Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 09	November 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frantz Jean-Charles[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Claim about his performance for national team not supported by any sources (I couldn't find one either). Recreated after PROD by an SPA. BlameRuiner (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not written like an article, completely unsourced, and fails GNG and NFOOTY. Speedy delete, IMO. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a work of fiction Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per fairly strong NFOOTBALL pass and the Bloomfield College source now located Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete I want to believe that information on his caps for the national team are out there, but like BlameRuiner, I could not find them either. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Keep I am a little embarrassed I could not find the information that was added to the article. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTY. Played for the New Jersey Stallions during the 1996 USISL Select League which is listed as a WP:FPL, evidence here, here. Continued to play for them in 1997 during the USISL D-3 Pro League, an early iteration of USL Second Division, evidence here. Like others, I cannot verify the Haitian national team information. GauchoDude (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as per GauchoDude. His stats for that season are recorded under the name "Jean-Charles Frantz" here, so I'm also wondering if there might be additional coverage under that name. More coverage here at Newspapers.com, and the Bloomfield source I added to the article also mentions that he played for the Haiti national team, albeit without details. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Giant Snowman 12:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Wood (painter, born 1919)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Does not pass WP:ARTIST. References online about "Robert E. Wood, painter" are either his son or grandson. Kbabej (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article appears to be a copy of http://www.robertewood.ca/page10/Grandfather.html, which is copyrighted 2009-2019 Robert E. Wood at the bottom of the page. Vexations (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Time (1999 film)[edit]

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

Article about a 1999 comedy film tagged for notability since August. It doesn’t seem notable to me but there may be sources in Farsi I can’t find. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per criterion G5. XOR'easter (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mixxtone[edit]

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

PROD with rationale Cannot find references to assert notability (and all currently listed references are primary). Also appears to be a copy-paste from the relevant draft, so work can continue there. was placed by User:Giraffer.

This remains valid. He fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG due to the complete lack of WP:RS coverage. Also see deletion history of the article itself and of DJ Malyk and Round2Hell for more background on this. Long-term spam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I didn't realize the PROD was removed or that there was more to this (thanks for nominating!) Also, I mislinked the draft – it's Draft:Mixxtone (musician). Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 20:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Ward (model)[edit]

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

I'll keep it brief: Australian Gemma Ward is notable. British actress, former model Sophie Ward is notable. Gemma Ward's sister Sophie Ward does not meet notability requirements for Wikipedia. While it's fair that she was discovered when Gemma was in some modeling contest, where are the sources for her own career? Where is the significant coverage? The only source in the whole article is an archived version of a profile page of Chic Management with measurements and what look like test photos. Outside of that, there was a News.com.au piece (all I could find) about how she was starving herself but that doesn’t say she was in Vogue Italia or whatever, either. Trillfendi (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. and WP:NOTINHERITED as a sister. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did my due diligence and can't find anything that has her qualifying for WP:GNG. Perhaps in the future she might become famous or successful enough to merit inclusion, but right now, she hasn't. Missvain (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel, Trecynon[edit]

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

Notability and verifiability issues. The only source is a local historical society. In searching, I found a similarly named church (but certainly different from this one) that Thomas Price (Baptist minister) was affiliated with but nothing else about this one. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~ keep or merge: I have updated the Coflein link.[1] This is a highly reliable source which verifies some of the content. However, it does not appear to indicate sufficient notability. The inclusion in Category:Grade II listed churches in Rhondda Cynon Taf appears to be a mistake, possibly from confusion with the nearby Carmel (Bryn Sion) Chapel.[2] It would be a pity to lose this content: I suggest merging into a new article on all the churches and chapels in Aberdare and/or the Cynon Valley. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Elfed Davies, a local historian, has written two books on the chapel: Carmel Trecynon 1799-1996 (2002) and Addendum to the Story of Carmel Trecynon (2005, possibly a leaflet).[3][4][5] These might be self-published, but they would be citable if the author is an established expert on the topic. Even if they are not citable, they might uncover more reliable sources and their existence suggests that there is more to be said about this chapel. Not withstanding WP:ITSOLD, the chapel was built in 1829 and the Listed building article says "Most buildings built between 1700 and 1840 are listed". If it were still standing it would probably be listed, we usually accept listed buildings as notable, and it being demolished is not an issue (WP:DEFUNCT). Changing to Weak keep or merge. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must disagree with your argument. As far as I can tell, the building is not standing, and the UK register of historic places does not have any coverage of it at all. You link to a historic building listed in 1991, but the article says the building was demolished in 1989; I must assume that is a different place with a similar name. If the facts were different, perhaps it would be notable. Your argument seems to suggest that every building from the 1700s is automatically notable because it would be historic if it were still standing. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - By 'the UK register of historic places' are you referring to the National Heritage List for England? This building is in Wales. The equivalent list for Wales appears to be the National Monuments Record of Wales. This is documented by the Coflein database, which includes this building, see my link above. I thought I had made it clear that my link for the chapel listed in 1991 was another chapel with which this might be confused – I am trying to clarify the situation, not presenting a case for a specific decision. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above and also here is a newspaper article about its reopening following refurbishment.----Pontificalibus 15:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There are loads of listed buildings; and we cannot have an article for every one. I am not suggesting that what the article says is not true, and the newspaper article no doubt supports it. However, this was merely a NN local church, and a defunct one at that. Local churches need something noteworthy about them before they deserve an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

listed buildings are usually included as per WP:GEOLAND without the above equivocation Atlantic306 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded, please re-assess it. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as registered as a listed building in the Welsh register so passes WP:GEOLAND and has newspaper coverage as identified in this discussion as well as sources from a historian, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as a religious institution and as a building, even though it has now been demolished. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hartsville, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

A GNIS location that is not a true populated place. There is a Hartsville Fire Company – according to its website that got its name from a hotel of the same name at the crossroads – that serves Warminster, but that seems to be the only reference that exists to Hartsville outside of GNIS, therefore the place fails WP:GEOLAND. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This represents three instances of the place name being used as part of a residential address. This and this both discuss a church in Hartsville. This cemetery and this article about a cemetery are further proof of notability. This is a cut paper silhouette of a resident of Hartsville. Thisnewspaper article says "Travel two miles along Bristol Road from the now-closed Naval Air Warfare Center Warminster and you’ll come to the village of Hartsville, in Warwick Township." This is about the death of a Hartsville resident.

@Snood1205: I recognize that it is often hard to find references for a tiny settlement, but I wish people would stop bringing them to AfD. We risk losing a real place when a place with hard-to-find references is nominated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think this way and then I saw the sheer quantity of one-line articles that a handful of editors churned out at a rate that was sometimes as high as one every ten seconds with no care at all for whether they had any notability or if they had even found any real evidence for their existence. Deleting these micro-stubs does not prevent -at all- the people who live in or near these places re-creating them with actual content. Indeed it actually tends to encourage that to happen, as the absence of an article encourages them to create one. EDIT: as an example, see the location of Highland Park, Bucks County, Pennsylvania in the same county. Absolutely nothing in the article, two sources which are both bad for determining whether the place is even populated, since GNIS is unreliable for that and Hometown Locator is just a mirror site, and the actual location given appears to be an open field. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real village, per above sources. Passes GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND, and as per WP:HEY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article at present is a grab-bag of tangential stuff to which the community is basically peripheral, but it is enough to assemble an article out of. It just about gets over the keep line for WP:GNG based on this reference and this reference. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: quite substantial expansion since this nomination, by several editors, give this a lot of good references and some decent content as well. For what it's worth, I also found this. jp×g 22:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tonfa in popular culture[edit]

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

A largely unsourced "in popular culture" list that merely states every time the weapon has appeared in a piece of fiction. There are no sources currently in the article that actually discuss the overall topic of the depiction of tonfa in popular culture, and I was unable to find much in searches, so it fails WP:LISTN. As there is really no sourced information on the overall topic, there really isn't anything that should be merged to the main tonfa article. The Talk page states that the article was initially created to keep this information off the main tonfa article page, but as this is really nothing but rather indiscriminate trivia, the better solution would be to just not keep it on the encyclopedia at all. Rorshacma (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be coming back to clean up the main Tonfa article once the entries are inevitably added there again? This page has served to keep it out of there for many years janto (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Swords in popular culture, Guns in popular culture, Pencils in popular culture, Cars in popular culture. There is a reason these are all red-linked, even though substantial articles with substantial sources could be created. Simply, we cannot have a list of every item which appears in popular culture. There is an infinite number of articles like this that could be created, with an uncountable number of potential entries. A tonfa is not an obscure enough item where it is only sparsely mentioned (in such a case, mentions could be made at the main tanfa page). Unless it is especially significant to a specific work, there is no merging necessary. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There would not be infinite entries: the current number is well within the countable range. One could argue that the significance of the tonfa relies on its presence in popular culture janto (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page exists now for 10 years with 100+ edits by many people. Original intention was to keep these contributions of popular culture representation out of the main Tonfa article. It has functioned very well in this regard. If we delete this page, these will just again be scattered throughout that article.

What is deletion of this trying to accomplish?

- Janto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janto (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WAF, pop culture trivia not backed by reliable secondary sources should be trimmed into a small prose summary, not dumped across multiple articles in the form of lists. Avilich (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* It is dumped here into a 'single' article, not across multiple. There have been attempts in the past to combine everything into a prose summary, however entries are then just appended to the end making it a monstrosity. Expanding it into a list has been cleaner janto (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:LISTN. There is no encyclopedic value nor precedent of their use. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there are people that keep coming to wikipedia and adding to the list, so obviously its presence is valuable to some. janto (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand these kinds of attempts at deletion and what it is trying to accomplish. Is WP running low on disk space again? janto (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a depository for random fan material. I could make a page like Comically large swords in popular culture and people would undoubtedly add their favorite shows and video games to the list. But that does not mean that the list is helpful. When would someone ever need a list of all the shows which feature tonfa? There is no practical application and it imparts no actual information. There is no significance, either. Having a tonfa featured is not a defining trait of these shows. So yes, people add to the list, but that proves nothing. If you are interested in fan material, there are places like wikia/fandom. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally have a big problem with removing these entries, per se. However, my main reason for wanting to keep this page is that without it the main Tonfa page will suffer. I don't want to keep cleaning that up each time an excited fan goes there. This page has long served as a catch-all for those events. That said, I think one could argue that the appearance of a tonfa in these shows is supportive of the significance of the tonfa itself and without it, it would be significantly more obscure. janto (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced with little hope of other than primary sources, not an encyclopedic list. Geschichte (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Suonii180 (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:WAF. Avilich (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing every time X appears in fiction (or popular culture, or whatever) is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES. The essay WP:CARGO has it right—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. That same essay makes another point which is relevant here: Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content; wanting to keep the main article "clean" is not a valid reason for having an article like this one. If editors add examples to the main Tonfa article based on primary sources (or more likely no sources whatsoever), the proper course of action is to remove those examples per MOS:POPCULT.
I would have no objection to recreating this as a proper, encyclopaedic prose article about the topic—as was done for WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction—in the event that sources that would allow us to do that while abiding by MOS:POPCULT emerge. None of the current content would be of any use for that, however, so there's no point in retaining this version. TompaDompa (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mumpreneur[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, has a mention in a recognised dictionary, and a few articles about the term itself. I don't find any sources of this word being widely used, in places other than those few articles. Daiyusha (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Retracting page has been redirected to wiktionary, no need of AfD Daiyusha (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Let's see where the discussion goes, Based on Serial's comment, I will stand with my original opinion then. Daiyusha (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-IP and/or Founder comment) It was me that redirected it. Here's the chronology: It got PRODd by User:207.229.101.47, the PROD was removed by the article creator (Sallyjaynehall), the IP hit it with {{db-invented}}, but that can't honestly stick because of the dictionary and various mentions in RS—but nor would any other CSD cat, I think with the possible exception of G11? And even then ~ —so I contested it. I added the few RS I could find, realised it was promotional, probably paid-for-in-breach-of-terms-of-use crud, and that it was the perfect example of everything we don't want. So I redirected it to Wiktionary. But to be fair, that's not perfect: per WP:NOT being policy, also per the likely-ToU violatons, I feel it should still be deleted. This is a bit of a cock-up, for which I am in no small measure responsible, and in the middle of it is an IP who's going around barking instructions at peeps like he's Jimmy bloomin' Wales! ——Serial 18:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Paging Daiyusha who made the right call here... ——Serial 18:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Serial, the IP beat me to the PROD. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why this page should be deleted when you have a page for the American spelling, Mompreneur. Mumpreneur is a very widely used term in the UK and in British English. I have to stress again, this is in no way commercially driven - a group of women working in the nursery industry were interested in having the term included and I offered to help. No money is changing hands and I have no personal reasons for promoting any of the women named, other than having met some very impressive women in business over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyjaynehall (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 British monarchs. That list is now sortable, which addresses one of the arguments of the "keep" side. Sandstein 07:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of British monarchs by longevity[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:OR.The article is statistical trivia, such as their ages in years and days, xx,xxx thousands of days they were/are alive, and how many leap days Queen Victoria lived through vs King George III. There is also a WP:CRYSTALBALL section hypothesizing where Prince Charles and Prince William might be on the list at some future point in the next decade if either come to the throne.

Was proposed for merging to List of British monarchs, but over a year later, nothing has been decided, let alone merged from this article, so it's a valid AfD candidate. A second merge discussion to List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign has gone nowhere since May. List of British monarchs already contains all of the encyclopedic information here (name, life dates, age), and is a better place to give an overview on the notable topic of individual British monarchs.

Follows recent precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current senators of Canada by age for deleting statistical trivia longevity articles with long stalled merge proposals. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main List of British monarchs is not sorted or sortable by either age or length of reign and a merge would not be possible without a significant redesign (something almost none of those supporting a merge make mention of). With over 86,000 page views last year and over 5000 in the last 30 days, this is clearly information that is being sought by our readers so there is no justification for making it less accessible (or forcing a redesign of the main list that would make other information less accessible). This makes the appropriate precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by length of tenure, which resulted in the article being kept for precisely these reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age, and SSSB's rationale there.Canuck^{89 (Talk to me)} 20:30, November 11, 2021 (UTC)
Delete as this is just a unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of List of British Monarchs and pure listcruft. It is easily WP:FIXABLE to add a sortable column to List of British Monarchs for age at death (I don't have time to do it myself right now) which would alleviate any issues given above and are not valid arguments for deletion. I do not think it is good for the project to salami slice topics into multiple list pages which makes it far harder for readers to find information across multiple pages. Occam's razor should be applied here. Other arguments for keep above are just WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:POPULARPAGE - all of which we are told to avoid and closers should discount. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has now added this sortable column to List of British Monarchs so there is really no reason to keep this content fork now.Vladimir.copic (talk)

By the same token, the closer should see WP:IDONTLIKEIT for your argument - While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic"Canuck^{89 (What's up?)} 21:23, November 12, 2021 (UTC)
Not a matter of whether anyone likes it or not buddy. Content forking guideline is clear on this. You shouldn’t have multiple articles treating the same subject. This is a textbook case of this. If you have an issue with this maybe challenge the guidelines. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you guys are not seeing that all these list articles that you are nominating lately are indeed different topics and in most cases the information they display can't be adequately conveyed in a single table. This particular nomination can but only due to the particular nature of the United Kingdom being a stable monarchy over the last few centuries with one monarch succeeding another and never returning to the job. If you extended such a list back into medieval times with civil wars etc then it would all fall apart and be too complicated for a single table. Superegz (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One difference is that the List of British monarchs only has monarchs since the union of 1707 whereas the List of British monarchs by longevity has the monarchs since James VI of Scotland also became James I of England. Just something that should be noted with merging these two. Superegz (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing problem is easily resolved because the dates of when British monarchs were born and died are very easily sourced. The longevity of British monarchs is a topic frequently covered in the news, so this is certainly a notable topic. The reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by length of tenure is applicable to this article as well. OCNative (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of British monarchs. We've tried before to merge the lists, most recently two days ago for the monarchs after 1707, but it keeps being reverted. I see no reason why List of British monarchs can't be expanded to include the British monarchs before 1707 and be made sortable by lifespan. DrKay (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12, Thryduulf, Canuckian89, Vladimir.copic, Superegz, and OCNative: Participants at this discussion are invited to contribute to Talk:List of British monarchs#Age at death and Talk:List of British monarchs#Proposed merge of List of British monarchs by longevity into List of British monarchs. DrKay (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I mentioned in other List AfDs, these types of articles are mainly trivia. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per OCNative. While I do think that this list and the others OC mentioned are somewhat trivial, that more comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the only other issue for me (the lack of sourcing) can easily be fixed by adding reliable sources, most likely by taking the ones in their respective articles. OcelotCreeper2 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/weak delete. Once the extra monarchs are added at List of British monarchs, this article will be a duplicate of that list. It's already a duplicate for the monarchs after 1707. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: when closing this discussion, shouldn't we also take into account the comments/consensus/votes at Talk:List of British monarchs#Proposed merge of List of British monarchs by longevity into List of British monarchs? Celia Homeford (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Their lifespans are already listed on the list page.2601:241:300:B610:755C:26A9:9FE8:253B (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am now changing my !vote to redirect to List of British monarchs, thanks to the IP pointing out that the monarch durations are already listed on the main article. OcelotCreeper2 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 17:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jyothish p jayakumar[edit]

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

Promotional Autobiography of a non notable politician who fails to meet WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it for speedy deletion at the same moment as Celestina007 nominated it. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NPOL,WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 17:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just tagged the page for speedy delete. Not notable at all. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This really should be speedy deleted but since its been declined let's hope that this just WP:SNOWs. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This should've been BLPPROD'd first instead of AfD'd, but whatever. Fails NPOL and GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7, a prod can be contested by the article creator & more often than not that is always the case so I don’t see the logic in that. Celestina007 (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, a standard PROD yes, but a BLPPROD cannot be contested until a valid source is added. Curbon7 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curbon7, thank you for the response. you are expounding on my point, prods or BLPprods can be contested which in summary is my point & what makes prodding the most ineffective deletion process (imho). Celestina007 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Behind the moors (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is an open and shut case. He has not won any elections nor had any major post. So clearly fails WP:NPOL. Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red River Cereal[edit]

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

Not notable, only routine coverage cited in the article and with a web search Bestagon ⬡ 13:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bestagon ⬡ 13:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some references. I think there's enough here to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilots of Japan[edit]

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

Unsourced band bio, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. The article claims that the band's first album received reviews in NME and Record Collector. If that is true, these reviews could contribute to notability, but I can't find them online, nor any other significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Acceptable in the 00s" once again. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. agree that without citations we cannot confirm the validity. So for now delete or draftify. Chelokabob (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus against a standalone article; the argument to delete is weakened by the odd title, which even one of the "redirect" opinions acknowledges. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social Issues Nigerian Women Face[edit]

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

Redundant. Article appears to be largely copied from Women in Nigeria. There are some citations and updated stats but the text looks like it was almost entirely lifted from that article. Citing (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLOWITUP seems appropriate here. Also agree that it is redundant and lots of content is taken directly from Women in Nigeria. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've asked the creator (MAderinsola) if their intention was to improve Women in Nigeria. In some earlier revisions there was italicized text that marked improvements to the article, though it's a bit confusing as most of it was added over a year ago in draftspace, but the article was only moved to mainspace this week. Citing (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Women in Nigeria: after adding useful content. The title seems a bit off though. Princess of Ara 19:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be student coursework: creating editor has two course profiles on their user page: past and current. Perhaps @Nlegate:, @Helaine (Wiki Ed):, @Ian (Wiki Ed): might want to comment, as those involved. PamD 12:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is student work from 2020. They shouldn't have created a stand-alone article. While I don't opine on AFDs using this account on principle, I will keep an eye on their current work. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Women in Nigeria: Move Useful contents to Women in nigeria., if the subject doesn't have a chance to stand-alone article, if so we can keep it by giving some time for improvments.--—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QUANTA (competition)[edit]

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

This article was proposed for deletion in 2007; the PROD was removed without a rationale. It was then re-PROD'ed a couple days ago, with the PROD removed on the technicality that a page can't be PROD'ed twice. It's been tagged as needing sources since 2012. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to improve it (a smattering of press-release-level stuff isn't enough), so I'm bringing it here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Competition article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this competition.Dialectric (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to proceed without being 100% confident this topic is not notable, but I can't find any good sources either and the current content is bad/not worth saving so no real regrets there. If someone wants to come around later and write a better encyclopedic article on this competition, which clearly demonstrates notability, I would be happy for the page to be re-created. Input from anyone who is familiar with children's STEM competitions in India? do we have a bigger page this can be mentioned as one example in? Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This falls under WP:NORG and we don't have the multiple in-depth independent non-local reliable sources demanded by that notability standard. In fact we have no sources at all, merely an external link to the contest web site, which is totally inadequate as a source. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it clearly fails WP:NORG. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any significant coverage from independent reliable sources in my own search (I only found a few non-RS posts like this and this) and none have been found by anyone else, so this probably fails WP:NORG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Behind the moors (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Bikalpa[edit]

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

Page has been repeatedly created and then speedily deleted. I declined the most recent speedy request, but I question whether the notability requirements are met. Since I can't find sources in English to back up notability and I can't evaluate the Nepali sources, I'm bringing this here for discussion. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks significant coverage and fails notability. All the sources just have passing mention of the writer or the books. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator and fails to show WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. D.K. Das[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF, WP:GNG. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 13:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Pure advertising, primary sources only, no indication of notability even in this overt advertisement. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 16:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 or G11. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If users believe a redirect is merited, they are free to create one. ✗plicit 00:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Union of two regular languages[edit]

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

Near-orphaned information more appropriately explained at Thompson's construction and Nondeterministic finite automaton#Closure properties Caleb Stanford (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here for some info on the page's origin. The page is a copied proof from a textbook and the information in the proof is explained better elsewhere.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above (not sure whether I'm supposed to comment on my own proposed AfD). Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating the article counts as voicing your opinion that it ought to be deleted, so you don't have to say "delete" again. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logging delete agreement from Jochen Burghardt here: "An additional argument is that the proof has several flaws. I tagged those I found in 2014, but no attempts were made to fix (or deny) them." Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lengthy blob of opaque, partially undefined notations without any indication of why a step-by-step proof is necessary. The claim being proved is unsurprising (at least one textbook introduces it with It is clear that... [6]). I don't see why an article on this is needed; the property is the kind of thing we could state without proof, or state and then outline a proof in words. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Alternation (formal language theory) (without merging). This is standard textbook material, and the alternation operation is notable and encyclopedic. But although the NFA-based proof of closure given here works only for alternation, the DFA-product-based proof is more general and works for all other Boolean combinations. In any case the proof itself is not independently notable, and I don't think this one closure property is so distinct from the others to stand alone as an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To me "alternation" in formal language theory means alternating existentials and universals (a la Chandra & Stockmeyer) (also happy with the Boolean combination definition), I've never seen the usage of it as another word for "union", but would agree with the redirect if the target page is changed to be something more interesting. Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target page is exactly on unions of formal languages. What does "more interesting" have to do with it? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that the target page should either be called Union (formal language theory), be rewritten to discuss alternation in the sense of alternating automata and alternating Turing machines, or deleted. Using the word "alternation" for a union is at best confusing. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the technical word used within this subject area for that meaning. Your confusion is irrelevant. Your confusion between automata theory and formal language theory is also irrelevant (both the target and the nominated article are on formal languages, not automata, and alternating Turing machines do something quite different despite the similar name). And renaming other articles to words different from the ones used in their fields to describe their topic should not be relevant for whether we redirect one article on a topic to another article on the same topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: With all due respect, I am an expert in formal language and automata theory and have never heard the word used this way. Nor do the references include any formal language theory paper with this usage, but there are dozens of formal language theory papers where alternation means quantifier alternation. If it is indeed true that some experts use this terminology, then the fact that they insist on having another word for "union" is a bit baffling to me. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think of a language as a set, it is the union. If you think of a language as being recognized by a pattern described by an expression, you need a name for the operation used in those expressions, which is not a union (patterns are not sets). The following all use "alternation" in the sense of the union of formal languages: "LR-parsing of extended context free grammars", Madsen & Kristensen 1976, doi:10.1007/BF00265221; "A compact function for regular expression pattern matching", Richards 1979, doi:10.1002/spe.4380090703; "On String Pattern Matching: A New Model with a Polynomial Time Algorithm", Liu, 1981; doi:10.1137/0210010; "Finding Regular Simple Paths in Graph Databases", Mendelzon & Wood 1995, doi:10.1137/S009753979122370X; "Regular expression types for XML", Hosoya et al 2005, doi:10.1145/1053468.1053470; "String generation for testing regular expressions", Zheng et al 2020, doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxy137; and no doubt many others. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for substantiating the claim --- I agree then, that this terminology is sometimes used. It is not Wikipedia's job to arbitrate which terminology should be standard, so the article name should stand as it is with appropriate clarification. I hope my tone did not come across as antagonistic, that was not my intention. I would not mind redirecting there. Thanks for the discussion. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lobi Singi[edit]

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

A quick Google search indicates no notability to meet WP:NFILM. Htanaungg (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one of the very many articles created at breakneck speed by Gihan Jayaweera. The problem with this article is the same as with much of their other work. It is based on a template, and cited to sources that the user cannot read in their original language. This approach leads to situations where they simply add "The film received mixed reviews from critics" and then cite that to whatever looks like a review. In this case, there is a review, but it is anything but mixed; it is very negative. One source, afromagazine.nl is not the actual source, but got the content from https://www.waterkant.net/suriname/2015/09/14/surinaamse-film-lobi-singi-in-premiere/, a blog that appears to have published a press release. Other errors are almost comical: The cast list hasn't been translated, and looks like it was copied from IMDB. For example: Astrid Belliot as Zangeres. Zangeres is not a name, it means singer in Dutch. I don't think the film itself is notable (it's a student project), but even if it were, this article is so wrong about just about everything, there is nothing here worth salvaging. Vexations (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This film has one independent, reliable, in-depth review.[7] The Waterkant article[8] is a capsule review and event description that does not count towards the film's notability. Lobi singi are Surinamese love songs and are notable, so maybe one day someone will re-use the topic. gidonb (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to satisfy GNG or any other measure of notability. Toddst1 (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Robertson (concept artist)[edit]

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

Does not appear to have had much coverage in secondary sources Salimfadhley (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is 80.6% WP:COPYVIO (from the artist's own website)[9]. The artist does not seem to meet WP:GNG. There are also COI issues WP:PROMO. It should be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Netherzone. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is only one source that is used to support the claim "known for his transportation design work, contributions to movies like Steven Spielberg's Minority Report". The source doesn't mention Spielberg. It quotes Robertson as saying "Some of my clients have included the BMW subsidiary Design-works USA, Bell Sports, Giro, Mattel Toys, Spin Master Toys, Patagonia, the feature film Minority Report, Nike, Rockstar Games, Sony Online Entertainment, Sony Computer Entertainment of America, Buena Vista Games, THQ, and Fiat, among others." The rest is unsourced, but comes from Robertson's own website. I did find a few more interviews, https://venturebeat.com/2014/05/17/working-at-the-intersection-of-tech-art-an-interview-with-concept-designer-scott-robertson/ and https://magazine.artstation.com/2015/12/meet-artist-scott-robertson/ for example, but there appears to be no coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Americans in Jazz[edit]

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

Reads like an creative essay or homework assignment for a history of jazz class. KidAd • SPEAK 07:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator; this looks like a school paper that only compares content found in a few journal articles, and it only scratches the surface of what could be a extensive history when tackled by experts. For anyone interested in the general topic, I suggest expanding the "Jazz and race" section (currently section 2.3) at the main Jazz article, which may benefit from more material on the contributions of Jewish musicians. A robust "List of Jewish jazz musicians" article might be useful too. But for this article we're discussing now, delete per the essay and original research guidelines. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While initially inclined to WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, I have to agree with the above, that the present article is too partial to serve as the basis for a stronger article on the topic of Jewish musicians (and promoters) in the history of Jazz in the USA. Articles such as Grove's "Jewish music in the United States" mention "harangues about “Jewish jazz” in media outlets (which) propagated stereotypes about the Jewish influence in popular culture" in the 1920s; along with the Bornstein and Davis texts referenced in the article, that could indicate a feasible topic, but it would have to go beyond an amalgam of brief biographies of several individuals. AllyD (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Update, I rewrote the article and Inf-in MD made additional improvements, so the original complaint is no longer relevant. I agree the article has significant problems. But I think just wiping away all of the work is too drastic of an approach. As Jews are a race and/or religion depending on the context or who you ask, I'd suggest cutting down and rewriting the content on this page, and moving it in a new "Jews in Jazz" sub-section on the main Jazz article alongside Women and Race. I'd even be willing to do that editing. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @KidAd: FYI, you're absolutely right in your initial assessment. This page was written as part of a UCSD course.[10]. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as a replacement? I created a draft Draft:Jews_in_Jazz as a possible new section in the main Jazz page. It's based on the content in this page, but cut down for length and rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. Thoughts? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sorry, but what exactly is the rationale for deletion? That it was created as a college course assignment? How is that better or worse than an article created because "I am interested in subject X so I wrote about it"? The only relevant questions are if it is notable and properly sourced to reliable sources who cover it - and it does. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Inf-in MD: Any thoughts on my draft? It is a cleaned up and shortened version of this page. Any thoughts on merging that into the main Jazz page? To me, that seems like an overall improvement. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your draft is an improvement (and feel free to simply replace the current article with your version). But ultimately, it doesn't matter if your draft is better, or if someone else could improve on either the current version or yours. If the subject is notable (and it is), and can be sourced to reliable sources (and it can - see for example https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Jazz-Transnational-Studies/dp/1138195790 or https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/howard-reich/ct-ent-jazz-body-soul-0207-story.html) then the article should be kept (and improved). I haven't seen an actual argument for its deletion yet, and if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Inf-in MD (talk)

Okay. I edited the text in the article so the original complaint now seems null-and-void. I also edited my vote to keep or merge. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I might've been partial about deleting for the sole purpose of allowing a clean remake of a clearly notable topic (there's a page around here talking about that which I cannot recall the name of), the overhaul discussed directly above built a decent foundation. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the argument by Inf-in MD is convincing. The provided reason for deletion is invalid, and the topic seems notable. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. Proposed renaming can be discussed on the article talkpage. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Archdiocese of Classis[edit]

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

There is no secondary source mentioning the subject of the article present in the article. Veverve (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be the Western European diocese of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, a major denomination, so I think it's reasonable to keep it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Necrothesp: Please source your claim. Veverve (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the diocese's own website is sufficient for a fact about it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - It it not what is written on the website. Moreover, being a diocese does not mean the subject meets the WP:GNG. Veverve (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I assume you haven't properly read the website. It absolutely says that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Necrothesp: The website states: "Upon his consecration in December 19th 1995, Bishop Vladimir became the bishop of St. Julius Island within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Patriarchate of Kiev under the Jurisdiction and the Omophorion of His Holiness Patriarch Filaret." (my emphasis). And you do not adress it not meeting the GNG. Veverve (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if you look at the map it shows the area covered by the diocese! So I'm not sure what you're querying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The website also confirms that the diocese is now part of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, the successor church to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since you apparently don't believe me, see the first paragraph: "The new name of the former Patriarchate of Kiev is the Orthodox Church of Ukraine". The diocese has clearly been transferred to the new church formed by the amalgamation of two former churches. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-established precedent of keeping diocese articles: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Island, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diocese of Foligno, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kochi Orthodox Diocese. St Anselm (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course, the article needs to be renamed to the Orthodox Archdiocese of San Giulio (named after San Giulio Island). StAnselm (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It also appears it is only a diocese and not an archdiocese. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems the church is in fact called "UKRANIAN [sic] ORTHODOX ARCHDIOCEDE [sic] OF WESTERN EUROPE AND CANADA". This Facebook page also seems to state this. The website also states here it is called "Archidiocèse orthodoxe de l’île St. Julius", and here "ARCHDIOCESE OF SAINT JULIUS" (no mention of an island). Veverve (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the sources you cite calls it the "DIOCÈSE DE L’ÎLE DE SAINT JULES"! As I said, it seems to be part of the Archdiocese of Western Europe and Canada. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I Would love to get rid of this article because this "archdiocese" is simply a monastery sitting on a small island on a lake in Northern Italy. However, if this synod is calling it a diocese, I think it qualifies as notable. Wikipedia has dozens of articles on archdioceses and dioceses. We have articles on Catholic dioceses for titular bishops that exist in name only.
Keep but Rename to match lede. The monastery on St Julius island is presumably acting as cathedral to a widespread archdiocese. I expect it is only overseeing a few congregations, but we normally allow articles on diocese of major denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not much discussion even after relisting, but still convincing on notability grounds. Euryalus (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gústi B[edit]

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

There's a few hits, a few newspaper mentions, but that's about it: a few child roles, a TikTok video, that's all. It should be noted also that you'll find some pretty blatant promotion and chit-chat in the history, and that the creator and four editors are blocked for socking and undeclared COI editing. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 10 , November 2021 (UTC)

Delete — I’m in agreement with Drmies this is definitely paid for article spamming. no criterion from WP:MUSICBIO is met, neither do they possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— I disagree, I think the subject is fairly notable. However, the history of the article looks like a self-promo or someone with conflict of interest. Former editors and creators should not be allowed to continue working on the article but it can stay as is, in my opinion. The sources that are cited seem legit and from credible Icelandic networks. (Skaarpif (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
- Skaarpif, I think you need to explain how these meager sources add up to notability by our standards. I'm sure you think your neighbor is notable, but you need to prove how that is so. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Financial Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage for either of its names. The fact that it's one of the tallest buildings in Panama City does not confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Emporis is a reliable source but more reliable sources are needed to verify the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emporis can be reliable but using that as the only source will not suffice WP:GEOFEAT – The Grid (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per rationale by LibStar. Celestina007 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 00:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition (Amendment) Act 1994[edit]

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

The article is just about more than the long title of the Act. The only incoming link is from the overall index of Irish Acts. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. This Act is included in Irish Current Law Statutes Annotated, with significant commentary. Other sources include, in particular: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. James500 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to considering how this page itself could be expanded, something to consider if we are to keep it. However, the mention of the Act and its discussion in annotated statutes is perhaps an argument for the creation of an article on WikiSource. Wikipedia is not a legislation directory, and what merits coverage elsewhere doesn't automatically merit coverage in Ireland. The Extradition (Amendment) Act 1994 mostly consists of amendments to the Extradition Act 1965, which is a more obvious candidate for its own Wikipedia page, with a section on its subsequent amendment. Although a better proposal seems to me an article on Extradition law in the Republic of Ireland, with separate paragraphs on each of the legal and political developments, up to cases such as Celmer. This a better way of writing an encyclopedic article on extradition, than separate articles on pieces of legislation. That's not to say that there won't be and aren't statutes that merit their own article, but this one doesn't seem to be one. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Iveagh Gardens: Retaining standalone articles on Acts that satisfy the General Notability Guideline will not turn wikipedia into a legislation 'directory'. Nor would it result in automatic inclusion of all Acts, since GNG would not be satisfied by an Act merely because that Act exists. The fact that this Act itself mostly consists of amendments to three other Acts (including the two Acts of 1987) is not relevant to whether this Act is notable under GNG. This article cannot be transwikied to Wikisource, because it does not satisfy the inclusion critieria of that site, such as s:WS:WWI. Nor does it fail any of the inclusion criteria for standalone articles of Wikipedia, as far as I can see. We presently do not have an article on the "Extradition law of the Republic of Ireland", or on the Extradition Act 1965. I could create an article on the "Extradition law of the Republic of Ireland" (see eg [20]), but I am not presently prepared to create such an article unless this nomination is withdrawn and closed first. If you want me to create such an article, you should withdraw this nomination. If you want me to write an article on any other branch of Irish law (or if you want me to write an article on anything else, or if you want me to expand an existing article), you should put a request on my user talk page instead of starting an Afd. James500 (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should say I don't have any fundamental problem with there being an article for this Act. Indeed, I'm sure there are a decent number of acts each year that editors could write decent articles on. I highlighted this article because that did not happen in this case. It has remained as the barest stub and as a near-orphan for over 13 years, after editing for copyright issues in 2008. If this article is going to be expanded, then let's keep it. I'll admit that this isn't an appeal to general notability guidelines, but in this case, on how the page has operated in practice. At the moment, there's little added value to this page being on Wikipedia. (On a side note, I wouldn't ask any other directly to write any particular editor; we each have our own time and interests here, so it would be feel presumptuous to request a particular editor to write a particular editor!) Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the Spread (Florida)[edit]

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

I had originally redirected this as an ATD. Article restored per consensus at RFD when AFreshStart recognized that the term could be better used (see discussion for full detail).

At closure, Feminist carried out Thryduulf's well laid out plans for how to address the issue, and now we are here. There is no evidence that I can find in reliable, secondary sourcing to indicate the Florida "Stop the Spread" campaign was notable, and I am unable to identify an alternative ATD merge target. Note: you'll find many false positives such as this, but these are about stopping the sptread, not this AATI initiative. Filtering it to include AATI brings about reprints of press releases and wiki mirrors. Star Mississippi 02:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per apt and detailed rationale by Star Mississippi. Celestina007 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not notable and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Stop the Spread" isn't mentioned in Florida Department of Health otherwise we could just redirect back there. If deleted Stop the Spread (Ireland) should probably be moved to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus against having an article; the arguments to redirect, while based in policy, are largely outweighed by those arguing that this title is not an appropriate redirect to the proposed target. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner University[edit]

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

Non-notable institution that is not independently accredited; fails WP:NORG. I would like to restore the redirect to Wagner College, but this is contested, so I am bringing this to AfD to hopefully reach a consensus to do so. DanCherek (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Talk:Wagner College. DanCherek (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I'd go so far as to say that this is a WP:HOAX. The "university" website lists a private residence as their address. The website uses ".university" instead of the customary ".edu". Wikipedia is not for promoting diploma mills/tax schemes. KidAd • SPEAK 06:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wagner College. The article is about a non-notable university that might be a hoax, but restoring the redirect is appropriate because it can be a valid search term.ColinBear (talk - contributions) 15:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ the article. I'm not sure about a redirect. I see ColinBear's point that some might call "Wagner College" as "Wagner University" but we don't always have such redirects (for example, Williams College doesn't have a redirect at Williams University). The downside of such a redirect is that if Wagner University is a WP:HOAX then the redirect would tarnish the reputation of Wagner College.VR _talk 16:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wagner College per the RS provided by DanCherek below.VR _talk 21:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KidAd. Wagner College is not related to Wagner University so a redirect is absolutely not valid here. – The Grid (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is a plausible redirect to Wagner College, primarily because there are numerous reliable sources that use the term "Wagner University" to refer to the college (for example, [21] [22][23]). "College" and "university" are often used interchangeably in the U.S., and the redirect received 414 pageviews last year, so there are presumably readers who benefit from it. DanCherek (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
College and university is interchangeable in the US but these are proper nouns. Wagner College is not Wagner University. We didn't know a Wagner University existed until 2 days ago provided the intention of the redirect when it was created in 2008. No other activity has existed on this page. Providing a redirect will not be beneficial here. – The Grid (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I see a tremendous benefit to helping readers who look up "Wagner University" based on all of these websites who use the term to refer to the Staten Island college, and helping those people arrive at the intended article. Please also note the existence of these 613 redirects of "_____ University" to "_____ College" or vice versa on the English Wikipedia. This is not some kind of isolated anomaly; this kind of redirect makes sense and is frequently created for a reason. DanCherek (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Don't Redirect While it's not wikipedia's role to promote non-notable online universities, it's also not it's role to wipe away their existence. Redirecting Wagner University to Wagner College would seem to have that effect. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't redirect. I don't believe this article is a hoax, as I did find one passing mention of its original title, Wagner Leadership Institute, in a reliable newspaper source. ~~Additionally, there appears to have been a Wagner University in New York, and Wagner College does not appear to be related to it, so a redirect would be misleading.~~Let's keep it simple and just delete this article that lacks appropriate sourcing. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I struck one of my comments aboeve-- I took another look at the external links for "Wagner University" and have concluded they are just the result of slipshod reporting. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Anthology (disambiguation). Vanamonde (Talk) 06:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of anthologies (music)[edit]

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

This would be a non-exhaustive list of music albums, but for some reason is just limited to albums with "Anthology" in the title. This is a case where categorization (e.g. Category:Compilation albums, Category:Greatest hits albums) serves a better purpose. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anthology (disambiguation). The contents here are based on the titles, not what's in the albums. Reywas92^Talk 02:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Anthology (disambiguation) page is exactly where this list used to be until February 2019, until the editor RTG decided to split it off into a separate article. That editor has since been banned from Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST, as there is no evidence that having Anthology in the title creates a group of albums that is notable as a group in its own right. (The whole is not greater than the sum of the parts.) I like a previous voter's idea to merge to Anthology (disambiguation), but that can be suggested as an improvement to that article without preserving the history of this one. Also, the topic is covered by various categories already. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anthology (disambiguation) per Reywas92. Skyerise (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andruw Monasterio[edit]

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

Non Notable minor league baseball player . Unremarkable career, currently a free agent. Spanneraol (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion per nominator. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His minor league career doesn't seem noteworthy and is a case of WP:TOOSOON. If he does reach the majors, the article can be recreated. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 03:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to ask other editors about the notability of the article based on WP:BASEBALL/N. From what I gather, if the player as participated in major leagues, then it is notable. I'm asking because I'm not very familiar either with the topic or the policy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He did not participate in the major leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laos–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article is largely based on Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is very little to actual relations: no embassies, agreements, state visits. A bit of tourism but tourism is one of Laos largest industries. Article even states "there have been no Spanish investment operations in Laos or Laotian investment in Spain" and "Laos is a low-income country that is not among the priorities of Spanish cooperation" LibStar (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that would establish the notability of this topic. Yilloslime (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Webb (pilot)[edit]

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

I can't find enough IRS to justify the notability. 2 of the refs are dead, my search has shown an article in LA times about some Richard Webb but it's unclear if it's the same one. WP:ANYBIO crit 2 looks questionable to me. Less Unless (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability just isn't shown here. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article indicates anything of note to meet the requirements for a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thaara[edit]

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

The subject is not notable, Fails WP:NFILM. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 13:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 13:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL at best; the film isn't scheduled to be released until December (link). The Malayalam source in the article is difficult to assess; it resists Google Chrome Translate, and only the lead paragraph can be copied for translation (it says, shooting has started). Narky Blert (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florganoleptic[edit]

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

Appears to be a neologism (on weeeeed) and not a music genre as much as one man's project. Sourcing is unreliable, as it is mostly from youtube or a website called Music of the Plants. The artist himself might get an article but it appears too soon for that. Citing (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only RS availale is the Detrot Metro Times, and that's little more than a plug for the new weed laws, everything else is as the OP notes, WP:SPS and YouTube. No indication that it passes BASIC. ——Serial 20:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri Anze[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Only sources that seem to exist are database entries. Article has been tagged for notability since it was created in 2011 and has remained virtually unchanged. Would have PROD'd but it survived a group AFD in 2011. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:50, 26 October 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, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG and [WP:COMPOSER] don't appear to have been met. Unless someone is interested in taking on research to attempt to bring this article up to standards, delete appears to be the right conclusion. - Canadianerk (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally being a soundtrack composer doesn't qualify for WP:COMPOSER on its own and this person doesn't seem to have enough significant coverage to meet WP:BASIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Redman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Article is poorly sourced and just uses IMDB for references. None of the films he's produced are notable and claims that some are award winning I've been unable to verify. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while some of the films to which he is connected have had some media coverage, Redman doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Pharmacy. WP:NOQUORUM. (non-admin closure) feminist (t) 04:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy Cloaks[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pharmacy, although that article as well may deserve some AfD scrutiny. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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