over all of the others and I don't see how it would benefit Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup which covers the topic in enough detail already. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand. Are we deleting ALL of them? We cannot just delete a particular year because it is not as notable as some other years... It IS an international youth competition; yearly results are not notable? Or are we going with a single "results" page listing the 35 years. Mjquinn_id (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them are failing the WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT test and so do not qualify for stand-alone articles. These should be redirected to the parent article. Some of them may well pass GNG and so those can have their own article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The parent page at Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup has ALL the results for 35 years. That's always been listed here at wikipedia. But one editor recently created each individual final for these kids events, with the scoring for every match. That's the issue here. The results are already created in a comprhensive article... they aren't going anywhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Significant reliable sources coverage found. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cysgod Rhyfel[edit]

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

Non-notable television film that has not received significant coverage from independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as it fails WP:NF. All I could find for this film were tv listings and a single press release. Although Western Mail (Wales) is reliable, it is not enough on its own. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film has been the subject of multiple articles in the Daily Post (the main English language newspaper publication in Wales) in addition to the coverage already in the article:

"Ex-troop makes moving film". Daily Post. May 10, 2014.

"Owain opens his heart on family taboo: Mental health issues under the spotlight". Daily Post. May 10, 2014.

"Living with war's dark memories: Conflict casts a shadow on former soldiers' lives". Daily Post. May 17, 2014.

Further, there were several Welsh language publications about the film and doctoral dissertations in Welsh citing or examining the film in my university's library. It appears to have significance in academia in Wales in psychology, mental health, and cinema studies. It's important to remember when we are dealing with foreign language films that the national audience of the criteria for WP:NFILM is a different nation/people group than the English speaking world. Altogether, it's enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and criteria 1 and 5 of WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @4meter4:, could you post some links to theses sources? I have been trying to verify them and haven't been able to locate them. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't. The University of Oklahoma library doesn't allow transference of the material outside of the university database to non faculty or non-students. I can download PDFs of files, but I am not sure the legality of uploading those here. They are available in ProQuest if you have subscription access. 4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per the additional sources listed by 4meter4. Not sure about NFILM 5, but with ProQuest access I was able to verify the sources from Daily Post, and adding that to Western Mail I believe the film passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shobhana 7 Nights[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. PROD was removed saying that many sources exist, but I wasn't able to find anything to pass GNG and NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jha, Subhash K. (12 October 2012). "Shobhna's 7 Nights: Raveena Tandon wins award - Times of India". The Times of India. passes for GNG. As the award is from a non-notable festival. Kolma8 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Winner of a minor/non-notable award cannot save it. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. It surely casts notable actors. Maybe there are sources in print but those will have to presented to save this. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just another unnecessary nomination. Sources are spread all over the internet, and the claim that the award is non-notable is just POV; it appears in The Times of India, among many other reliable sources - thus notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article expanded; sources added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article was expanded and now has significant coverage from several reliable sources. Cast is also notable. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Now passes WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV per improvements made by Shahid.4meter4 (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. It passes WP:NFILM now. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Abel (racing driver)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the sourcing requirements at WP:NSPORT. Not enough significant coverage to establish notability. 4meter4 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reference database only sports article. Mere documentation of existence and participation in even the top levels of a sport does not equal notability under WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NSPORTS. Peter303x (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Islamic schools and branches. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Sunni, Shia and Ibadi Islam[edit]

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

Redundant fork of Islamic schools and branches. PepperBeast (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Islamic schools and branches per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not an encyclopedic entry. Mosesheron (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if there's content worth saving, merge. I've only had a quick look at the article, but I doubt such a condensed list format can do justice to the subtleties and complexities of differences between religions or schools. The list will generally consist of mainly WP:OR and tend to be non-WP:NPOV. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamic schools and branches per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, like Qwaiiplayer says.DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamic schools and branches per WP:REDUNDANTFORK.4meter4 (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a supplementary list to page Islamic schools and branches. Of course it can be just copy-pasted there, but it works better as a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:My very best wishes. The merge target is already very large, and merging this list in will make it even more so. I think it's better as a separate page as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Appleyard (footballer)[edit]

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

Minor footballer. Lack in depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes NFOOTY (he was in the top English league and made six appearances). I am usually reluctant to rely on NFOOTY, but six apps is a lot different from one or two apps (and we usually keep those articles, anyway). He played in the 1920s so the lack of easily accessible sources is not strange. I guess I do have a question about verifiability - I can't seem to find him on any football database (but I'm not sure they go back that far, and I may be looking in the wrong place). But I stand by my keep unless someone can show he did not make those 6 apps. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. If we can't verify he even exists it is a problem. There's a reason we require "multiple sources" to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NFOOTBALL. There's bound to not be a great deal of coverage readily available for a player who played in the 1920s and 30s. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please don't just vote WP:NFOOTBALL without trying to verify the article. The deletion rationale is about lack of sources. There is not enough sources to even verify this was a real person, and people are assuming the article is an automatic keep without looking to see if the content is even accurate. It could be a WP:Hoax for all we know based on the lack of evidence.4meter4 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't tell me how I can and can't !vote. The existing source confirms that the subject is a real person; the fact it's an offline source doesn't lessen its worth. Per WP:OFFLINE, "there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources". Anyway, I'm currently working on expanding the article with data from the English National Football Archive. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't specifically directed at you but as a statement to all editors. I agree offline references are valid, but I do question the validity of this source when I can't confirm this person was even alive in other sources. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Claim that "we can't verify he existed" is an odd one. I own the book cited in the article and can confirm that Appleyard has an entry in it. So, unless you think that Michael Joyce randomly decided to make up a fake player, we most certainly can confirm that he existed......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. This is a bad-faith and POINTy nomination based on this - also deeply flawed as detailed by everyone above. Giant Snowman 20:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What am I being pointy about? This nomination has nothing to do with the policy discussion on that page. This has an entirely different rationale. I'm not sure how the one event policy change at the RFC would apply in this context. Making such a suspicious accusation is uncivil. This nomination was solely based on the fact that I couldn't find any sources anywhere online. That's it. It's just about the need to prove notability and verifiability per multiple references. 4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. A big thank you to Mattythewhite who was able to find another source and improve the article. I think WP:SIGCOV has been met. I will close the disucssion momentarily. Thanks to all who participated.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wetherby RUFC[edit]

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

Non-notable sports team in the eighth (amateur) tier, no independent sources outside of a mention of regional BBC news with a video link that doesn't work Dexxtrall (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fails GNG and WP:RU/N#Clubs. Usual passing mentions but not enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rotherham Phoenix[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby club, nothing showing up on a source that would establish notability outside of their own website Dexxtrall (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:RU/N#Clubs. There's a few passing mentions, but not enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

André Ziehe[edit]

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

Simply fails WP:NMODEL/WP:BASIC...you name it... A non-notable model. Kolma8 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when you have an article that refers to a 9-year-old campaign as current it is clear the person is not notable because they really had one ad campaign they were in, and that ad campaign on its own is not enough to show notability. Articles like this clearly show how quickly Wikipedia will become out-dated if we allow it to be flooded with articles on non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. Also, there are no WP:RS on the article. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 07:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Gnews hits since 2014. Nothing showing he's gone on past that campaign. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 17 June
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King Baggot (cinematographer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Somewhat hard to check, as he is the namesake of his grandfather, King Baggot, but other than the odd interview or two,[22] I'm not seeing anything that elevates him above other working cinematographers, no Oscars, etc. (Besides, Gollum hates Baggotses.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does indeed appear not to pass any of the points of WP:CREATIVE, the only other thing I was able to find was by searching his full name, and it's this interview on a blog: [23]. There are a few other mentions, but they're mainly quotations where he's being interviewed regarding his grandfather's career. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 16:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty clearly fails GNG. Two sources are explicitly about his father's death, another one is a public marriage record. Others are just passing mentions (being mentioned in a book is not a claim to fame). Apparently just a cameraman which is a noble profession but does not warrant inclusion without some other showing of significance. Sorry, King. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lanza (actress)[edit]

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

Possible nonnotable actress. Tagged with {{BLP sources}} since 2020. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did some research, added some sources. Should be fine or at least better now. Tec Tom (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tec Tom, I think she still fails WP:NACTOR cause of her lack of roles. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't say that there is a lack of roles. Furthermore some of the movies are quite famous. Tec Tom (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tec Tom, while the MOVIES are famous, she's not. She only held a couple of background roles, apparently. Notability is not transferable. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 16:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these are minor roles, regardless of the notability of the work itself. Fails NACRTRESS and GNG. Also misleading for lead to say she 'starred' in the Perez Family when she only had a minor role. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lot of press coverage of her 1995 performance in The Perez Family (Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Variety, etc.) and there is good coverage of a play she did the same year as that film at The Old Globe Theatre; Nerissa in A.R. Gurney's Overtime (reviewed in Variety on August 28, 1995 and LA Times on 17 July 1995). And then nothing else. None of her other film or television roles have been reviewed. I could find no reviews of any more stage performances. Outside of the year 1995 there aren't any significant sources. Ultimately I don't think she's demonstrated sustained notability to pass criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. 1 notable film role and 1 notable stage appearance that essentially overlapped in the same short period of time doesn't seem significant enough to pass the threshold of NACTOR. Further, there are no sources where she is the main subject, so she clearly fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no major news coverage. Does not meet guidelines. Peter303x (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff_Haslam[edit]

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

Dear Wikipedians, I am the subject of this article. I respectfully ask that it be deleted. I regard myself as a non-notable, private person. The article has many problems regarding sources and other issues as noted. I would like to see it deleted rather than fixed, for the sake of my privacy. Thank you for your consideration. Yermxzchz (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tagged for notability since 2017, and the page has BLP problems (namely the "Controversy" section that is sourced mostly to blogs). My search for sources mainly brings up local Edmonton coverage, much of it lacking depth, and I do not think we have SIGCOV here.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. KidAd • SPEAK 23:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to respect the subject privacy. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per request. Article is not well-sourced, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be sourced considerably better than this — the minor, insignificant incident that's carrying literally all of the sourcing here is just a WP:BLP1E matter that fails the ten year test. Subject is not nationally or internationally prominent enough to override all of those problems, either. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indepth sources available. fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable source found, lacks notability.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if we did not have the specific request to delete the article seems to totally fail not news requirments with a very short amount of blog generated coverage about someone who would not have come close to passing notability guidelines for an actor anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Hawtin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO issues too Kieem trra (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kieem trra (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This really strikes me as an attack page, so I have CSD'd it. The unsuppressed version is here. --- Possibly (talk)

Well, that did not work, so let's go delete on this. There is significant recent coverage of the June 2021 billion dollar plan, but very little before that. GNG fail.--- Possibly (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this is a likely WP:ATTACKPAGE. It also clearly fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 23:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KidAd. 2001:569:74D2:A800:2C55:7654:420F:BE93 (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC) — 2001:569:74D2:A800:2C55:7654:420F:BE93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Whether attack or promo, article does not match quality standards. JBchrch talk 13:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not notable enough to be kept. Irrelevant information is present.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's subject, Corey Hawtin, appears to have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time relating to his role as the founder of Core Development Group. These include The Toronto Star, Barrie Today, The Globe and Mail, Urban Toronto, etc. If we're worried about biological details aside from public coverage, a wedding page and this bio of his would be a place to start for uncontroversial facts about his personal life/education. At this point, the remnants of the original page have been deleted and the violating edits appear to have been revdel'd/suppressed. As a result, I think that the page itself cannot possibly reasonably be seen to constitute an attack page at this point and the individual passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A week is not an extended period of time. The first three (the Star, Barrie Today and the Globe) are all from within one week in June 2021. Same story. The fourth is some kind of review on a webinar, from the previous year, which doesn't seem very journalistic. The two bio sources are self-published, but could be OK if RS existed to prove notability. --- Possibly ☎ 20:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Possibly's clear analysis of how this article at best does not pass the BLP 1 event exception to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 09:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hanna[edit]

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

Fails GNG Kieem trra (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kieem trra (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has indepth coverage in Los Angeles Times and can see coverage on other reputed sources too like NYTimes, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. "Chief creative officer[s]" are not inherently notable. KidAd • SPEAK 23:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per available coverage in reliable news websites. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, has enough reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pranshu Chatur Lal[edit]

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

moved from draft bypassing AFC, most sources do not mention him or if they do only in passing, no in-depth coverage, notability is not inherited from "renowned" relatives. Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom Idunnox3 (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Newman (lifeguard)[edit]

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

Fails GNG Heart ^(talk) 03:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Heart ^(talk) 03:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it is tragic he is battling Parkinson's disease, this person does not meet any of our notability requirements for inclusion. Does not pass GNG, NACTOR, nor SPORTSBASIC. Netherzone (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NACTOR. Not a major role in Baywatch ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nilai 3 Wholesale Centre[edit]

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

No sources other than self published non independent sites and zero indication of Notablity. Ratnahastin^talk 07:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable wholesale market. Sources do not establish notability, and I have been unable to find others. No evidence of notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Abbandando Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Notability appears to be connected to his father, and notability is not inherited. Further, article was created by an editor who created topics that mostly have been deleted. 4meter4 (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially unsourced since creation and what was sourced has since been removed as not reliably sourced. The remaining sub-stub makes no claims that could be understood as even leaning towards notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnutella2. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FileScope[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. This software was abandoned in 2014 and lacked any sources reporting on it even when it was supported. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The subject is mentioned in various research articles, for example: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=19843 (PhD thesis), http://artemis.cslab.ece.ntua.gr:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/14783, http://dwl.kiev.ua/art/p2p/p2p-end.pdf The latter mentions that the subject is one of the most used clients for Gnutella2. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.KBAHT: Thanks for finding these links. Unfortunatelly, I don't think even one of them has "in-depth coverage" of FileScope. The second (Greek) and third (Russian) sources just list FileScope among many other programs, they do not have a single sentence fully dedicated to FileScope. I could not find download link for the first source, but abstract does not inspire confidene and even if this source was in-depth, it would not be sufficient basis to hinge notability on. Perhaps, there are more sources? Anton.bersh (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: I agree about the Spanish and the Greek sources. They basically mention that the subject is one of several other P2P clients supporting Gnutella2. The Russian source is saying that it's one of the most popular Gnutella2 clients. From the GNG point of view the subject is not notable, of course. However, the WP:NSOFT policies allow to include the software which is notable in a specific field, not necessarily in the general scope. If Gnutella2 is a notable P2P technology, then the most popular clients for Gnutella2 should be notable as well, based on WP:NSOFT. That's why I voted to keep the article. If my interpretation of WP:NSOFT is wrong or Gnutella2 is not notable, then I will not insist. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.KBAHT: Wikipedia articles need content useful to readers and supported by reliable sources. Right now, I don't see anything that could warrant more than two sentences about Filescope. As of now, FileScope article just creates confussion and does not convey much information. It has only one reference to filescope.com which is meant to support a vague claim that "the application is cross-platform but current builds only support running it under Microsoft Windows, but it is due to also run under Linux, Mac OS X, and other Unix-based platforms." So does it support only Windows or Linux/Mac OS/Unix? The Russian source just states (translated for convenience): "The most popular client programs for Gnutella2 are Shareaza, Kiwi, Alpha, Morpheus, Gnucleus, Adagio Pocket G2, FileScope, iMesh, MLDonkey." This content might be suitable for Gnutella2 article, but not really useful in FileScope.

If there is actual content which could be used in FileScope, I'd be glad to integrate it into FileScope myself if noone else wants to do it. If there is no supported content suitable for an article, logically, there can be no article. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: Thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree with you. So, I'm withdrawing my vote. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of this writing I don't see how this passes WP:GNG.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 19:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We don't have any reliable sources in English for the software, so I think the prospects for getting an adequate-quality article under this name are slight. I'm inclined to redirect/merge, in view of the fact that the article is referred to by many other articles, may be of interest to people researching history of file sharing, and has scholarly documentation in other languages. However, none of the filesharing articles I've looked to are really adequate targets. If we had a list of P2P file sharing applications, that would be the most obvious; as a distant second best, we could target Gnutella2#Clients. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst: There are actually very few content articles with links to FileScope. Most of them actually use Template:Gnutella2, which includes FileScope. Therefore after FileScope deletion (if we decide to delete it) it would be trivial to remove all dead links to FileScope. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gnutella2#Clients - following the discussion on Dr.KBAHT's retracted !vote, that seems the most relevant place discussing the software. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Gnutella2#Clients.4meter4 (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Shrubsole[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. She's only played in the Women's County Championship, which isn't presumed notable on the cricket notability guidance list, and there doesn't appear to be any substantial coverage of her Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRIN and WP:GNG with no international or highest-level domestic appearances as per Cricinfo profile. And note to the nominator- matches of Women's County Championship aren't probably played in first-class status, so not in highest-level apart from that it isn't presumed to be notable at WP:OFFCRIC. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Women's County Championship is a limited-overs competition, so wouldn't have first-class status. I believe it never had List A status either, which is why it's in the "non-notable tournaments" section of the official cricket list. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Oh! I am extremely sorry, I worded wrong. Would want to mean that Women's County Champ. doesn't have List A status, just a limited overs competition. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fails GNG and WP:NCRIC. Seems her only notability is being the sister of an international cricketer. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Braddock Heights, Maryland. Per Hog Farm's suggestion, as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview, Frederick County, Maryland[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. This place does appear on topos and has a GNIS listing, however the coordinates listed appear to lead to a single building. Searching brought up no relevant results. I couldn't find anything that suggests that this was ever a community. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 13:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 13:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 13:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Given that the GNIS source is Frederick County Maryland Genealogical Research Guide it's quite clear that this is simply the name for an old house/estate. No topo shows anything beyond a driveway leading to said house. I don't see a NRHP article under this name, so it is apparently not notable as such. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Braddock Heights, Maryland, which this seems to be an old name for (as described in the section there and confirmed here.) This does suggest that the Fairview Braddock was technically known as Old Braddock, but Old Braddock and Braddock Heights were very close and seem to share some history, so the redirect seems appropriate IMO. Hog Farm _Talk 01:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Vandals[edit]

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

Very low league rugby club which fails WP:GNG, my WP:BEFORE search brought up very few secondary sources, such as [24] [25] [26], none of which can really support any of the text in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 08:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable rugby union club. There's mentions online, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. As far as I'm aware the club haven't produced an international player so fails WP:RU/N#Clubs as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, just like the rest of the teams that compete in the ninth tier of English rugby Dexxtrall (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no indepth coverage. 1друг (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding Sun[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, only sources seem to be primary sources, reprints of press releases, and commercial websites (like Amazon), does not have significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 09:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage. All I could find were several passing mentions on articles like "on TV this week" and "Fifty best disaster films you can watch right now." I did find some amateur reviews for the film, but they are not enough to establish notability on their own imo, and of course entries on unreliable databases and comprehensive guides like Moviepilot, MUBI and the classic IMDb. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:34, 11 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, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails NFILM. Use of PRWeb as a source is pretty concerning by itself. Pretty clearly a non-notable film. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 09:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FC Guardia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Their best claim to fame seems to have been a tour of the Allianz Arena. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vatican City Championship; no independent notability but possible search term. Very low level league here. Giant Snowman 20:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-even if there is a lack of sources in English, there is Italian coverage. Also the article meets notability requirements for football clubs which state

“Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.” This club plays in the country’s top tier cup and league annually.--Gri3720 (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG per WP:RS available. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bandera News Philippines. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DXFU[edit]

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

Would have redirected, but continues to be recreated. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, which trumps any SNG in this area. SportingFlyer T·C 14:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, none of the sources in the article currently pass WP:GNG - 1-2 are simply licensing information, 3 isn't secondary, and 4 isn't anywhere close to significant coverage (it's an article on a car crash.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 1 and 2 state that the station is licensed by the NTC. Source 3 indicates part of the station's programming. Source 4 indicates the manager of the station. That said, the article is good enough to pass both WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone is thinking of arguing with me over my views, don't bother responding. I'm not gonna waste my time on arguing. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ASTIG: I'm not sure that's what you want to say; a self-confessed WP:ICANTHEARYOU will be a slam-dunk T-ban at ANI... ——Serial 11:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129:: You had better have good reason to request a topic ban and evidence to back it up. If you do, you might want to request one against me as well cause.... Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I have not noticed you editing disruptively (e.g. making non-poliicy compliant statements in multiple venues and then refusing to communicate). Of course, should you choose to... (See what I just did there!) ——Serial 18:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bandera News Philippines per WP:CHEAP, WP:PRESERVE, etc. The coverage is all trivial mentions, so the subject fails the GNG. And WP:NMEDIA does not reflect community consensus, so it does not constitute a valid basis for keeping the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD-R and protect the redirect against further overturning. The sources acclaimed by ASTIG are underwhelming and do not, unfortunately, amount to anything more than passing mentions, way too insufficient to demonstrate the broad, persistent coverage required. ——Serial 11:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Astig. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:GNG per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: SBKSPP (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment - simply saying something passes GNG, when it clearly doesn't, is not really a good way to win folks over to your side. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bandera News Philippines per WP:CHEAP and WP:PRESERVE. Protect redirect from tampering.4meter4 (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boyer Rocks[edit]

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

Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. Apcbg (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location imprecisely as -63.583333, -59, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks they are! Nor is it necessarily worth mentioning a tiny, nondescript rock on some other article merely because it exists. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The precise coordinates of Boyer Rocks are 63°34′59″S 59°01′59″W according to the linked reliable source, UK Antarctic Place-names Committee. Apcbg (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This feature seems to just pass WP:GEOLAND as it has been referred to in multiple published geological references [27] [28] [29], and has information beyond just "statistics and a name" (the sources include the name origin). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above, it should pass for WP:GEOLAND as per covered in geo related sources. It has coverage in [30][31][32] which seems good enough to qualify WP:GEOLAND. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND as per WP:RS available. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dibya Ranjan Giri (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable subject with only primary sources as references. WP:BEFORE doesn't show pass of WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 12:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 12:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 12:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — Smuckola (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find a single reference, let alone reliable, substantive, independent reference, via Google; nor via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (broader and deeper than Google). Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Nexus000 (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. At this point, it is not even clear what is still being nominated for deletion and which arguments apply to what. A better focused discussion may be able to generate a clear consensus, but that is not going to happen here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of names of European cities in different languages[edit]

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

61 additional articles included with this nomination

[Note: This article was previously considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages. Per the top of Talk:List of names of European cities in different languages, the result was delete but the article was then submitted for deletion review which resulted in the restoration of the article.]

I came upon this while reverting a number of edits by one user to add the Slovenian names of a bunch of non-Slovenian European places to their respective articles. Because of WP:NOTDICTIONARY and based on the elucidation provided by WP:USEFUL. The Keep rationales offered in the previous deletion discussion largely focus on the usefulness of the list but, as WP:NOT tells, there are many useful types of resources that that Wikipedia is not. (They also object to concerns raised about verifiability, but I'm not raising that issue here.)

I don't know what it is about geographical locations that gives a sense that Wikipedia ought to give their names in many other languages, but I don't see any difference between this and conceivable lists like "Names of body parts in different languages" and "Names of animals in different languages". These would be squarely dictionary material, and these geographical lists are no different. Perhaps the answer is to port these to Wiktionary. Or—I haven't looked—are similar lists already there? In which case these lists here are redundant anyway. and removing them wouldn't deprive anyone of these resources.

[I believe this discussion ought to cover all the sub-lists this list article sits on top of, including the breakdowns by sections of the alphabet and the exonym lists, but it seemed a formidable task to find them all and list them explicitly. If someone could give a tip for facilitating that, I'd appreciate it.] Largoplazo (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is similar to an article deleted by AfD in 2017, and the sub-lists are largely or entirely unsourced. To nominate all the sub-lists, such as Icelandic exonyms, I'll list all of them here and file a WP:BOTREQ request to tag all of the articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assist with the article listing, LP. I just added eight alphabetical subset articles as well. ~~Is there a way to get a bot to tag those pages?~~ Largoplazo (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NB that there are a number of redirects in the list (should they be deleted too?) and several items are duplicates (Names of Belarusian places in other languages is thrice listed). — AjaxSmack 03:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exonymy is an encylopedic concept so I'm not sure why these lists of exonyms are unencylcopedic vis-à-vis list of songs recorded by the Beatles or list of numbers in various languages or list of Greek and Latin roots in English or list of artworks known in English by a foreign title or whatever. What's special about European places that they need to go? And if these articles are appropriate for Wiktionary, they should be kept and moved there, not deleted. — AjaxSmack 02:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary is also an encyclopedic concept but WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary; the same goes for newspaper, academic journal, and birth registry. As for other similar articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A list of songs by the Beatles isn't dictionary material so it isn't comparable; a list of numbers is comparable—so the same rationale for deletion applies to that article. Largoplazo (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention dictionaries, because we also have a list of dictionaries by number of words, a close parallel to these articles. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but you did not address all lists of words in the nomination, only European place names. And once again, if this is indeed dictionary material, it should be ported to Wiktionary, not deleted. (A list of songs by the Beatles is WP:NOTDIR N°7 -- a little off topic here, granted. My point was that some lists might be encyclopedically notable and others not even if they encroach on dictionary territory. A list of Beatles songs might be notable whereas a list of Mudcrutch songs might not.) — AjaxSmack 02:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AjaxSmack I think this focus on Europe might be because it seems most of the articles in the Category:Lists of exonyms are about Europe. Largoplazo did you want to discuss all of that here? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So there are entries that exist on wiktionary per User:Colin M but whether there are any entries here that aren't there is a question that needs an answer. However, the lists/articles that are unlike Geographical name changes in Greece are not encyclopedic. Catchpoke (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The non-redirect pages included in this AfD have all been tagged. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 17:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Slavic toponyms for Greek places redirects to Geographical name changes in Greece which is an article that deals with the systematic Hellenization of Slavic/Albanian/Turkish place names in Greece. I don't think it belongs in this deletion discussion and, in any case, should not be deleted. --Local hero ^talk 17:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that article has decidedly encyclopedic content. Now that I look at some of the other articles linked explicitly from the primary list page, I see that at least a few of them include encyclopedic as well as sections that amount to dictionary or phrase book content and should be removed while leaving the encyclopedic content. So these, I conclude, should be handled on a case by case basis. When I posted this nomination, my focus was on the alphabetically organized lists that I added to the 53 originally added by LaundryPizza03, and I was hasty in suggesting that all the ones LP added should be included. Those are absolutely nothing more than WP:NOTDICTIONARY violations. But now I'm wondering whether we can somehow reconsider our approach to the 62 articles now comprised by this discussion, among them some calling for custom treatment. Largoplazo (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of German exonyms for places in Belgium. I have no view on the others and do not claim to be a linguistic expert. However, German is an official language of Belgium and the places listed have (or had) substantial German or Luxembourgish-speaking populations. I am not sure the term "exonym" is even correct in this context, but in this case it seems to me to have encyclopedic, rather than "dictionary" value. In my reading, WP:NOTDIC provides no obvious guidance in the situation where the subject is a collected group of terms and not a dictionary-style definition. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this observation. The subject is of even more importance for all places that were part of a German speaking Empire. The German names are than NOT exonyms according to the Wikipedia definition. This AfD should consider this aspect. In the mean time I changed the title of the List for the Czech republic. Jacquesverlaeken (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I agree with you both about German being a national language and about the term "exonyms" being questionable for that reason. At least in regard to the entries that are linked, the page amounts to a list page–redirect page combo, where corresponding single-article redirects would qualify for inclusion under WP:FORRED, which similarly distinguishes between utility links from the corresponding terms in germane languages and dictionary-like links from the corresponding terms in non-germane languages. Largoplazo (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keepas per the reasons above. The article may need a revamp though. Morgengave (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic glossary-type lists. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention this, there MOS:GLOSS, and Wikipedia:Contents/Glossaries, can these articles conform / be included there? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of this, I just quickly found a few more from vague recollection: List of Italian exonyms in Dalmatia, List of Hungarian exonyms for places in Croatia, Hungarian toponyms in Vojvodina. It stands to reason that it's useful to have an article or a redirect for every gazetteer entry per WP:5, and in turn we typically have lead sections with a lot of names, that in turn get moved to "Name" sections when it becomes unwieldy. I'm not sure if also having lists of these kinds of historical or secondary gazetteer entries on top of all that is actually useful to typical English readers? It can be a bit redundant. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the following analogy in the nomination pretty compelling: I don't see any difference between this and conceivable lists like "Names of body parts in different languages" and "Names of animals in different languages". For those who feel we should keep this article, I would be interested to know whether you think an article like Names of body parts in different languages would be appropriate for Wikipedia. And, if not, then what makes the articles nominated here different? Colin M (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference I believe lies in the fact that Wikipedia doesn't cover names of body parts, but it does cover names of places. Any sufficiently well developed article on a geographic place is expected to mention, and contextualise, any names the place might have in relevant languages. The real question, as observed by Joy, is whether we want that sort of content available in lists in addition to articles. – Uanfala (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Then swap "auto parts" for "body parts". This Wikipedia does carry List of auto parts. Would it be correct to begin stocking this project with List of Bengali names for auto parts and so forth? Largoplazo (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't get your point: auto parts are similar to body parts – and different from places – in that we don't normally have content about their names. – Uanfala (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Uanfala:I started this as a paragraph but it is long so I'm bullet-pointing my response:
  
  I likened these lists of place names in other languages to lists of body parts in other languages, which is something I supposed we would all agree Wikipedia shouldn't have.
  
  You appeared to disagree with my likening of the two types of lists on the grounds that the elements of the respective lists differ in whether they are of interest to Wikipedia: "Wikipedia doesn't cover names of body parts, but it does cover names of places."
  
  So I reasoned, what if I'd originally said "auto parts" instead of "body parts"? Wikipedia does cover only auto parts, having a list article for them . So pretend I'd originally asked "Would Wikipedia have an article that lists auto parts in other languages"?
  
  Substituting "auto parts" for "body parts" in your previous argument gives "Wikipedia doesn't cover names of auto parts, but it does cover names of places." Except that Wikipedia does cover names of auto parts. So if you were to attempt to distinguish auto part names from place names in the same way that you distinguished body part names from place names, the attempt would fail.
  
  Largoplazo (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Hmm... where does Wikipedia cover names of auto parts in various languages? – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it doesn't and wouldn't have a list of names of body parts or auto parts or any other parts in various languages. Therefore, why would we have a list of names of places in various languages? Above, someone answered that with (paraphrasing) "But exonymy is itself an encyclopedic subject." Well, so are auto parts. Therefore, either (a) we have a general principle that if a topic is encyclopedic, then it's acceptable for Wikipedia to have a list of terms associated with it in other languages (in which case a list of names of auto parts in other languages is fine) or (b) there is no such general principle, which eliminates the argument that the encyclopedic nature of exonyms automatically makes lists of them encyclopedic. Largoplazo (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- What about the animals example then? Well-developed articles about animals will often "mention and contextualise" names for that animal. See, for example, Polar bear § Naming and etymology, or Red panda § Etymology. So is Names of bears in different languages on the table? (It's true that not all animal articles will have sections on naming which mention exonyms, but the same is also true of even GA-status articles on places - e.g. St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador). Colin M (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, that Newfounland article does have content (if not a dedicated section) about the name of the place in Irish (in the last sentence of the lead). At this stage I feel like we're veering into a general discussion about how we treat names of things – there may actually be a place for that, but it's going to be a long and messy discussion, while here we're at least trying to focus on places (huge though it is already), not auto parts or animals or body parts. So, if an animal has significance for some culture, and also this culture's relationship to this animal is worth mentioning in the article about the animal, then yes, I believe it is appropriate to cover the name that the culture uses for the animal. But this sort of two-way relevance is, I guess, rarer for animal topics and so it can't as easily be harnessed to create a cross-cutting enumeration along the language axis (the way it is for German names for places in Belgium, or Basque names for Spanish places near the Basque country). – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article may be disorganised, but it is informative. Beshogur (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that lack of organization wasn't a rationale I presented in favor of deletion, and my observations that WP:NOT and WP:NOTDICTIONARY exist largely to address material that, though informative, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the German names for places that used to be in Germany or founded by Germans are clearly encyclopedic. Denmark also had a large empire that gives us lots of exonyms, for example in Greenland. Suggest to close to prevent further WP:TRAINWRECKing. —Kusma (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep List of Australian place names changed from German names, clearly encyclopedic piece of WWI history. Additionally, it is very poor taste to include lists of Australian cities in a mass AFD called "List of names of European cities". —Kusma (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I am convinced by the argument that a list of place names in other languages is no more encyclopaedic than a list of auto parts in other languages. This is an English-language encyclopaedia, wherefore it should, in general, cover words and topics in English exclusively; it only makes sense to address foreign names if such names have intrinsic encyclopaedic value (such as examples of an above-mentioned process of hellenisation or whenever they be necessary to explain the sequence of the etymological formation of an English name, for example). Otherwise, anyone looking for the name of a city in a different language should check its article in the Wikipedia of said language, rather than here. The fact that exonymy is an encyclopaedic concept does not imply that there be a list of examples of non-English exonyms, although a list of English exonyms would be probably acceptable. Finally, although this final issue has not been raised, it must be said that it is very difficult to verify lists like these: you would need people knowledgeable of all featured languages who would be willing to give the names and find references for thousands of cities; the potential for undetected vandalism, especially in rarer languages, seems immense (in fact, just by looking at these articles, we see that they are almost entirely unreferenced). To be clear, my vote applies to the reformulated proposal. LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all above. It appears as though at least some of these are notable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to reformulate my deletion nomination as previously amended[edit]

I propose to reformulate my deletion nomination so that only the following pages are included.

Names of European cities in different languages (A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Names of European cities in different languages (B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Names of European cities in different languages (C–D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Names of European cities in different languages (E–H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Names of European cities in different languages: I–L (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Names of European cities in different languages (M–P) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Names of European cities in different languages (Q–T) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Names of European cities in different languages (U–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

These are long lists of words with no encyclopedic coverage.

At least a few of the remaining pages include encyclopedic material in addition to WP:NOTDICTIONARY-type word lists (a couple of folks have used the term "gazetteer", but all that means is "dictionary of place names"), and they ought to be considered apart from what I was getting at for purposes of this discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition: my apologies for my poorly conceived initial go at this. Largoplazo (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just in case it makes a difference, I want to address a question from the original nom: Perhaps the answer is to port these to Wiktionary. Or—I haven't looked—are similar lists already there? Yes, information of this sort is currently recorded in Wiktionary. For example, to see exonyms for Lausanne, expand the "Translations" table at wikt:Lausanne. The category system also offers some additional options for navigation. For example, wikt:Category:ca:Places in Switzerland will list Catalan exonyms for places in Switzerland. Colin M (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. In addition, even here, if one wants to know the Lithuanian name for The Hague, they can visit The Hague and click the interlanguage link for Lithuanian. Granted, that's not the same as having all the names in one place, but the information is available. (It's Haga, in case anyone here is interested.) Largoplazo (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the main A-Z list set. Translations of every city's name are available in the sidebar of each respective article. This is dictionary-type content, not encyclopedia. Reywas92^Talk 16:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- First, not all of the foreign language variants have interwiki pages. Second, foreign language interwikis using non-Latin alphabets do not usually contain transliteration or pronunciation information (e.g. the Greek or Chinese articles do not tell how to render Μαδρίτη or 馬德里 into something readable to a non-Greek or Chinese reader.) Third, the lists here include local or historic variants that would require reading knowledge of a language to glean from interwikis (See the Pskov entry for sourced examples of both.) Finally, this is a reason for porting the lists to Wiktionary, not for deletion. — AjaxSmack 06:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Particularly List_of_German_exonyms_for_places_in_Poland. I'm pretty sure this is 'encyclopedic' rather than 'dictionary' content, as many of these places were German-speaking localities - some for centuries - before 1945. (I confess I'm not sure if that article is still under consideration for deletion, although it still has an AfD banner.) Gilgamesh4 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gilgamesh4: It seems to me that the proposal has been reformulated to exclude that article. With all due respect, I think it would be more relevant to have your opinion on the articles affected by the reformulated proposal, given that your rationale only seems to apply to one article which has already been excluded. LongLivePortugal (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK - but the AfD tag on List_of_German_exonyms_for_places_in_Poland is still there, and it links to this discussion page. Where do you suggest I should object to that AfD proposal? Gilgamesh4 (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would probably be better to withdraw this entire nomination, close it and then resubmit the lists above for deletion. That'd be a heck of a lot clearer and allow people to come to a decision about a limited set of articles. Then if any others need to be nominated I might suggest doing so individually - clearly some of these (German in Poland, Welsh exonyms etc... have some support, whereas others might not. Over bundling causes issues in these cases. Blue Square Thing (talk)
    - Makes sense. 12:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete all, these are simply dictionary entries. I only checked more or less thoroughly the Portuguese language one (me beeing Portuguese). If it was an article, and a list, about names related to Portuguese language - e.g. because they were founded by Portuguese people, or under Portuguese rule at some point - I think it could be fine, after heavy editing. So if any other article is a stub for such article - maybe German names of places in Poland, or Polish name of places in Germany... - please, do keep, rename and improve. But as is these are mere dictionary lists - Nabla (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda & Sully[edit]

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

The "tell" in this article is "upcoming". WP:BEFORE done, and there is no evidence whatsoever from independent reliable sources that this film had even limited release in small cinemas. It would appear to me perhaps the final year work of some film students. It is something of a tradition - to my own knowledge, and purely WP:NOR - that notable people in the Australian film and television community do "pro bono" work with final year student films. My very best chookas for every person here. That said, this article fails any number of tests for notability, WP:NFILM, just to start with. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I wish everyone in the project well, but this doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. I hope that one day the filmmakers can look back on this and laugh while they're being interviewed for their latest hit production. In the meantime, the coverage just isn't there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There's not even a projected date for the film's release (IMDb, which we know is unreliable, says 2022, which, well, the repeatedly-delayed-and-ultimately-abandoned Tailchaser's Song film shows why we should never trust a "projected release date" that's just a year). Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails GNG and NFILM, none of the sources cited are reliable or support the film's notability. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Not notable. Kolma8 (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator update: Filled in a few missing policy/article links. I guess I should mention that I've a worked professionally as an actor in Australian theatre, film and television and at one time had a MEAA membership. (The reader of this AFD: "Gasp! Is there no limit to this Shirt58 fellow's accomplishments?" Me: "Yeah, and in one performance I got paid extra for riding a bicycle completely naked and covered in glad-wrap". That was in Tasmania - which is not a fictional place, btw)--Shirt58 (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely naked, except for a bicycle helmet, I should add. I've done a lot stupid things, but my brain generally looks out for itself.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, per WP:PRIMARY (Facebook and Twitter) and WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable coverage. Perhaps when it is finally released it may receive some coverage or even awards to deem it notable enough :3. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Mountain[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, cannot find significant coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources, does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 10:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was only the smallest smattering of coverage for this film, not enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per above. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshi Lhendup Films[edit]

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

aside from some passing mentions and interviews, there is nothing in depth about Lhendup or the film company BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable YouTube channel. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite policy. WP:NYOUTUBE is not vetted by community. Sources are enough to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~The only non-trivial coverage from what may qualify as a reliable source is the dailybhutan, and that's not sufficient for WP:GNG.~~ On second thought, relative to the context of the Bhutan market, the two articles from the BBS are probably sufficient in this case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan Broadcasting Service (national broadcaster) is not reliable? Störm (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Ohnoitsjamie. Störm (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough in English-language to pass WP:GNG, given the fact that Bhutan has a small media and most of the coverage is inaccessible as we don't know the local language (Dzongkha in this case). Featured in a radio station too. Störm (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeshi Lhendup Films is very famous and is our role model. I scanned magazine published in December 18 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WZkPH7tnLUCjsS-whYz6LJHCEPf5bUoE/view), (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I6J5XCE5GVe-M9GXETJvQXX-p40Ljz6w/view) Bhutan magazines are offline so please look into.
Delete First off, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which imposes a much stricter interpretation of guidelines, especially when it comes to "Independent Content" (WP:ORGIND). None of the references meet the higher standards required and I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Non-notable based on my research. Kolma8 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scott White[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, moved by creating editor to mainspace. This was already draftified once, so I see no purpose in doing so again. That I have sent it to AfD shows it would not has been accepted at AFC Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, can't see any indepth coverage. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. GermanKity (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others Nexus000 (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrol Atlético[edit]

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

Non-notable club, no references to attest for WP:GNG or pass of WP:NFOOTY. nearlyevil 665 08:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 08:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in the Copa del Rey. AKA the national cup competition. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in the national cup competition. It should pass WP:NFOOTY. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY Dr Salvus 18:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Humphrey[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and all other biographical notability guidelines. Sources given are either not independent (the external links section), a single mention (the San Jose Magazine piece), or a blog post. schetm (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. There are enough sources to demonstrate that Ms. Humphrey exists and has a career in local tv newscasts but an extensive WP:BEFORE search finds only non-RS. The best source I have found is a piece in the Reno Gazette-Journal (which was in part obviously plagiarized for the article) but that is actually just a station bio from the station she was working for at the time. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources from the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources demonstrate that she exists, as one would expect, but there isn't really any indepth coverage about her.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sivamathiyin Jeevayoga Jothimayam[edit]

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

This organization appears to fail WP:NORG and the article appears to be promotional. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. I could not find any mention of this organization in any reliable sources, at least for the English language. There is a possibility that there are Tamil language sources out there, but based on the evidence available to me right now I'll stick with delete. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP lacks indepth coverage on reliable sources. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lloyd Austin#Secretary of Defense. There is consensus that this should not be a standalone article, but some disagreement over what the redirect target should be. Further discussion may be necessary on that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-Down to Address Extremism in the Ranks[edit]

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

This article does not seem to meet the notability threshold. Maybe an article on extremism in the U.S. Military would be more appropriate? This is just an order from the DOD - missed chance to create a page on a broader, more encompassing topic. Cliffmore (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage is enough for an article. Juno (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although there is some press coverage, it's still just an order and doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Tec Tom (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. Although the order itself seems to stem from a 2009 document, most of the coverage surrounding the order has addressed the fact that members of the armed forces were involved in the Capitol attack. See NPR, The Hill, CBS News, NBC News, and ABC News coverage. The order did not directly mention January 6, but a Pentagon spokesperson interviewed by US News said that "The sixth of January was a wake-up call for this specific problem", so I don't believe it's a stretch to include this order under the broader "aftermath". Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an article about 2021 in the US military, hardly notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very limited merge to Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Department of Defense, if there are sources linking this to the attack. Otherwise fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 11:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or to Extremism in the United States Armed Forces if that or something like it ever gets created. Sandstein 11:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lloyd Austin#Secretary of Defense#Tenure#Extremism in the ranks per Wikipedia:Content forking. The identical main content of this article already exists there word for word.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Number One Electronic Switching System. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 Electronic Switching System Arranged with Data Features[edit]

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

Can't find any in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Some primary coverage, but doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the strength of the articles in the Bell System Technical Journal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Number One Electronic Switching System as an offshoot of that particular model. It's an improvement on a larger system, not a separate entity, in the same way that, say, the Gibson ES-345 is a variation on a theme of the Gibson ES-335. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meltan and Melmetal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The last double entry Pokemon of doubious notability. (Previous AFD from 2018 was sadly almost all WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:KEEPER).

This one doesn't have any lasting reception, but it has a bit of a (fan) media buzz around its introduction (in 2018 in the PGo). The model was leaked early which generated a bit of news ([33], [34]), shortly after it was shown in a trailer/press release ([35], [36], [37]) that don't really go beyond being a description/rewrites of press release. There is also a claim that "Within hours of the release of the Let's Go! games, Meltan became a trending topic on social media for Pokémon players" ([38]) but it's just the usual gacha note that 'new unit was released, players are expected to whale for it'. (There is one source about some short-lived memes it generated to: [39]). For anyone who knows this type of games (and there are hundreds of those, PGo is just a bit more prominent) there is always buzz about new characters and they are the main revenue source for those freemium games. So this seems like a run-of-the-mill WP:ONEEVENT game character that got a bit of buzz when it was released and that's it. (And the leaks from datamines are also normal these days, pretty much all new characters for such games are leaked weeks to even months in advance, it's a semi-official way of generating buzz among the fans). Anyway, other than the coverage of the (not rare) leak, the rest of the sources are the usual plot summary/game guides ([40], [41]).

All that said, the trend in the last few years is that larger freemium/gacha games (Fate/Grand Order, Genshin Impact, etc.) generate a ton of low-quality buzz about its constant mini-updates/characters. In fact, there are games out there which don't even have Wikipedia articles that generate dozens of similar articles (just google news for "My Hero Academia Strongest Hero", for example, released just ~2 weeks ago, for example - it is almost certainly notable, but is not even mentioned on Wikipedia yet). I am actually positively surprised we don't have few dozen pages for characters of such games (doubly so when they are part of larger franchises)... but I digress. Except that for anyone who follows video game news these days, similar levels of coverage are generated even for minor updates for larger games like Cyberpunk and so on. This Pokemon is not more notable than an update to its main game - and in the end, it is exactly that: an update. And game updates should not have stand-alone articles.

Anyway, I suggest the usual merge and redirect to List of generation VII Pokémon. There is a table there with notes section which can summarize all what we have in our article anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as WP:NTEMP. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this "personified" game update is notable, then we will open the doors to be flooded by stand-alone articles about dozens of updates to each newer video game... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (Oinkers42) gave their opinion about this topic on its own merits. I am certain the whole point of WP:OSE is to encourage us to judge each and every hypothetical article of such a nature on a case by case basis, so no, the floodgates argument doesn't hold up in my opinion.

Delete per WP:N, this topic received a flurry of coverage over the course of about three minutes, and after that has received nothing significant. As coverage was not sustained, this is not notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whatever list of Pokémon they appear on per Devonian Wombat. Link20XX (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon per nom. To respond to the essay about game updates, I would put them in a similar category as TV episodes. Popular TV show episodes will always get a lot of coverage when the episode air discussing the episode and speculating about future plot points. But we don't write articles for all of them unless the coverage is persistent or particularly significant. Same idea applies here. Jumpytoo Talk 19:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't believe the nominator's interpretation of WP:ONEEVENT is correct as it describes an inclusion criteria for BLP articles, and sourcing guideline and rules for BLP articles are very different from general fictional topics. This character has made a further appearance in Pokemon Sword and Shield, a main series game which is chronologically released after Pokemon Go on an unrelated platform so its debut isn't a one time thing as suggested by the nominator. I agree with (Oinkers42)'s interpretation of WP:NTEMP. Haleth (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Haleth, I think that WP:SUSTAINED/WP:NOTNEWS may be more relevant as links. ONEEVENT is the right concept but wiki-legalistic-wise, you are right, it refers to biographies only. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my last AFD argument. It's still non-notable Pokemoncruft, things have not changed a bit._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed with the nom's source review. And this isn't a search term worth keeping—it would be fine to just separately redirect Meltan and Melmetal to their respective list entries. czar 21:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per czar. The redirects that they propose would be more useful and I do not think this is really a beneficial search term. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor Pokemon species with trivia stuffs. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sustained WP:SIGCOV and not a plausible search term either Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caio Sael[edit]

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

This is an obvious case of WP:SOAPBOX. This article has no WP:RS on the article and no indication of WP:N whatsoever. Also, the creator seems to be an interwiki spammer who created several articles for this person in several WPs, mostly in small Wikis with few watching active members. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the article's current sourcing, none of which are RS.--- Possibly (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added trusted sources, fixed bugs, stable article has no vandalism, article must remain on English Wikipedia. --- Moniiquedecastro (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Moniiquedecastro, Could you please clarify your rationale. None of the sources you added are "reliable" and being a "stable" article is not a reason to keep it. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 03:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not reliable. If he was actually a notable singer and actor, it is very unlikely that no mainstream media would mention him. All sources are either small websites or wiki-like websites. Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Bolhones (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources used are not reliable and the content is not notable enough to be kept.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after removing many of the bad sources (wikis etc), there's still a fog of promotion obscuring any chance of determining notability. --- Possibly ☎ 07:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Madison Metropolitan School District. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Van Hise Elementary School[edit]

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

A non-notable elementary school. A BEFORE found no significant coverage and only passing mentions. Fails GNG. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 05:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 05:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 05:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Madison Metropolitan School District per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It's notable in that I occasionally had softball practice in the playground area ;) In all seriousness, it's a non-notable primary school that fails a before check. All coverage is local and routine. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madison Metropolitan School District, per WP:ATD. This should be the standard for NN public schools in the US. It serves as a valid and sufficiently unique search term. This could have been done BOLDly. 209.63.121.20 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect I'm fine with either. As things currently stand though there isn't the non-trivial, in-depth sources required to justify keeping the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the long view has been that for elementary schools we need a very clear showing of notability to justify keeping the article. We have no such showing here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 19:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 10:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glory (character)[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. There doesn't appear to be any particular coverage on the character in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added some refs for the Moore and Keating versions. The article clealry needs more citation love but I beleive it meets GNG for now. Artw (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmmm. [42] and [43] are not terrible. Is there anything in scholarly studies? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I saw this listed here, I thought it was about the Buffy villain. Would a rename be appropriate? --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably be a different discussion, but I wprobably would go for Glory (comics) or Glory (Image Comics) over the current title. Artw (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 09:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raghuleela Mall, Vashi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. This is a mall with lifts, elevators, stairs and shops. Kolma8 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it certainly seems awfully run-of-the-mill, but there's plenty of coverage of the time part of the ceiling collapsed (e.g. 1 2 3, as well as this reference from several years later), plus this separate story. And I'm sure that there's other coverage in Marathi, Hindi, Gujarati, etc. sources. On balance, it probably meets the GNG, although I'm certainly sympathetic to the nominator's position. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage in news websites. It should pass for GNG. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 112 (band). ✗plicit 01:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daron Jones[edit]

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

Musician with questionable notability. His group 112 (band) has lots of hits, but not too much on the subject himself. Article is woefully undersourced and I can't find enough WP:RS to establish notability. Mbdfar (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mbdfar (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 112 (band) if independent notability can't be established. Anarchyte (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 112 (band) per above. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hallmark Channel Original Movies. ✗plicit 01:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Crush on You[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage, does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 10:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search using variations of the title and a couple of the names involved with the film, but didn't bring up anything substantial enough to establish notability for the movie. It looks like this was one of the Hallmark films that just didn't gain that much attention. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies, where it is already listed. I agree that there is no coverage that would allow this to pass the WP:GNG, but a valid redirect target exists. Rorshacma (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies as per above. Grandruskiy48 • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies, as per above. Thought I would give my two cents since it has been re-listed again. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaucluse Shores[edit]

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

This appears to be a HOA-type neighborhood, not a formal community; see the HOA's website. This mentions a grass bed nearby but contains no significant coverage about the place. Apparently considered part of Machipongo rather than its own place. As far as I'm aware, we generally don't keep HOA neighborhoods without significant coverage.

Disclaimer: I did find two sources referring to this as a "community", but both were in extremely florid real estate advertisements, so I'd be inclined to discount those. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mass-produced junk, HOAs are not notable. Reywas92^Talk 16:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbon, Idaho[edit]

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

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

I think this is the first time I've nominated a place with an active zip code for deletion, but this is a really weird case. But first, we have to start with Pauline. This is a spot that moves around on the topos, first at a T junction and then at a bend in the road a little ways north of there. If you go to this latter spot in GMaps, however, you will find a gravel business of some sort and the Arbon post office, zip code 83212, sitting in a trailer the likes of which I haven't seen in use in probably twenty years if not more (they used to be common for small rural spots around here). And if you head south along the highway a bit past the original spot, you will come upon the Arbon Elementary School. GNIS, meanwhile, identifies Arbon as a spot far to the south, where there is an LDS ward which used to be on the south side of the road but has since expanded to the north. The passage from the genealogical magazine makes it clear that, yes, this is the original Arbon, but as far as I can see, the church and the neighboring farm are all that has ever been here. Meanwhile, there's the same problem with Pauline: there's no sign of a town at either of its two locations. But it gets worse: there is an Arbon Valley, Idaho CDP, but it isn't actually in Arbon Valley, according to this history of the area. Reading through the pages on the various areas, as far as I can tell they are all large, diffuse areas of farms rather than town-like settlements. Maybe the actual valley, as opposed to the CDP, could be written up somehow, but I'm not seeing how these "communities" satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Mangoe (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. The 1924 Premiere Atlas of the World gives Arbon a population of 340 and Pauline a population of 184 on pages 180-181. WP:GEOLAND is thus satisfied: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." The area obviously had a major population collapse, as my 1960 World Book Encyclopedia lists Arbon with a population of 10... but still does list it. It would be odd for a traditional encyclopedia to cover a subject we do not. The 1918 Utah Genealogical Historical Magazine, volumes 9-10, describes Arbon as a small settlement and gives some history. This site gives details about Pauline, including the sudden reduction in its population. And yet, these communities still share a school and a post office. The county these communities are in, Power County, has a free newspaper archive which mentions Arbon and Pauline frequently, including, for example, news stories about the Arbon Farm Bureau and the Pauline School [44]. We should not be judging notability solely based on Google Maps searches of the 2021 state of these communities. These were notable communities in their time, and notability is not temporary. It is definitely possible to write quite a bit more about two communities which together once may have had more than 500 people, and about which there is a free archive of news stories which any editor can access. My AAA Road Atlas has no confusion about where these communities are: Pauline is at the junction of the Arbon Valley Highway and the Bannock Highway, while Arbon is about 8 miles to the south on the Arbon Valley Highway. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Arbon is fairly well-documented by newspaper sources; here is a 1966 article about it (and the Arbon Valley) receiving dial phone service that also documents some of its history, here and here are accounts of Arbon pioneers, and here and here are early articles about its settlement. And at any rate, a community with both a post office and a school is a legitimate community regardless of how spread out its residents are. Pauline is a little harder to search for, but in addition to the sources Firsfron found, it once had its own local news section in the American Falls paper [45] [46] and a documented etymology [47]. I'm not sure what's up with the GNIS coordinates being where they are, or why the Arbon Valley CDP isn't anywhere near Arbon, but that doesn't affect whether these two communities are notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both As they both meet geoland.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomadicghumakkad has summed up the difficulty in finding a consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vardaan Arora[edit]

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

I cant see any in-depth coverage. No reliable sources to show for. Lacks independent coverage. This would need consensus to stay. A bit puffy too and in my opinion the subject in question does not warrant a standalone page on Wikipedia. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 20:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 20:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 20:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is difficult (and also exciting where it leads). So the sequence of my alignment were first Delete because none of his singles seem to be on any chart. And no other criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN is being satisfied. Then, Second Keep because Billboard (magazine) is reviewing his work and so is Rolling Stone. And third, I don't know anymore because so many times Bill Board has written about him that it is starting to lose it's worth. Gay Times is another source that's repeatedly writing about him. If we disprove the hypothesis that Bill Board and Gay Times might be writing about him again and again because he got connections, we might just move towards keep at least as per WP:BASIC. Sigh. I am looking forward what others got to say. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google news is littered with articles about him. Examples from just the first two pages of search results: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, WP:ACTOR. Coverage too narrow. WP:TOOSOON RationalPuff (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Black Reconstruction Collective. While there are some "keep" arguments, none refute the argument that this article subject fails the GNG. History will be left intact for those who have expressed interest in merging. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Admassu[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "...since subject meets WP:NACADEMIC 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. (Rice Design Alliance Award)". However, that is not one of the awards which would meet that criteria. Absent that, does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear this isn't a NPROF pass. I think it is probably TOOSOON for NARTIST, as being in an exhibition (not permenant) in MoMA is a major milestone but probably not sufficient by itself.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, after reading the unconvincing argument by the article creator below, in my mind this isn't close to NACADMIC. I don't see SIGCOV, and it is a TOOSOON situation for NARTIST.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Reconstruction Collective as alternative to deletion, now that a suitable redirect target was created.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The person proposing to delete this article claims that the award the subject received is not an award that meets this criteria. This is simply wrong,(Personal attack removed) The award meets exactly the criteria put forward under the objectives hence the subject qualifies to be listed here. The 'Rice Design Alliance Award' is an award given by Rice University to 'recognize the work of exceptionally gifted national and international architects'. So there should not even be a discussion on this topic at all since this is a mayor academic award from a highly ranked academic institute. (Personal attack removed) Soupmaker (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker[reply]

@Soupmaker: WP:NPROF criteria-2 is for the likes of the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer Prize for History. The Rice Design Alliance Spotlight Award does not reach that caliber. Please avoid attacking other editors.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking anyone, I am simply (Personal attack removed).

In regards to your argument on Criteria 2, please keep on reading that chapter and you will find this piece of information below:

-Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize).

So, again, Rice University is a notable academic society (which I am sure we can agree upon) and has given the subject an award of academic prestige. Hence this award is valid to qualify under this criteria. Soupmaker (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker[reply]

Soupmaker, this is the 4th or 5th time you've called me a racist. After the first time, I was willing to ignore it. After the second or third time it was pointed out to you not to engage in personal attacks. And after that you've now refused to understand how inappropriate your behavior is. Instead you've doubled down and referred to me as a racist two more times. Either you apologize, and retract ALL of your personal, unfounded attacks, or I'll be forced to take this to ANI, which is something I am loathe to do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 (Personal attack removed) and are now also threatening me here with repercussions I had to escalate your behavior to ANI. (Personal attack removed) Soupmaker (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker[reply]

Administrator's note: Discussion of users is not appropriate here. This is a location to discuss the deletion of the article. Stick to the arguments and do not attack the editors themselves. Discussion of editor behavior can happen on the user's talk page or at WP:ANI. Personal attacks are not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Little sign of WP:NPROF; it would be surprising if an assistant professor passed that criterion. The most credible claim to WP:NARTIST is inclusion in the MOMA show + coverage of that (for subcriterion 4b). I'm a little skeptical, but am interested in hearing from folks having more experience with AfDs on visual artists. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify or redirect: ~~(and salt either way):~~ When an article creator has repeatedly pushed an article into mainspace not via AfC (which his their right) and where the legitimate questions if notability has been achieved it is expected a WP:New Page Patroller presents the article to AfD which is what I see here. And it is what we need front line NPPs to do and we need to support them in doing it. In terms of this article I see this is quite possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. The article is probably WP:V throughout; the question is more about WP:SIGCOV with WP:RS and its probably something like 1+½+½++½++½ equals 1 which is really frustrating for the article proponents. I steward a handful of articles in draft somewhat like this in draft currently ... one additional WP:RS and they'd fly into mainspace. I've actually wondered if the Black Reconstitution Collective (Black Reconstruction Collective?) is more possibly notable entity than the subject but that might be again problematic, and even more so than this bio. The current arguments lead me to believe not ready for mainspace, an excellent WP:THREE presentation would cause me to change my mind.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Probably should have noted Black Reconstruction Collective as more notable than Black Reconstitution Collective. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my !vote as redirect target now exists and am sort of neutral on the redirect/merge business if people want it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the coverage of the MOMA show and the co-founding of the Black Reconstruction Collective. This received a lot of press, although it is true that the press mostly focused on the collective as a unified entity, and did not cover the individuals as much. WP:NARTIST provides specifically for the situation where an artist has been a part of a significant event in art history: "The person's work (or works) has... been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Was it a "significant exhibition"? I think so, seeing as it ran for three months and MOMA calls it "first exhibition to explore the relationship between architecture and the spaces of African American and African diaspora communities". So it's plainly a never-before held exhibition at the one of the (top ten?) most prestigious museums in the world. Was his work a significant part of said show? I think so. He was there with ten other artist/architects. He was a founder of the collective that the show grew out of. Significant is tough to gauge, but I think his participation was important and relevant. I imagine many of the of the Black Reconstruction Collective architects might have articles here. What they did as a group is actually historic in terms of the art world, and the coverage shows it.--- Possibly (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, here are sources covering the MoMA exhibition and the Black Reconstruction Collective

Curbed.com 1 2 3
Hyperallergenic.com 1
artnet.com 1
New York Times 1
The Architect's Newspaper 1
Architect Magazine 1
Archinect 1
House Beautiful 1
Art in America 1
Artforum 1
LA Times 1
Guardian 1
Boston Globe 1
Architectural Record 1

I think this speaks to the significance for the show pretty clearly. --- Possibly (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the show perhaps, but this isn't the show but the bio of Admassu who is mentioned but briefly in most of the sources above or not at all (e.g. the Guardian piece you link to).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly and Eostrix: perhaps a redirect/merge to an article on the collective? It looks to me like the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the Career section in the current article could be adapted easily for such an article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Detsche Welle article on MoMA show to the above list. --- Possibly ☎ 03:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note a number of things, let alone the fact it's just awesome if not awesomely concerning there exists Wikipedia:WikiProject Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). Far too many sources to look at; needs 3 best really; and ideally where url-access is not limited and ideally not firewalled per NYT for me. Those that I've looked at seem passing mention or no mention; The Linkrot susceptable and url-access limited Architect Record has articles for some individuals for the BRC but not the subject of this AfD; noteability is not inherited and seems to apply here per WP:NOTINHERIT so really I see this adding evidence that a keep !vote is currently not appropriate. Anyway Russ Woodroofe's suggestion that I might warm to would require an article to pre-exist in mainspace such as Black Reconstruction Collective (Which has 5 or so potential valid red-links and oh look - for which a draft happens to have been started, but its a draft not mainspace and lack of sustain might be a tough transition). Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: What you are saying contradicts WP:ARTIST. Reviews of an exhibition that an artist participates in are not cases of WP:NOTINHERITED. We use them constantly to determine notability of artists. The artist actually does get notability points from serious and significant exhibitions, as WP:ARTIST specifically points out. --- Possibly ☎ 02:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. If there is an article on the collective or on the exhibit, both of which are plausible articles, then a redirect should be done.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or~~ Redirect. Participation in a single group show, albeit at a major museum, is not enough by itself for WP:ARTIST nor for WP:INHERITED notability from the group to the artist. And as the discussion above has already determined, WP:PROF is out (it's not really aimed at academics who are practicing artists in any case). So we're left with WP:GNG, for which we need in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. But none of the sources in the article provide that, and the only sources identified so far in this AfD are about the group and the show rather than about Admassu individually. There does seem to be plenty of coverage of the collective, so a redirect is also possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Updating to redirect now that the article exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There now exists uncurated start'ish class article Black Reconstruction Collective with redirect Reconstructions — Architecture and Blackness in America. David Eppstein has a cited mention on the page so a redirect !vote/!merge votes here should now be feasible to that target, though it is not impossible someone may wish to test that currently uncurated article at AfD for e.g. WP:TOOSOON. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Black Reconstruction Collective per Russ Woodroofe, vote of thanks to Djm-leighpark for creating that page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Reconstruction Collective, to make my earlier question a !vote. There's a reasonable notability case for the collective, but I don't see enough to make individual members notable. Djm-leighpark has made a solid start on the page. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe: There's a reasonable notability case for the collective, but I don't see enough to make individual members notable... As Theredproject points out below, the other nine members already have individual articles on Wikipedia. Do you mean we should redirect those existing articles as well? --- Possibly ☎ 02:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, I glanced at a few of the other articles. Some looked like they might have enough of a case otherwise for notability that I would !vote keep. In the absence of other notability, I would similarly !vote redirect. Participation in the collective certainly does not detract from notability, and could contribute to a combined case. I'm not seeing enough for the current subject to support it, however, at least WP:NOTJUSTYET. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black Reconstruction Collective, as suggested above. This seems a case of WP:TOOSOON for WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF, most likely. No objection in principle to turning the redirect back into a biography if circumstances change at a later date. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NARTIST 4(b), an exhibition at MoMA is considered a significant exhibition generally, and especially with only 10 artists/collectives in it and extra especially for one that has received as much coverage as this one, as @Possibly: has shown. It is great that someone created an article for the Black Reconstruction Collective but redirecting this article to that page is not a solution here. That page does not describe the members of the collective, and if it did so, it would have main article hatnotes for each of the members of the collective, as they all have pages here.

And focusing on works in a permanent collection is a little misdirected here, as he is an architect. While there are museums that collect such work (models, etc) that guideline is gearted towards painters, etc. Theredproject (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way: we have an article fore this exhibition, thus it is significant (it is notable). Yes, we have chosen to put that article at the name of the collective formed from the architects in the exhibition, and carrying the same name. But we could have equally created it for the exhibition, with a section for the collective. NOTINHEIRITED is an inadmissible argument in this case, as NARTIST 4(b) literally says it is dependent on inclusion in an exhibition. Theredproject (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NARTIST(b) says "(b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Admassu contributed a single piece out of 24[48] ( Planetary Scar (Mid-Atlantic Ridge)) to this exhibition which showed the collective's work. A single piece, 4%, is not a substantial part of an exhibition. This fails NARTIST(b), which itself is an approximation as to what is likely to be notable, it does not supersede GNG.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Eostrix, I'm not sure where you get the claim that he only contributed a single piece, as the exhibition checklist shows three, but that is entirely besides the point. You can't compare an installation with a set of drawings in a mathematical equation. Nor does it matter. We don't ask what percentage of the total works, or square footage, or exhibition budget, or whatever, that an artist represents in an exhibition. We care about the exhibition. Inclusion in the main curated group show at the Venice Biennale satisfies 4(b) because it is Venice, despite that fact that there are usually 50+ artists in the show. And NARTIST does supercede GNG, just like the NSPORT guidelines. Theredproject (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was look at the press release, but you are right that the checklist lists more - 4 pieces by Admassu out of 117. 4 out of 117 is 3.4% of the exhibit, which is not substantial. ARTIST-4(b) is intended for substantial roles in exhibits, e.g. an exhibit devoted to the artist or the artist occupying a large portion of it, say more than 25%. Being a small part of an exhibit, 3.4%, does not get there. And this doesn't meet GNG anyway, which NARTIST-4(b) attempts to predict.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Possibly and Theredproject. sources and achievements establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As as aside I've now wikilinked all the members above in the BRC article. I was aware at least a handful has articles but I'd only wl'd one while I was creating it. I reasonably sure some pass notability, Gooden and Hood spring to mind, others per Admassu here I am far less certain. I think there may have been an MoMA editathon or something during the Reconstructions: Architecture and Blackness in America exhibition and that might just relate to why some of these articles exist (sadly no images on commons though!). The BRC article covers the Reconstructions exhibition as a section and their might for instance be an opportunity for saying a little about each artist in the section whilst describing their work but it really needs to be sure in is not WP:UNDUE and promotional. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Djm-leighpark, it seems that you are suggesting that the presence of a MoMA editathon implies that the articles are somehow suspect...? Theredproject (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As Theredproject & Possibly are likely good faith aware (and seem to have actively good faith dealt with) there was at least one issue from Wikipedia:Meetup/Black Lunch Table/MoMA blackness architecture 2021 on this group of artists as evidenced and with {conccerns with {u|Sarabod99}}'s contribution dealt with at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 173#Sarabod99 and MoMA promotion. Given the connectedness of MoMA, BRC, and the Reconstructions exhibition I am musing if the delegates have been used as sort of officialised meatpuppets, but this is not the forum for that. What I can state with relevance is Admassu's article did not receive edits on 22 May 2021 so no issues here in that respect, though if anything unfortunately adds evidence that his good faith contribution to the exhibition may not have stood particularly out as a significant component of it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: That was a completely different issue. What you are saying in the immediately previous post is speculation and is not relevant here. You are way off topic... you think MoMA and the artists int he Black Reconstruction Collective have some kind of meatpuppet party to create Wikipedia articles? I would dial down your imagination there. There was indeed a "Black Lunch Table" Wikipedia editathon at MoMA on May 22, 2021, but a) that's a good thing, b) I don't think they actually produced any articles related to the show, and c) this is getting really off-tangent. --- Possibly ☎ 08:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

c. 5 May the [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Black Lunch Table/MoMA blackness architecture 2021 invited articles to be created for BRC members with redlinks, (and for BRC itself!) but by the editathon on 22 May I believe all BRC members had articles. Admassu was not affected by the editathon. The only issue with that is perhaps editathon participants may not have seen his work as "stand out" significant. I am now minded there was no coi between the lunch table and the BRC/Reconstructions exhibition; there was a COI editing indicident in that editathon but that was well spotted and addressed. Very relevant is additional specific information about NARTIST 4(b) and I hope to bring that forward in a few hours time.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with regards to the above comments, neither addresses GNG. Djm-leighpark has created a legitimate redirect target. Absent that, this individual currently does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Possibly and Theredproject. It seems very clear that WP:N and WP:RS have been established, especially with the improvements over the past few days. Anasuyas (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Possibly and Theredproject. Improvements have been made and this person definitely fits NARTIST 4(b) if not others. --Heathart (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still see real problems still with WP:VAGUEWAVE comments and a WP:CITEBOMB of external links where Admassu is barely mentioned. As an example {{shaw, 2001)) for the Guardian selects to pick out the works of Williams, Cooke, Barnes and Hood at Reconconstruction but does not Admassu at all.^[1] The recent addition of Harte/Pun up: as a source to the Admassu's article by Heathart could be used to leverage content into that article (and also the BRC providing not WP:UNDUE) - however - the problem is there is sigificant MoMA connection (thus Reconstructions and BRC collective members) as a special edition of "Pin Up" was used and distributed at Reconstructions making it somewhat akin to a non independent catalog entry failing RS.^[2] What is being looked for, and the onus is on those wishing to keep are the three best sources in support of notablilty or sating of NARTIST 4(b) of which issues with have been described eloquently above.(The essay WP:THREE is a good read). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Shaw, Matt (2 March 2021). "How can architecture help rather than harm blackness?". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
^ Hartt, David. "RECONSTRUCTIONS PORTRAIT: Emanuel Admassu on the global African diasporic". pinupmagazine.org. Retrieved 2021-06-21.

Djm-leighpark- the issue with the pinup article is that it's an interview, and as such is considered a primary source, and therefore does not go towards notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: WP:Citebomb is for articles. It is entirely appropriate to point out supporting sources contributing to notability in an AfD, and it is done with great regularity. Similar to NARTIST 4(d), for museum collections, NARTIST 4(b) also does not say anything about sources, it simply talks about being in a significant show. --- Possibly ☎ 02:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, please see WP:ALLPRIMARY, where interviews are classified as primary sources, as well as further down on that page in WP:PRIMARYNEWS, under 6.1. And GNG clearly states that sources should be secondary. Not sure why you're bringing up citebomb, as I didn't mention that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~You mention vaguewave and citebomb in the first sentence of your reply above.~~ Onel, Apologies, there was an unsigned comment that merged into yours. it has been fixed. I'm going to stop commenting now. --- Possibly ☎ 07:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate seeing the WP:THREE best sources. All I have seen so far was non-independent (e.g. interviews) or mere name drops and mentions in the context of the much larger exhibition. Show me a good trio of SIGCOV (good independent sources who each devote several paragraphs to Admassu) and I'll flip my !vote. At the moment I'm not seeing any good independent in-depth source here.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, no worries. Just got confused for a moment. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Nartist, if barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the keep !votes addresses the lack of GNG, and NARTIST does not trump NARTIST, especially when the subject "barely" passes the SNG, if that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Onel5969, I think you have a typo in your sentence: "NARTIST does not trump NARTIST" -- I think you mean NARTIST does not trump GNG, in which case it is my understanding that is not true. Can you please specify where that is said in the NARTIST or GNG guidelines? Theredproject (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Theredproject, you are absolutely correct, the above should read "none of the keep !votes addresses the lack of GNG, and NARTIST does not trump GNG". And absolutely regarding where it says that. NARTIST is part of WP:NBIO. Before NBIO goes into its list of SNG's, it states, "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It's the latter part of that statement which is germane to this discussion. Further down in NBIO it states that if an individual fails "basic criteria but meeting additional criteria", it suggests to "Merge the article into a broader article providing context.", which is what Djm-leighpark's creation of a valid redirect target did. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Onel5969, My understanding of that paragraph is that it includes typical Wikipedia caveat language, leaving some room for interpretation at all times. To paraphrase my understanding, it says:
    - - for the most part, meeting these requirements establishes notability
      - failure to meet these requirements doesn't preclude an article
      - meeting these requirements does not guarantee an article
    - In particular, my understanding is that these caveats are geared towards the sentence that directly precedes this paragraph: "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not."
    - I see how you are interpreting the section about if a in individual fails "basic criteria but meeting additional criteria", it suggests to "Merge the article into a broader article providing context." But that is not how this has been interpreted at AfD in the Visual Arts and Artists sorts, NARTIST is consistently interpreted as establishing N. Nor is it how I have seen SNG guidelines interpreted at other sorts. Otherwise, why would we have articles about baseball players who played in one game and nothing else?
    - I find it curious to see that this is the AfD discussion where a number of people who are not as active in the Visual Arts and Artists sorts have come out to dispute this consensus interpretation.Theredproject (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Theredproject: I suggest personal attack by creator on nom. who is a skilled NPP and the ANI drew me and perhaps others here. It will be for an experienced closer to use WP:NHC & etc. here and to determine if notability criteria e.g. THREE, NARTIST 4b, SIGCOV, GNG is shown met; and the closer will likely be good faith scrutinised for decision justification and my opinion is DRV is (currently) possible on any result if DRV purpose can be met. A closer might read this as the fact keep !voters feel their argument is weak. It is currently unclear to me if this 10-day discussion is exhausted ... or if a relist (with a discussion summary) would help the impasse. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Theredproject, I want to point out that the AfD was first listed at Academics sorting, and it also went to ANI. I listed it at Visual Artists sorting a day or two after it opened. It has surely gotten a lot of attention, but the participants here are well-established Wikipedians, most of whom I know to have significant experience with BLPs. My own concern with the article is that (as other editors have pointed out) the subject's role in the MOMA exhibition was limited, and its coverage was over a short period of time. It looks WP:TOOSOON to determine whether this is a WP:BLP1E. (I would similarly !vote redirect or delete on academics whose only highly cited articles have a huge number of coauthors, or on book authors who have a single reviewed book and little other sign of notability.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to present a source I found when looking for something else. Its from MIT architect channel so not totally random. It may not help but it doesn't harm. I good faith believe Admassu is first for alphabetical reasons - but as first needs to have impact. It may be this is a repeat of Hartt's video... but I present it here before I lose it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

References

^ MIT Architecture (13 January 2021). The Black Reconstruction Collective — Black Futures. Fall 2020 Lecture Series. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Event occurs at 9m 51s. Retrieved 25 June 2021 – via YouTube.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ALCO Century Series locomotives#C624. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALCO Century 624[edit]

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

The Alco Century 624 was only ever proposed, and no prototypes were ever built, sold, or showcased. Even with a few sources, that's all it can state, and it should also be noted most sources appear to focus on the Century 628, not the cancelled Century 624. Pokemonprime (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/merge to ALCO Century Series locomotives#C624 which says most of what is said; possibly some material might be merged over. Mangoe (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all content here to ALCO Century Series locomotives#C624, per above. NemesisAT (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Shankargb (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above to ALCO Century Series locomotives#C624. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Shaw-1] Shaw, Matt (2 March 2021). "How can architecture help rather than harm blackness?". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 19 June 2021.

[Harte-2] Hartt, David. "RECONSTRUCTIONS PORTRAIT: Emanuel Admassu on the global African diasporic". pinupmagazine.org. Retrieved 2021-06-21.

[EA-at-MIT-3] MIT Architecture (13 January 2021). The Black Reconstruction Collective — Black Futures. Fall 2020 Lecture Series. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Event occurs at 9m 51s. Retrieved 25 June 2021 – via YouTube.

[1]

[2]

[1]