Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 24	June 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Otteh[edit]

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

Cannot find any significant news coverage on him. Lesliechin1 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lesliechin1 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lesliechin1 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lesliechin1 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles about Roman Catholic bishops are notable. Thank You-RFD (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "Roman Catholic bishops are notable because we say so, but we will delete better sourced articles on worldwide leaders in other faiths" position is clearly biased. We have no actually accepted and developed notability criteria for religion, and so we must go with GNG. The sourcing here in no way passes GNG and no one has presented any other sources that so notability, so we should delete. We currently have thousands of articles on bishops sourced only to 1 blog website that essetially has a short timeline summary of their life, but not even signifanct prose covering them. There are clearly notable Roman Catholic bishops, but the notion that everyone who holds the title of bishop in the Roman Catholic Church has received enough coverage to create an article on them is not sustained, and so we need to find coverage of Otteh to justify the article, and it is not in existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources for the article to pass GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete absence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and therefore fails to meet the GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sufficient news sources do not exist. Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eloise Broady DeJoria[edit]

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

Actress with a trivial, unnoticed career, then a housewife that did charity work. That's it. There is next to nothing in support of her notability. Yet another promotional text. -The Gnome (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I definitely agree that the article reads like a promotion and needs overhauling, she seems to have had quite a few credited roles in a number of films, according to her imdb page. ExRat (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the contribution, ExRat. Pls check out WP:IMDB-EL. Additionally, WP:NACTOR defines the kind of presence in cinema that a person must have had in order for that person to merit a Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm aware of both, thanks. I've been an editor for over 15 years. I wasn't stating imdb be used as a reference. I was stating that based on her imbd page, she has actually had a number of prominent roles in feature films. Regardless, I'm not that invested in whether the article stays or is deleted. ExRat (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I rewrote the article and added sources. Particularly, I think that her film roles are more worth describing than numerous charities, but since the article is in AFD category, I did not delete any. There are mutiple significant roles - Weekend at Bernie's (see [1]), Grand Champion, The Dukes. She even appeared in a film with an impressive cast as herself. Кирилл С1 (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant roles and per the changes made it proves notability. Also agree that film work is more notable. FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on some of her roles, this is a keep. Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giora Yaron[edit]

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

Found this article when Draft:Itamar Medical came to the attention of the Teahouse, and the procedural history made me look at the author's other contributions. Pinging Legacypac who accepted the article at AfC back in 2018.

The question is notability. There are 23 sources in the current article, none of which meet the SIGCOV standard in my eyes. I will refer to their current numbering.

I found two that could plausibly support GNG. #11 smells of an interview and the photograph is sourced to "PR" (press release?), so probably not independent, but it does look like an article. #14 is written like an opinion piece, so I assume that is what it is (side note, if the article is kept based on that, the contents of this source accuse him of mismanagement, which is absolutely not mentioned in the current article). Furthermore, I cannot read 4 (in Hebrew and not easily copy-pastable into a translation tool), but looking at the inline referencing I suppose it just proves the physics PhD part.

The rest fall into two buckets:

In the "not independent" bucket, we have multiple interviews (2, 8, 16 if my automated translation is correct, 22 is a short paragraph-quote), a bio on their company's website (9), 15 is either a PR-wash or routine or both.
In the "not significant/WP:ROUTINE" bucket, we have academic profiles (1, 17/18, 20, presumably 23 too but the link is dead), a short snippet recycled from a uni PR (3). There are a few things that oscillate somewhere between listings of investors or networking sites but all of them clearly not GNG-worthy (5, 6, 7, 12, 19, 21, presumably 10/13 too but the link is dead).

A general internet search (in English) turns up a Haaretz piece. I can only read the preview, which seems mildly promising, but even then, it would be a single source. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Click here to contact me Hi, I believe its due to your tranalation or the fact you cant read Hebrew... First allow me to point out that many of the sources are the biggest and relaible sources in Israel (i.e Globes, haaretz). As for the PR, they asked for a photo and they got one from the company, its not a press relase. There are more sources on Giora and also there was a dicussion on him in the past so I dont understand why this is returning to the table but willing to do whats needed. Thanks, Shanisun (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that are used to meet WP:SIGCOV need to simultaneously be (1) reliable (2) independent and (3) address the subject in detail. I am not disputing that a Haaretz article meets (1), but almost all interviews fail (2) and many articles that are not biography profiles fail (3).

If you think some of the current references meet all three criteria of SIGCOV, please indicate which, or bring new ones that do. Please do not list more than a few - three sources that meet all criteria are enough, a hundred that each meet only two of the three is insufficient. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tigraan, here are a few; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. All, I believe meet the criteria. I placed English and Hebrew both. As for the hebrew ones, they are from a reliable source, written by journalists, independent, and address the subject in detail. None of which are a press realse or was paid. Please also note he is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Tel Aviv University - see here. With respect, Shanisun (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The first in that list is an interview (and part of my analysis above). Interviews are not considered independent of the subject, hence fail (2), unless you can describe why this specific interview somehow differs (I doubt it). I have not looked at the rest - others might but I do not feel you have really addressed my objections. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you should look at the rest as well as know that most articles in Israel includes interviews, you will hardly find many on a person that doesnt include an interview... Also, I do want to understand (if u dont mind explaining) how Giora after and with all he has done, in your opinion is not wiki metiral...? Shanisun (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Terrell[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill White House staffer fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 19:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment meets GNG. significant coverage in Scientific American, The Hill, MSN, politico, and alumni magazines. see also Amy Swonger. --Kroneheft (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - there is in-depth reporting from independent and reliable sources with biographical/career information that can be used to expand the article, e.g. Biden’s Congress Whisperer (Politico, 2020), Meet President Biden's legislative affairs chief (The Hill, 2021), Terrell to lead Biden’s legislative affairs shop (RollCall, 2020), Meet Biden’s Climate Voice on Capitol Hill (Scientific American, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG per sources provided by Beccaynr. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the sources identified by Beccaynr are more than sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Barrett (cinematographer)[edit]

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

Outright puff. Wikipedia is not a cv Pipsally (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, relevant cinematographer, award winner and nominated for his work. --NiTen (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the only sources are the two you added when you created the article seven years ago, one of which no longer works. There's no significant coverage of him elsewhere in RS, though there is a certain amount of tabloid coverage as someone boyfriendPipsally (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both sources still work (one as an archive version). I've added further sources. Best, --NiTen (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Prolific work on Bobby, Zookeeper, Ted, Ted 2, almost 50 titles, only few of them were TV series. Won American Society of Cinematographers award, was nominated for this award several times, and for Camerimage. This suffices for notability per WP:Filmmaker, even a fraction of his work would. There are also multiple sources ^[1]^[2]^[3]. Кирилл С1 (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/anna-faris-marriage-advice-to-her-young-son-jack-would-be-to-not-get-married-in-his-20s-101622643525839.html
^ https://people.com/tv/anna-faris-dealbreakers-game-immediate-intimacy-with-fiance-michael-barrett/
^ https://hollywoodlife.com/feature/who-is-michael-barrett-anna-faris-fiance-3925348/

comment the first two of those sources are tabloid mentioned of him as dating someone. There's no indication of independent notability. The third is a bit stronger, but not much, and I suspect is heavily lifted from this wiki article anyway.Pipsally (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are enough sources in the article that indicate his notability. --NiTen (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This source ^[1] can be used for references in the article. He won an award and has several prestigious award nominations. And Kiss kiss, Bang bang is a film that received cult following and kick-started revival of RDJ's career - this is what concerns his career and body of work. And there is coverage of his life, which is not common for cinematographers and filmakers beside directors. Кирилл С1 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/Who-Michael-Barrett-44268780

There's only coverage of his life because it's Anna Faris. He doesn't get more than a passing mention. Her ex gets more coverage. That popsugar article is clearly just Arup off of this article. Wikipedia is not a source for itself. The status and wider impact of kiss kiss, bang bang is irrelevantPipsally (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Her ex is Star Lord, after all. "Wikipedia is not a source for itself" Ok, I now this. But what it has to do with multiple publications that concern his body of work? For instance, what is written here, in my opinion, along with awards, justifies speedy keep:"Cannon, and his cinematographer Michael Barrett, capture the best sides of both Los Angeles (all golden light and vivid colours) and Newcastle (misty, ancient and mythic). The lingering shots of St James' Park are equally pretty, though you sometimes get the feeling you're watching an advert for Newcastle United instead of a film." ^[1] The status and wider impact of a film may give all of its' creators publicity, just like Comic-Cons invite not only main cast and director. Кирилл С1 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.news24.com/channel/movies/reviews/goal-20081201

If a film is very famous, it has dozens of reviews, and they may also describe the work of director of photography. This is the case: "The film is exceptionally well-shot noir (with the help of D.P. Michael Barrett). Nothing looks better on film than wet streets at night and Barrett's work brings out that nourish look of the past without the aid of black-and-white cinematography."^[1]. Кирилл С1 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.ign.com/articles/2006/06/16/kiss-kiss-bang-bang

Keep. He won an award from the American Society of Cinematographers and has been cinematographer for some well-known films and television series. While most of the news coverage about him seems to be connected to his engagement to an actress, disregarding that coverage altogether would still allow him to qualify as notable per WP:ARTIST. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with exact same arguments as above by Metropolitan90.Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avani Singh[edit]

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

Promotional article which is mostly about the company rather than her. ... discospinster _talk 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Violates WP:PROMOTION and focuses on company not her. The lead is blatantly inappropriate and there is basically nothing left when the promotional stuff is taken out. I speedy-nominated a previous creation of this article under G11 - although, I admit it's a borderline case. Local Variable (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reliable sources are week and this article written just for promotional purpose.TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:43, 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 Draftify. Moved to draft for possible improvement if more significant reliable sources coverage becomes available. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Outta Nowhere: Scooby-Doo! Meets Courage the Cowardly Dog[edit]

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

Article has not received significant coverage from independent sources, should move to draft space until receive coverage per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 17:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify WP:TOOSOON Donaldd23 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON. Monsieur X (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I agree that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON as per the other nominators. Pahiy (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was moved to Draft prior to the closure of this AfD. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sorry that I acted too quickly on moving the draft. Everyone knew that it should be draftified due to the subject matter being WP:TOOSOON for the mainspace. I acted too hastily and I do indeed apologize for jumping the gun. This discussion should still be closed as draftify. Once again, I am sorry for acting too quickly on draftifying the article. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:51, 28 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dikshu Sarma[edit]

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

Tagged for PROD and notability concern and still no notability demonstrated. All of the references are just trivial mentions. No WP:SIGCOV located during a WP:BEFORE search. I'm also not seeing how this person would pass WP:NMUSICIAN. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Sources are trivial mentions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When PROD didn't succeed, I was living under an impression that singers contributing to notable films are considered notable. But that is incorrect. I read the criteria for singers again and that's not true. I don't know why I got confused. This subject doesn't qualify any WP:NSINGER criterias. The one notable film that he has contributed to, that also doesn't have any critical reception and should be looked at. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:44, 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 23:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia Bioregional Party[edit]

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

New political party which has yet to achieve notability. A previous iteration of this article had been A10-speedied as a copy of Cascadia (independence movement)--while this version is an improvement, it's still more about the Cascadia movement in general rather than the party itself. No better references found. WP:TOOSOON at best. --Finngall ^talk 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. No significant coverage in independent sources (yet), so it fails WP:GNG. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement. No significant sources so far. Geschichte (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. L (film)[edit]

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

Short film which does not appear to have any reviews or significant coverage, so meets neither WP:NFILM nor WP:GNG. I do note that it has received an award and a nomination but neither of these are at festivals that are significant enough to grant automatic notability in lieu of meeting any other notability guidelines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The fact that it only cites film festivals and IMDb is concerning. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked socks; see SPI. Mz7 (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: I have seen this film, which is quite good. According to Taiwanese film critic Parrot Quail Youth-Leigh (李幼鸚鵡鵪鶉), he said that "Mr. L" is a very creative experimental film. ^[1]Sudry (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The film is good enough to put it here. Why? The film review is just saying what is great about the film.Jenniferal1981 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources already show sufficient significant coverage.Jamin Day (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the above "Keep" votes do not cite any relevant policy. Fails WP:NFILM. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:55, 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. ✗plicit 23:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of the Lakes[edit]

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

Fails all of the WP:NFILM criteria and also fails WP:GNG. No reviews or significant coverage. In my view, the nominations for awards at minor film festivals are not sufficient, especially since they are not covered by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Minor award nomination at a film festival is not enough for notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Film festivals are not WP:SIGCOV and likely routine coverage for every film that shows at said festival. IMDb is user-generated content and thus not reliable. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I love this film. One of the reasons, according to the film review written by Tainan National University of the Arts Professor Gong Jow-Jiun (龔卓軍), he said that "Secrets of the Lakes" is a surprise in self-consciousness and deconstruction of image and narrative structure. ^[2]Sudry (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, liking a film does not make it notable, the source identified above is a blog. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can read Chinese. Trust me, the film review in a blog is totally positive. I have seen this film before. It isn't mainstream but this indie film is absolutely awesome. Also this film got 2 wins and 10 nominations, ^[3] Jenniferal1981 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Film review of Mr. L, https://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/yikung/post/1380444713
^ Film review of Secrets of the Lakes,https://yikung2020.pixnet.net/blog/post/332442586
^ Awards and nomination, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6893986/awards?ref_=tt_awd

Keep: I think the sources already show sufficient significant coverage.Jamin Day (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Sudry, Jenniferal1981, and Jamin Day are sockpuppets of each other; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudry. Mz7 (talk) 18:06, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Voices[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. In the previous AfD no one was able to even provide a source that has more than a trivial mention let alone multiple sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Previous discussion was closed "no consensus", almost entirely because of a single person who argued that BCAST criteria were met while completely ignoring the fact that passing BCAST isn't a matter of saying that the topic passes BCAST, but of the quality and depth of the reliable sources that can or can't be shown to independently verify that the topic passes BCAST. Notability-supporting coverage was lacking the first time, and hasn't improved since. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough news coverage. Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CJLY-FM#Programming. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Przedmieście[edit]

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

not really a disambig page: none of them is called by this word only. Lembit Staan (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PARTIAL. Brycehughes (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are very many przedmieścia in Poland, but this is a perfectly normal Polish word whose meaning is not any of the articles linked. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. pl:Przedmieście disambig at pl wiki lists even more entries, many of which we are missing as they are not translated. That includes districts such as pl:Przedmieście (Uściszowice), pl:Przedmieście (Opatowiec) and pl:Przedmieście (Koszyce). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems unnecessary. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 16:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this seems superfluous and unnecessary. A definition page would suffice, which this is not. Tautomers (talk) 01:23, 26 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} 04:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sooraj Tom[edit]

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

Non notable filmmaker. The sources are about the films he directed, not about him. A BEFORE search doesn't bring up anything that would help him pass WP:GNG or WP:DIRECTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with nom. I was about to make the same deletion recommendation with the same rationale Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking at the history of the article, most of it is the subject adding vanity material, which is then removed by other editors. It is too early for an article about this director; he has not become notable yet.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are numerous news sources for his notability.

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Sooraj+Tom%22

Check out the link above for more sources. A2Z Pics (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that acceptable sources exist isn't enough. To establish notability, someone needs to cite acceptable (reliable, independent, with substantial discussion of the subject) soucres in the article. Maproom (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A2Z Pics: if you think that some of those are reliable sources which discuss the subject in detail, then please list just the best three so we can consider them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: listing some sources here.

Saniya Iyyappan cast in Sooraj Tom’s next - Cinema Express
Shoot of Sooraj Tom’s new film 'Better Half' progressing at Kochi - The New Indian Express
Shoot of Sooraj Tom's next progressing at Kochi - Cinema Express
Vishnu Unnikrishnan to play lead opposite Saniya Iyappan in Sooraj Tom’s next - Mathrubhumi
A film about the importance of being responsible in these COVID-19 times - The Hindu

A2Z Pics (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (still): I looked through the five sources which are listed above as being the very best available. None comes even close to the level of “in depth coverage” to establish notability. In particular they are:

1. Sooraj Tom is only mentioned in two sentences: one stating that he is directing a film, the other listing two past films – no details at all about him.

2. Sooraj Tom is only mentioned in one sentence, stating that he is directing a film – no details at all about him.

3. Sooraj Tom is only mentioned in one sentence, stating that he is directing a film – no details at all about him. (Note that this is almost word-for-word identical to number 2; they were obviously taken from the same news feed.)

4. Sooraj Tom is only mentioned in one sentence, stating that he is directing a film – no details at all about him.

5. Sooraj Tom is only mentioned in two partial sentences: one stating that he is directing a film, the other listing two past films – no details at all about him.

--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 28 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pirnat[edit]

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

Neither the name or the people who have it appear to be notable. ... discospinster _talk 21:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 15 people at sl:Pirnat with blue links, including the four listed here who are also on Commons. They are notable people waiting for articles to be written in English. Wikipedia:Name pages notes red links are fine for set index pages. Fences&Windows 22:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability in other language Wikipedias does not automatically translate to notability in the English Wikipedia. If all of the entries are red links, someone should write the article(s) first before having an article listing them. ... discospinster _talk 22:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:APORL from WikiProject Anthroponymy does not encourage red links. The page you linked is an individual's own separate essay.—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and that page links to WP:WTAF. ... discospinster _talk 19:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fences and windows: There are hobbyist on slwiki, who add names and many are hard to proof to be notable. But all 4 listed are important for Slovenia and its culture, politics etc. A09090091 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 4 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: It's been more than a week and the articles are all still red links. ... discospinster _talk 17:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 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 17:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Rajko is definitely notable and a couple of the others are probably so. There is no time limit for creating their articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are you going to create these articles or should we just wait for ... someone? ... discospinster _talk 00:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - One down. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And now there are two. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two articles now. —Kusma (talk) 10:37, 28 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} 05:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Achurjya Borpatra[edit]

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

I can't find any sources that prove that Borpatra meets WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO or any other guideline. I found a couple of press announcements about being appointed as a brand ambassador but nothing better, for example Janambhumi and Assam Times Post. This article also makes false claims, which are not supported by the cited sources; the claim that he used funds from a cancelled show to buy an ambulance to aid in the pandemic is directly contradicted by the two references, which actually state that he actively violated COVID-19 protocols by continuing to perform. Since the articles only provide passing mentions, WP:GNG isn't met either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NSINGER. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Operation Claw (2019–2020). Nobody argued that this page should be kept as a separate article. The relevant content has already been copied to the target. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tigris Shield[edit]

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

Operation Tigris Shield appears in just one of the sources in English. Arabic I don't know. Tigris alone as well. The content here could also go to Timeline of the Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the page blanked while we discuss migration of content to another page, and that exact issue has just been opened on this article's talkpage hours prior ? Is there any gain to skip the talkpage, blank the page containing sourced statements and rush to RfD ? Yug (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not useful. Use the edit history to migrate content. You know how this works? Just push the edit button and copy what ever you see as useful. If you don't know how to do it, I do it for you if you figured out what article you want to have it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just procedural, but from my experience the standard practice is to tag the article issues with warning templates, call contributors to move content from source article to target. Not to blank it right away, which risk definitive content loss. Content other contributors spend time to gather.

It would also sound wise to let some time to discuss what to do with that content. It seems there are enough contents and sources in this article to create a short article "Turkish airstrike on ..." (March 2018), or to move content to chronology pages. On the other hand, blanking the page early or the RfD adds unecessary « fish-it-back before discussing it » burden to that process.

Wikipedia spirit of concensus also recommend to have some open discussion on this matter rather than pushing for one volunteer to unilaterally decide that. Yug (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the relevant content to the Timeline of the Kurdish Turkish conflict see here for the diff. One phrase was from October and I took it out as it was within articles between March and May. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the bulk migration. Note: I think there is an error since a good part of the events were from 2018, but have been moved to the 2019 section (if i am reading your diff correctly). Yug (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because the subject is currently redirecting to Operation Claw (2019–2020).

Current redirect ↪ Operation Claw (2019–2020)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect This page in trwiki (with the title of Operation Stability) states that the operation is the predecessor of the current redirected page, however it seems like it didn't get enough coverage to warrant an article, but notable enough to keep as redirect. This Google search gave me nine results mentioning the phrase. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:15, 26 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. ... discospinster _talk 18:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Tarar[edit]

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

A more detailed version of this article exists at Draft:Zubair Tarar. Neither article contains any reliable sources (WP:RS) and all are self-published. Although the creator claims that this person is famous, I was unable to locate any significant coverage in a WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Clearly not notable and is likely COI or self-promotion. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Herpetogenesis. Mccapra (talk) 17:38, 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 keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dipu Ghosh[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails WP:NSPORT, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Before search turns up no significant coverage in reliable sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I shall leave it to established editors to decide on whether this guy meets Wikipedia's notability standards but he did win the national badminton doubles title 5 times, and many other honors as well as playing for India and being the national coach for India. [2] [3] [4] [5] 77.99.37.105 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, and horribly written, so even if we could justify keeping it we should probably just delete i under TNT rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FWIW WP:NBAD point 5 is met. 77.99.37.105 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have improved the article now. It meets WP:NBAD 🌌Zoglophie🌌 05:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zoglophie. Stvbastian (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per sources above, plus 5x national champion, Arjuna awardee, national team coach, rank 5 at British Commonwealth Games 1970, bronze at 1971 Asian Badminton Championships. --Florentyna (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the improvements made. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have specific criteria for Badminton players here WP:NBADMINTON. subject meets criteria. Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Sakamoto[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a music critic, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for journalists as they stand in 2021. This was fine by the standards of the time when it was created (2005), but in the past 15 years we've really adjusted and refined our thinking about what kind of sourcing helps to support notability and what kind does not -- and the references here are a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, a magazine article that briefly namechecks his existence as a giver of soundbite in the process of being fundamentally about something else, and an article in a defunct magazine that doesn't have any known public archive of past content to recover the source for verification of what it said (and even if we could recover it, getting him over GNG would still take more than just one GNG-worthy footnote). So the sourcing just isn't cutting it anymore, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the well reasoned nomination of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per nominator. There's lots of quotes by him, or things quoted to him. His work is substantial and is correctly used as a reference within Wikipedia. However, there's nothing substantial I can find *about* him in independent, reliable sources. My only quibble with the nomination is regarding defunct magazines, but nom is also correct that one good source doesn't get us over the GNG hump. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Spirits[edit]

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

Single claim to fame is non-notable. Routine coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 11:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References 1, 2, and 4 are good enough. (I don’t get ref 3, is it broken?) SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Grossman, Eric (2016). Craft Spirits: Know the Makers, Infuse Your Own, Create New Cocktails. New York: Penguin Random House. pp. 70–71. ISBN 978-1-4654-4384-7. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The book provides two pages of coverage (including some photos) of Sacred Microdistillery.
2. Brown, Tina (2018). Gin: An Illustrated History. Stroud: Amberley Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4456-8006-4. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The book provides 2.5 pages of text and four pages of photos about Sacred Gin.
3. Stephenson, Tristan (2016). The Curious Bartender's Gin Palace. London: Ryland Peters & Small. ISBN 978-1-84975-701-0. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The book proves two pages of text and several pages of photos about Sacred Gin.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sacred Spirits to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:00, 19 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) 16:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these books are a particularly good source, nor is two of them particularly independent. One of the authors is an industry journalist. I can't see the third book. The cocktail one has been choosen for its taste. If that constitutes notability I don't know what doesn't. There is 52 gin distilleries inside the M25 (London), and 315 in the UK in total, with 4-5 being added every month. The market is not saturated. They're is one in my village of Houston. They are everywhere, as it is easy to setup. So it is generic category. The only reason it is stood out for inclusion is the special branding and the fact that it has been created in somebodies garden, along with 100000 people that tried to create gin. It very easy to do. Apart from them being as common as muck, there is no fact that makes this gin distillery standout, in this article. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 16:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The books are independent of Sacred Spirits. I see no evidence to indicate otherwise. That a company has received significant coverage in three books means it passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage present in article certainly meets GNG. The nominator's objections seem to amount to WP:OSE--but if we have 50 gin distilleries in London that have this level of independent RS'ing, then by all means let us have 50 such articles. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Did you examine the entries in the books? Can you tell me exactly why the distillery is notable? scope_creep^Talk 08:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The books constitute independent reliable sources covering the topic in depth. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Goenka[edit]

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

References do not show notability of the subject. Fails WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - obviously notable person passes WP:GNG , he is listed on Forbes rich person's list also. Jethwarp (talk)

Please provide WP:THREE. GermanKity (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jethwarp did. Some hours before you made that request. If you had any interest in building this encyclopedia rather than bossing people about without lifting a finger yourself then you would have noticed. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Billionaire and one of India's leading business tycoons. His notability can be seen in this picture here wherein he is one among the major CEOs in a meeting with Netanyahu (search for the names of the other CEOs who are among the other powerful business-people in India). WP:THREE would not do him any justice as there are a gazillion articles about him in all the leading Indian newspapers which can be found with a WP:BEFORE that elaborate on his views about India and its economy that he shares on his Twitter ID. Jupitus Smart 17:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jupitus, if subject really covered with gazillion articles, can you please provide WP:THREE. GermanKity (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Jupitus Smart do that when Jethwarp has already done so? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take this personally. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC overrides any considerations under WP:THREE and your proclivity to limit the discussion to three sources is not something that I feel is conducive to this discussion. Coverage in reliable sources is our metric and since he satisfies that, this warrants a keep. Jupitus Smart 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the references provided here either paid, Press releases or self published. GermanKity (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those categories does the book by Deepak Malhotra fall into? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really!!! @ Germankitty Jethwarp (talk) 07:44, 13 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) 06:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it seems that for my input to be considered I have to vote. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Germartin1 (talk) 13:50, 28 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. JBW (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Steele[edit]

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

Not a notable character. Citations are thin, similar to other Left Behind pages, and all of them go to "Critical reception"; however, these citations come from university studies. AdoTang (talk) 16:06, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the article already has some academic cites should give the nom a pause - and nothing in the nom suggests any sort of BEFORE was done. Coverage in Vincent (2010) and Freedman (2008) is one-sentence long or so, fails WP:SIGCOV. Shuck (2005) however has several paragraphs. Hungerford (2010) is in between. My BEFORE yielded 2+ paragraphs in this academic paper. There are hints there are more sources, I didn't complete the search, but I think this one is a keeper (almost certainly meets GNG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC) PS. I'll ping User:Daranios in case they feel like rescuing this further, but IMHO it is acceptable already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:59, 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 01:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time – any thoughts on the sources identified by Piotrus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:31, 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. Sandstein 05:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing fascism[edit]

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

The whole article is basically OR. The first 6 sources all contradict the premise that fascism can be left-wing by contrasting fascism with left-wing ideologies, though they do appear to be used correctly for that purpose, for whatever that's worth (it's not a good sign when an article contradicts itself in the very first sentence). The seventh source fails verification; the term never even appears in the work, nor does the source ever suggest that fascism could be left wing. The 8th source fails verification as well; the author talks of similarities and differences between fascism, monarchism and communism, and classifies fascism as the extremism of the middle class. In fact, the ninth source is the only one to actually use the term (see WP:NEOLOGISM) and it uses it's own definition of it; the 10th and 11th source are both missing page numbers, chapter names or any other information about where in the source this can be found, but in any case, don't seem to be used to support the existence of left-wing fascism, but rather use the term "left fascism" to refer to... Something. The article doesn't make it clear, and the 11th source seems to be using it as a neologism of convenience to refer to leftists who use fascist tactics, without ever defining that further. So the tl;dr on sourcing is that all the sources either A) Contradict the notion of left-wing fascism; B) don't actually say what they're used to say in the article or D) make up their own definition for the term.

Previous AfD's ended as follows:

Bullshit close. There's a clear consensus to delete there.
No consensus, despite the delete !votes having a good argument which the keep !votes never address. Several keep !votes refer to it as a "common pejorative", but there are no sources supporting this.
WP:ILIKEIT !votes for the win. Note that even one of the keep !votes called it "complete bollocks." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and here’s why

It’s rather a coincidence that this article has come up for deletion right at the time that I have recently questioned the balance of the “fascism“ article setting a ‘dispute’ tag following deletion of my edits without discussion on the talk page. Editors only need to check the very recent revision history of the fascism article to understand this. In my honest opinion what we need to do is, improve the article, not delete it, submitting further reliable sources from historians and scientists such as Coupland whose brilliant analysis of the Union of Fascists in the early 20th century clearly identifies that fascism is both of the left and right. Or how about Seton-Watson’s ‘Fascism Right & Left’ published in the Journal of Contemporary History? Moving on, don’t editors find it strange that rather than improving the article someone wants to delete it? In closing, it is my estimation that impartial onlookers might see this more as attempted censorship than a case of ‘tidying up Wikipedia’. Finally, I am more than happy to spend some time sourcing further citations if that helps but deletion? No, that would be a huge mistake.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. Normally I'd be very cautious of a 4th nomination of anything but the nomination addresses this and the last nomination was almost 10 years ago so I don't have a problem with it being nominated again. At a first glance the article does not look too bad but the more I look at it the more I see that there are serious, possibly fatal, problems. It is not clear that it is about a single coherent topic. It seems to claim that the meaning of the phrase "left-wing fascism" has changed over time with only the name really being (sort of) constant. I don't have access to most of the reference material but I confirmed that Ref 7 (Klemperer) does not seem to contain the phrase, or anything like it. The intro co-attributes the the phrase to Jürgen Habermas without any references and the article body doesn't mention him at all. It isn't referenced in the article about him either. If the rest of the referencing is half as bad as that then that would make it a clear delete. My delete !vote is tentative as I can't access all the references and it may be that there is scope for a valid article on this subject, possibly based on the Google Scholar hits, but even then I'm thinking that WP:TNT might be the best way to get there. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Waek delete I am concerned that there seem to be issues with OR and synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete My suggestion would be to roll what exists of this article into the "Fascist" as a pejorative section of the Fascism article which already touches on various left-wing ideologies and tendencies being labelled as fascism. Due to the weak citations and how small this article is that seems the best action for now, though I am happy to help try to expand this into a functional well cited article if others can contribute the time. @Inadvertent Consequences: the timing of this deletion nomination is most likely in response to attention being brought to this article from the discussion you initiated on the talk page of the Fascism article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cdjp1: i’d be happy with rolling the page up into the fascism article on the understanding that the article makes it clear in the lead paragraph that fascism is both of the left and right and not ‘fascism is a far right-wing authoritarian ultranationalism’ which is a nonsense.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  This is definitely not going to happen, per the strong consensus of historians and Wikipedia editors that fascism is a right-wing phenomenon. Generalrelative (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Inadvertent Consequences: that would be akin to changing the opening to the article on vaccines to mention that they may cause autism. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A slight other note that was made in the original AfD discussion for this article is moving the contents to where it is better suited to have, and using this article title as a disambiguation page. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article appears to be 90% WP:OR. The remaining well sourced bits can easily be folded into Fascism#"Fascist" as a pejorative as suggested by Cdjp1. Also worth noting I think: the continued existence of this page appears prima facie to contradict the strong consensus of WP editors that fascism is exclusively a right-wing phenomenon, as reflected in Talk:Fascism/FAQ. Generalrelative (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note: This isn't just a consensus of WP editors, but of historians and political scientists who write about fascism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Generalrelative (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hit List[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything that meets WP:100WORDS let alone WP:THREESOURCES. It doesn't appear that anyone in the previous AfD provided any sources to support any of their arguments. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I supported keeping this in 2005, that was a very, very different time in Wikipedia's evolution — we did not actually have the same rules back then that we have now around having to source a topic to independent analysis of its significance, but rather as long as it was possible to verify that the thing existed it otherwise came down to subjective interpretations of whether its notability claim sounded significant or not. Both our rules, and my own thinking, have changed considerably in the past 15 years, and this definitely does not meet the rules that apply in 2021 anymore. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this could easily be merged into John Sakamoto's article, which is just as short and poorly sourced. Whether Sakamoto's article itself deserves to be kept is another matter. Richard3120 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Sakamoto's article is indeed poorly sourced by 2021 standards (like this, it was fine by 2005 standards but doesn't cut it today) and not easily repairable (even on a BEFORE search I just get his own bylined work rather than reliable source coverage or analysis about him by third parties), so I've nominated it for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 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 13:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghat Pratighat[edit]

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

I completely agree with the PROD rationale of User:Donaldd23 which was Non notable film, nothing in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites and videos. No reviews found. Fails WP:NFILM.

This was removed without explanation nor any improvement to the article to demonstrate notability. Furthermore, I have failed to find sources showing significant coverage that would allow for a passing of WP:GNG, in the absence of being able to meet the notability guideline for films. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: fails WP:NFILM. Another poorly sourced WP:2S without evidences of notability. Kolma8 (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 02:46, 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 06:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Dürksen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:YOUNGATH, and WP:NMOTORSPORT.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have serious concerns about the number of WP:BLPs of barely notable young racing drivers that are being created. In this case, as with many others, there's an apparent total lack of significant coverage from even major specialist sources, with what coverage there is being largely WP:ROUTINE and limited to obscure sources. The fact that many of these competitors are children poses ethical concerns beyond those that usually exist with biographies of living people. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE to meet notability guidelines. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gatun structure[edit]

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

Fails GNG, all of the sources are conference abstracts, which are not reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried searching various combinations of "Gatun," "crater," "structure," "impact, and "extraterrestrial." First, I found, using David Rajmon Global Impact Crater GIS Project on the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Datapages:

Tornabene L. L. (2001) The Gatun Structure: A geological assessment of a newly recognized impact structure near Lake Gatun in the Republic de Panama. Master of Science thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.

Second, a peer-reviewed paper that I found on page 8 states along with a figure about the Gatun structure: "Panama displays at least one impact structure1 (Tornabene (2001); Heckadon-Moreno (2013))..." The paper is:

LeBlanc, J., 2021. Stratigraphic Lexicon: The Onshore Cenozoic Sedimentary Formations of The Republic of Panama. Biosis: Biological Systems, 2(1), pp.1-173.

Finally, the publication, Heckadon-Moreno (2013), cited above for the Gatun structure is:

Heckadon-Moreno, S. (2013). Livio Tornabene y el meteorito de Gatun. Epocas. 28 (11):10–11.

Tornabene (2001) is the above MS thesis Paul H. (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In evaluating the above sources, either they are unpublished material like masters thesis, or they are brief passing mentions that cannot be used to construct an an article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was some good digging here. While there is information here, indeed they are not published in journals and would only count as primacy sources. It's possible this is a noteworthy thing, but it hasn't been established to be so, at least within the confines of what wikipedia demands. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 08:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the aforementioned concerns, I can't help but notice that sources that discuss American meteorite craters such as Monturaqui crater don't mention this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivone[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. None of the sources satisfies the criteria of CORPDEPTH as they are about deals and acquisitions. This article in Economic Times is from Brand Equity which is basically ET's press release section. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, sources are either trivial or primary in nature. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:10, 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 redirect to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes#Clip Shows (2020). Sandstein 05:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Forever[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Only sources in the article are from an anonymous user and an unverified Twitter account. Pamzeis (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pamzeis (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pamzeis (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes#Clip Shows (2020) - I found enough in searches to verify that this actually exists, but there is pretty much no coverage in reliable sources, and certainly not enough to split this out into a separate article. Its already included in the main episode list for the series, so Redirecting there would be about the best that could be done. Rorshacma (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Rorshacma. This is clearly an example of WP:NOPAGE where a standalone article is not the best way to cover the topic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

looks interesting to see this page before it gets redirected Esaïe Prickett (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may re-nominate the page for deletion. ✗plicit 12:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Westnile TV[edit]

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

Lack of Notability, Unverifiable sources and failed WP:NMEDIA , WP:NTV and WP:RPRGM. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 28 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) Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jar'Edo Wens hoax[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A long term hoax that got a brief spate of coverage when it was unveiled and nothing before or since. Just a blip on the radar in Wikipedia history. Delete or merge to History of Wikipedia or Reliability of Wikipedia for lack of long term notability. Last AFD closed as keep less than a year after it happened on assumption that it was noteworthy, but the lack of coverage after the fact suggests WP:NOTNEWS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of Wikipedia, this is basically a WP:NOTNEWS. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes notability. Merge would lose relevant information. --Andreas JN 466 10:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note mention in more recent sources such as Debra L. Merskin (12 November 2019). The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society. SAGE Publications. p. 1900. ISBN 978-1-4833-7554-0. or The Register (2017). --Andreas JN 466 10:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of my pet peeves is when people cite WP:NOTNEWS incorrectly. Here is what that page says in a nutshell: "Don't make articles for mundane things like celebrity gossip or unimportant sports matches." Here is what it does NOT say: "A topic must have coverage 'after the fact' to qualify for Wikipedia." It does not matter if the only coverage was contemporaneous, it received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This nomination is nonsensical. Mlb96 (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We already had a reasonable discussion and notability does not expire. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It got substantial news coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Reliability of Wikipedia#Other false information. A minor episode in the context of Wikipedia hoaxes, can well be covered in a more condensed form. Sandstein 05:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there is sufficient coverage of the subject in reliable sources which extends beyond 'routine news reporting' and therefore beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Jack Frost (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irevna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NCORP. A BEFORE search only turned up routine coverage related to acquisitions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Bungstnk (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on an offshoring division of CRISIL (itself a subsidiary of S&P Global), describing office locations, past acquisitions and renamings, but without providing claims or evidence of encyclopaedic notability. There's a mention of Irevna in this 2020 article about CRISIL so perhaps Irevna should be mentioned in the CRISIL article, but I don't see sufficient to demonstrate WP:NCORP for Irevna itself. AllyD (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan P. Blanco[edit]

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

I am proposing this deletion because this article fails sig-cov. This person has no more than passing mentions in the sources provided. Nothing is specifically about him. This guy is simply not notable. Helen (let’s talk) 23:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the sig-cov concern, and this will be reviewed further. The sources mentioned are meant to be of independent, yet additional information to what was already provided in the books. Written by Philippine art historian Alice Guillermo, the two books cited goes in depth in the research supportive of the article. There still are many sources available to cite from major publications of the country, though these are in print, and currently unreachable in online archives. Please consider that much more needed time is essential to build an improved entry with better sources. Agatha 01:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST. Additionally, there's really no real claim to notability based on the text in the article itself at the moment.4meter4 (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a quick search on Google News gave me nothing. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable per WP:GNG. The article also reads somewhat like a promotion. HiwilmsTalk 20:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namik Haluk Baskinci[edit]

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

The cited sources sources in the article don't even mention the subject. All attempts at finding sources to verify the article have yielded nothing. While there may be foreign language refs verifying the article, I strongly suspect this article may be a WP:Hoax at worst, or at best fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax, which I should have spotted myself when de orphaning it in 2018. Absolutely nothing out there except Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax article. Better very late than never Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while I found one of his books online, still no way that this person is notable in the slightest. The book also doesn't fully eliminate the chance of this being a hoax though, as it's the only thing I've managed to find. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book also seems to reference Wikipedia which isn't good... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book is just a printout of Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete with the reason of hoax or not being notable I literally found near to none about the person (other than circular references sourced to Wikipedia itself), and I was quite sure that this page is a hoax because it doesn't even sound like a real name + I didn't find anything even while searching on social media sites or searching for the companies which claimed to founded by him (I've found sites about some companies mentioned, but none of them mentions the person, and one of them seems like a hoax too) I think we can add this to WP:HOAXLIST.
Note: before posting that comment, I've suddenly realized this page mentions the person as a graduate from high school on 1975 (and this is the only mention outside of circular references), and therefore I'm not fully sure it's a hoax, but I'm sure about it's definitely not notable. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I abstain from voting, and YES I would have to agree that this person probably isn't really, if not at all notable. I would just like to point out that he was struck by lightning, which is a notable event, as this rarely happens: being struck by lighting. Also the page should have been named "Murder of Namik Haluk Baskinci", since his murder is the only other thing that he would be known for as that might have had a fair amount of coverage in the country of Turkey. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davidgoodheart We can't verify that he was actually struck by lightning, which indeed is a very rare thing. Getting murdered is also very rare, and it not being solved is even more rare. How many rare things can happen in someones life? All added up this article seems complete bs to me. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Also, being murdered and being struck by lightning are both not that rare. In my city we have in excess of 300 murders a year, about half or more of those go unsolved, and my city has less maybe 0.15% the population of the US. Doing something rare alone does not make someone notable, we need substantial coverage of them doing the rare thing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert You are absolutely right that being murdered and it not been solved are not at all uncommon, but I must say that being struck by lightning is not very common. But I have to agree with you that this article is NOT notable because of just that event. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davidgoodheart being struck by lightning is not as rare as you might expect. Hundreds of people are struck by lightning just in the United States every year according to the National Weather Service; with the average death toll being 49 people per year with more survivors than those dying. See statistics here.4meter4 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. I don't know how this hoax has managed to stay here for 11 freaking years. Also, this was the only edit of the creator, then they disappeared into thin air. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Couldn't find any single source about him both in English or Turkish. Probably a hoax. — Pamphylian ● 💬 23:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GhostDestroyer100 It's odd isn't it how the good articles sometimes get deleted after only a short while and crappy ones like this sometimes remain for a long time. Go figure! Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lito Anzures[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced article. Not a leading ~~actress~~ actor, so it's unclear if he meets any of the criteria at WP:NACTOR as his roles seem minor. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete It is high time we purged Wikipedia of all articles sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable individual. Note to 4meter4: I think he's a he. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:18, 28 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. POINTy nomination by article creator, with thinly veiled insults and accusations in the nomination. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LowTierGod[edit]

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

Per BLP, the subject is only mentioned in "reliable sources" in passing. No reliable source deeply demonstrates the subject's noteworthiness. The subject fails all tests for WP:ENTERTAINER. The article has been turned into a WP:BATTLEGROUND by editors with conflicts of interest, the article has veered into WP:PROMOTION territory, and several users have used the article has a conduit for their personal conflicts with others (including administrators). BananaYesterday (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's one of the most controversial esports personalities of all time. In the esports world, absolutely everyone knows who he is. I am sure there must be coverage of him in Kotaku and Polygon (although why Kotaku and Polygon are considered reliable sources when they're both steaming piles of garbage masquerading as journalism I haven't the slightest). Mlb96 (talk) 03:03, 26 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.

[1] ttps://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/anna-faris-marriage-advice-to-her-young-son-jack-would-be-to-not-get-married-in-his-20s-101622643525839.html

[2] ttps://people.com/tv/anna-faris-dealbreakers-game-immediate-intimacy-with-fiance-michael-barrett/

[3] ttps://hollywoodlife.com/feature/who-is-michael-barrett-anna-faris-fiance-3925348/

[4] ttps://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/Who-Michael-Barrett-44268780

[5] ttps://www.news24.com/channel/movies/reviews/goal-20081201

[6] ttps://www.ign.com/articles/2006/06/16/kiss-kiss-bang-bang

[7] Film review of Mr. L, https://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/yikung/post/1380444713

[8] Film review of Secrets of the Lakes,https://yikung2020.pixnet.net/blog/post/332442586

[9] Awards and nomination, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6893986/awards?ref_=tt_awd

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]