Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 11 November 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica G. Allen[edit]

Angelica G. Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer, lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 09:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I have received your request for deletion and provided more sources below to keep and not delete article. (If you'd like me to put them in MediaWiki format, please let me know):

Collapsed list of sources to aid readability – Mlb96 (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. California Writers Club-Fremont Area Writers (where application must be approved) a) https://cwc-fremontareawriters.org/members/members-bios/

b) https://cwc-fremontareawriters.org/members-publications/

c) https://cwc-fremontareawriters.org/join-us/

2. Ink Spots Newsletter, Editor Nancy Guarnera (where author's work must be submitted. See California seal left of Newsletter)

a) https://cwc-fremontareawriters.org/newsletter-cwc/

b) https://cwc-fremontareawriters.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FAW-Ink-Spots-10-2021.pdf (See pages 4, 7, 10, 19, and 21)

b) https://cwc-fremontareawriters.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/FAW-Ink-Spots-11-2021.pdf (See pages 4, 21, and 26)

3. Google

a) https://www.google.com/books/edition/Deflate_the_Nightingale/-M-cDAEACAAJ?hl=en (Google Books)

b) https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&sxsrf=AOaemvIFysYHuOWF99FLhD8SsuQ4cIZLxg:1636112068213&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Angelica+G.+Allen%22&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtpY21kIH0AhWTuJ4KHR1PAAkQ9Ah6BAgDEAU&biw=1440&bih=837&dpr=2 (Google Books)

c) https://www.google.com/search?q=angelica+G.+Allen&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjpnOTYkIH0AhULmJ4KHXO-DRoQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=angelica+G.+Allen&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQA1CtD1i6KmDiMGgAcAB4AIABS4gBxgGSAQEzmAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=DxeFYanZAYuw-gTz_LbQAQ&bih=837&biw=1440#imgrc=IP95Tpk7mpZbHM (Google Images)

d) https://www.google.com/search?q=angelica+G.+Allen&source=lmns&tbm=shop&bih=837&biw=1440&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjo9IiNkYH0AhWXlJ4KHeflAXIQ_AUoBHoECAEQBA#spd=3341727815006005798 (Google Shopping)

4. Alameda County Libraries

a) https://aclibrary.bibliocommons.com/v2/search?query=angelica%20g%20allen&searchType=smart&_ga=2.98345816.67656130.1634619796-898606625.1634619796 (A.G.A. books on Dublin, Fremont Main and Union City library shelves)

b) https://aclibrary.bibliocommons.com/v2/search?query=angelica%20g%20allen&searchType=smart&_ga=2.98345816.67656130.1634619796-898606625.1634619796 (AC Libraries Catalog)

5. The Spectator Newspaper April 2013 Issue

a) https://issuu.com/thespectator/docs/issue_04.18.2013 (Page 1 discusses Poetry Contest A.G.A. won, see also page 3 of newspaper)

6. Barnes and Noble

a) https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/but-what-is-a-family-angelica-g-allen/1136891332?ean=9781663520838 (5 Star rated book by A.G.A.)

b) https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-summer-of-oh-nine-angelica-g-allen/1139992834?ean=9781668500163 (4 Star rated book by A.G.A.)

7. MyEdgeMagazine (International Seventh-Day Adventist magazine)

a) https://myedgemag.com/article/resilience/ (Resilience poem by A.G.A.)

8. SF Station

a) https://www.sfstation.com/book-signing-angelica-g-allen-e2300281 (Book signing event 2016)

9. The Pioneer Newspaper

a) https://thepioneeronline.com/31607/sports/u-s-womens-gymnastics-olympic-team-finalized-in-san-jose/ (Article written by A.G.A.)

10. Cal State East Bay

a) https://www.csueastbay.edu/alumni/pioneers-of-distinction/40-under-40/index.html (40 Under 40 Virtual Ceremony)

b) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1euUnv7R9uaZRYbpW7T_YJ-ZRUgCKuRJjPBxnSxWyI2c/edit (Guest Panel Schedule)

c) https://www.facebook.com/events/838692100083648/?acontext=%7B%22event_action_history%22%3A (Guest Panel Flyer)

11. Official U.S. Copyright

a) https://www.facebook.com/AngelicaG.Allen/photos/a.2802860469807009/2802860816473641 (Millennial Fiction/Poetry U.S. Copyright by A.G.A., see seal of U.S. Copyright Office)

12. IMBD/YouTube

a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJlAANOTQjE (In Anthony B. music video 900k+ views when A.G.A. was a model)

b) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7-1aQQzN1E&t=628s (In Sky Tallone film, "Vox Populi" when A.G.A. was a model, see 10:21)

C) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3415458/ (In Sky Tallone film, "Vox Populi" when A.G.A. was a model; credited as "Angella Vandetta," misspelling of A.G.A.'s model name "Angelica Vendetta")

13. Best Seller Lists for Christian Fiction genres

a) https://www.facebook.com/AngelicaG.Allen/photos/pcb.4439485606144479/4439480716144968/ ("The Summer of Oh Nine: New Decade Edition" ranked #3 on Amazon's Christian Fantasy Bestseller List-free)

b) https://www.facebook.com/AngelicaG.Allen/photos/pcb.4439485606144479/4439480746144965/ ("The Summer of Oh Nine: New Decade Edition" ranked #5 on Amazon's Religious Science Fiction/Fantasy )

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous g anonymous (talk • contribs) 12:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 22:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've looked at the sources provided and searched for coverage on my own, and my view is that the only sourcing available is too closely connected to Allen or her works to satisfy the WP:GNG: there's no in-depth secondary coverage. While I'm sure she's an accomplished young author, she doesn't yet meet our notability requirements. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment -- We cannot assume she wrote the blurb in the Newsletter herself, and if she did, ultimately the editor of the California Writers Club Fremont Branch newsletter, "Nancy Guarnera, Editor-in-Chief InkSpots," is the one who publishes, edits, writes the newsletter and mentions how she may make exceptions meaning she has to approve, "Please keep in mind that word length for creative submissions is 1,000 max. I may make occasional exceptions to this." And this bio is not only in the Newsletter, but on the California Writers Club Fremont Branch member bios section where it does not mention members write and upload their own bio, etc. Also, the sources from the Spectator newspaper of Chabot College, and Alameda County Library are not closely related to Angelica G. Allen. Also, the California State University, East Bay 40 Under 40 Award Bio is independent as well, no where does it mention on the source a means to see otherwise (please see sources listed above, below and on Angelica G. Allen's wiki). Anonymous g Anonymous (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2021 "2020 Award Recipients". Cal State University East Bay. Retrieved 2021-09-02.</ref>[2][3][4]
  • Delete - None of the sourcing in the article, nor the collapsed dump of links establishes notability. My own search turns up nothing usable. -- Whpq (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References fail to establish notability, insufficient 3rd-party reliable significant refs-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And looking at User:Anonymous g Anonymous's history, I assume that user is the subject of this article. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Public Catalog". Copyright Office. Search for txu002183122 Search by Registration Number. Retrieved 2021-09-04.
  2. ^ ."AC Library". Bibliocommons. Retrieved 2021-11-14.
  3. ^ . "Member Bios". CWC-fremontareawriters.org. Retrieved 2021-11-14.
  4. ^ "The Spectator April 18,2013". issu.com. Retrieved 2021-11-14.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Seasock. Daniel (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (truck)[edit]

Batman (truck) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What makes this racing truck notable? Coverage seems to be in passing, 90% of the article is unreferenced. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar At best I'd suggest redirecting this to List of monster trucks. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 22:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep per Andrew Davidson. I googled Batman Truck USHRA and came up empty, but it appears there are more things out there per what Andrew mentioned. Still, the article needs work - if additional refs can't be provided, I would think a merge or redirect to something relevant would be appropriate. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to John Seasock - The truck's only claim to any kind of notability is the competition wins, which happened with John Seasock as the driver, and is already mentioned on his article. The actual sources regarding it are entirely insufficient to pass the WP:GNG, though. As mentioned, the one source provided above is two sentences in a children's picture book, which can hardly be considered to be significant coverage. And, the only other source I was able to find in sources is the exact same thing, a tiny blurb and a picture in a different children's' book, here. As the only significant events that this truck was involved in is entirely tied to John Seasock, redirecting to that article is the best WP:ATD that can be done at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 19 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 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marjan Faraidooni[edit]

Marjan Faraidooni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage. Creator removed deletion tags twice. DMySon (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment meets GNG, Entrepreneur, IIoT World. Emirates Woman, Arabian Business. are reliable sources. --Skwovet (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meets GNG how? Celestina007 (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
unlike "thousands of other businesspeople." she is running a global conference with a printing press of sources. do not declare war on people that buy ink by the barrel. --Skwovet (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Basically echoing DMySon. Celestina007 (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
basic wp:basic: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" --Skwovet (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 22:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a couple of interviews do not establish notability nor do PR profiles. Whpq (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think being "Chief Experience Officer" at a business conference establishes notability. Thousands of people run and work at national conferences, that doesn't make them notable by Wikipedia's standards. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 19 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 23:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ankahee Dastaan[edit]

Ankahee Dastaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two episodes were aired of this series and there is no confirmation about the next. It should be merged into respective TV shows' article on which the episodes are based. Shinnosuke15, 17:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 22:39, 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 (of the softer variety). Daniel (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free Speech For People[edit]

Free Speech For People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pro forma nomination; AfD template was placed on the article by an IP user but no nomination page was created. I will reproduce a comment from the IP on WT:AFD here:

This article is almost entirely primary sourced, and its notability is questionable. The sourcing in general is very suspect, which is a sign it isn't sufficiently notable. It's all yellow journalism (Huffpost, Democracy Now) or primary (law cases or self published). Can someone please complete? 2600:1012:B02F:F99B:4476:F577:17B8:8289 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By filing this nomination, I don't intend to support or oppose the IP user's claims. jp×g 22:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep This feels like a WP:SOFIXIT situation, but I wouldn't object to a deletion if time has passed and this article couldn't be improved. A deletion now though may be premature. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:01, 7 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) 22:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While I initially filed this pro forma on behalf of an IP user who was unable to nominate the article themselves, I've taken a few minutes to look it over just now. None of these sources constitute significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Many of them are cited to the organization's own website; the ones that aren't are either from unusable sources or constitute minor passing mentions. Several sources which appear to be reliable and independent sources do not mention the organization at all. Here is my analysis:
The first three sources are WP:SPS from the organization itself.
The fourth source is a blog.
One of the sources here that seems credible (the SCOTUS blog) does not mention "Free Speech For People" at all.
Source 6: Democracy Now, listed on WP:RSP as "Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed."
Source 7: Daily Kos, which per RSP is "generally unreliable".
Sources 8 through 11 do not mention "Free Speech For People".
Source 12 is a passing mention.
Sources 13 and 14 are both (again) just links to PDFs on the subject's website.
Source 15: Another credible source (The Nation) gives FSFP only a passing mention in an article about the larger Citizens United issue: The successful work by national groups such as Public Citizen, Common Cause, Free Speech for People and Move to Amend, in conjunction with grassroots coalitions that are now active from northern Alaska to the tip of the Florida Keys, is far more dramatic than most of the initiatives you’ll see from the Democratic or Republican parties—which don’t do much but fund-raise—and various and sundry groupings on the right and left.
Source 16 is a YouTube video.
Source 17 is to the Huffington Post. Per RSP, "the community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics" and RfCs have noted "that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it". This is not a reliable source.
Sources 18 through 24 are cited, again, to the organization's own publications.
I do not see any other sources online, and I do not see any way for this article to be kept. It's possible that this could be given a mention in an article on a related subject (like Citizens United v. FEC). jp×g 12:36, 19 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 23:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Universe[edit]

Draft Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR without a single source.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 20:54, 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 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 23:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Committee[edit]

Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG other than the sources in the article, two of which are the same ballotpedia link over which there is no consensus on reliability per WP:RSP and that link just mentions that there is funding for the group. The arizona legislature article does have the name of the group at the top, but that is it and does not seem to indicate that it is a PAC, or really provide any context for it. Otherwise, doing WP:BEFORE it seems that there was a minor scandal after the election that involved an investigation into the way the PAC spent funds, but it was closed without action. With all this said, this seems like a non-notable organization that existed for an election for which the cause failed. While WP:NPOL is for people, this is essentially the equivalent of a political candidate that lost their election. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 20:41, 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 speedy delete. This was deleted as a G5 speedy. Missvain (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sassa Gurl[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sassa Gurl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously created by various paid socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnclarencevelasco/Archive. The previous AfD was aborted when one of the multiple socks moved the article to draftspace; since then, the draft has been declined, deleted, recreated, moved to mainspace by a new UPE account, moved back to draftspace, declined, and moved to mainspace again.

In the meantime, the person the article is about has not gained any notability. No sign of meeting WP:BASIC, WP:ENT, or WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 20:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One namedrop and two mentions – nothing to show notability. Given that this is somebody who makes a living as an influencer, there has to be a hell of a lot of actual independent coverage to indicate notability. Playing into the hands of the paid shills by keeping or redraftifying would not be particularly constructive. --bonadea contributions talk 21:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there are any special and different notability guidelines for influencers. But I just posted in the village pump asking if there should be. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there are SNGs for influencers. I'm sure there aren't. --bonadea contributions talk 22:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Bob drobbs. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have blocked the creator for CU-confirmed block evasion. The draft is technically eligible for G5, but since there is an ongoing AfD with Keep !votes I don't think it's appropriate to speedy it. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability: the nominated page is now deleted for WP:G5 as of 18:05, 13 November 2021, therefore this discussion is officially closed. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 15:16, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak al-Kabir Tower[edit]

Mubarak al-Kabir Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article for a building that has not yet been built does not meet WP:NBUILDING nor WP:GNG criteria for notability. It is planned to be finished in 25 years, so it also seems to be a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL or WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 20:11, 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 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 23:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ali Darod[edit]

Mohamed Ali Darod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of the General Manager of Hargeisa Water Agency, which is not a position that allows a WP:NPOL pass. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. General manager of a water management agency is not an "inherently" notable role under WP:NPOL, and the sources are not substantive coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG: four of the five just glancingly namecheck his existence in lists, and the fifth is a blurb of less than 100 words, which isn't substantive enough to get him over the bar all by itself if it's the only source that does anything more than just list his name. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Kostyleva[edit]

Irina Kostyleva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In addition to an inappropriate style, the content of the article is currently supported by zero reliable sources. Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A quick search turns up a number of additional sources in Russian, i.e. this, this and this. I can't speak to their reliability, I'm unfamiliar with the Russian media landscape and they read very tabloidish. Rusalkii (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC) (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save - Our nominal media. I believe she deserves a Wikipedia article. Because, firstly: ALL Russian-speaking TikTok knows her, she was invited to a bunch of TV shows, so I don't understand your claim. Our media is normal, don't worry. Oh yes, you don’t know which bloggers are popular in Russia and which are not. You don't live with us.

Redaktor me (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't pass our notability guidelines.--Darwinek (talk) 00:34, 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. ✗plicit 00:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Firm[edit]

Secret Firm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable race horse. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. A race horse of no notability that died 20 years ago. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An actual bit of WP:HEY at Equibase shows that he won a couple of grade 2 or grade 3 races, and some allowances. While our default is that a horse should win a G one race in order to meet a minimal notabilities standard, they can have other accomplishments that “stack” such as a record as a leading sire. However, in this case, there is nothing else that seems to establish notability. I think this one fails GNG. Montanabw(talk) 20:11, 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 redirect to Bryant Bulldogs football. Absolute agreement the article shouldn't be retained, but when attributation issues are raised, I would rather err on side of caution. Also, redirects are cheap! Daniel (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant Bulldogs football, 1999–2005[edit]

Bryant Bulldogs football, 1999–2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is now redundant given that articles for individual seasons, e.g. 1999 Bryant Bulldogs football team, have been created. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikehawk10, this article contains almost no prose and no sourcing. It's almost entirely (poorly-formatted) tables, which were recreated properly on the new articles from external sources. I don't think it needs saving for attribution. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you on the substance, edits like this one suggest that the tables were one of the first things created in the articles. While it's certainly possible that this was created solely using external reference materials, I find it likely that the tables are derivative works of the tables in the original article that have been improved by subsequent editors. As a result, I believe that a redirect is appropriate rather than a hard delete. The only reason I would do so is for the purpose of keeping attribution there; there is no other justification for doing so. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:57, 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 (weakly). Daniel (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FOG Project[edit]

FOG Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The opensource article is in advertisement mode, so it is not independent; plus, it's written by "School IT Director - Open Source Evangelist - Technology Enthusiast - Husband - Dad". The Admin magazine may or may not be reliable, but I can't find anything on "Mayank Sharma" that would indicate we should care what he thinks. Both sources are how-to's and Wikipedia is not, so it would be pretty difficult to write a proper article with them anyway. Independent search didn't yield enough for WP:GNG either. No independent product reviews. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The exact track record of an individual contributor to a magazine is not relevant. The entire publication has to be evaluated for its reliability. I think the sources used here are fine to use. They are independent, reliable, secondary and give significant coverage of the subject. Wikipedia is indeed not a WP:HOWTO, but that does not mean that sources written as a HOWTO cannot be used for sourcing the facts in an article. I have added another source from Tecchannel, which is a German publication by International Data Group and one from Linux.com (which was published during the time they seem to had paid editors). I have replaced the reference to Admin Magazin to a link of the same article published in Linux Magazine, which has its own article on the English Wikipedia and might be more suitable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:21, 24 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) 21:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last one
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Seems to meet WP:GNG and is not overly promotional. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing has been improved since the deletion nomination. I don't agree with the dismissal of Linux Magazine, it appears to be a reliable source. I think the sources now present are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This, one of the new sources and currently no. 4 on reflist, ends with I have created a script that does all of this for you. If you would like to ha ve a copy message me and I will share it will you.[sic] I know we have a soft spot for open source projects but is this really the standard of sourcing we ought to have for notability? I hope the remaining two sources are better. Something I didn't realise at the time of the nomination, because the sources are about "FOG", the software, which at least one of them names "FOG Project" also, our article is about the project not the product. So, either the article needs to be rewritten to be about the software or it still fails WP:NOTINHERITED as the sources only have passing mentions of it. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, because there is a 1:1 relation between the project and the software, I think the project is the better title anyway to avoid awkward disambiguation titles like FOG (software). The project might be the common name of the software as well (even though that might strictly be not correct). I don't think the inherited policy applies here, as the software is a big part of the project anyway and multiple sources have given in-depth coverage to it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NemesisAT. It appears to have been the subject of a study as well. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:11, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcode activation protocol[edit]

Shortcode activation protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable – if it even exists. SpinningSpark 15:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:MADEUP. Shortcode is a 'thing', this is not. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The editor also created articles for Virtunity and this one on the same day in 2009. Virtunity was CSD. They then created "billing services" a month later which was CSD. I can only assume this was some attempt at SEO. – The Grid (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G3. There's no evidence that such a protocol exists, and it is likely to be a hoax. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is aimed at promoting a word combination lacking notability. I'm amazed that this page had existed since 2009. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably first time anyone has actually read it. I only noticed because an editor tried to de-orphan it into an article on my watchlist. SpinningSpark 13:00, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spaghetti Red[edit]

Spaghetti Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this dish is actually notable, doesn't appear to be known outside of Joplin, MO. I couldn't even find many recipes for it, which for a US food item is a sure sign of non-notability. —valereee (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find much for this beyond a couple short pieces in the Joplin Globe. This dish is actually familiar to me, (maybe because I live less than an hour and a half from Joplin). Fails WP:GNG, as much as I like this dish. Hog Farm Talk 08:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This may be a regional dish or even just a regional name for a dish; but keeping it seems to be appropriate. Not everyone would search by the "more common" names and removing this would remove a valid search path. If we are prepared to remove this because it is regional, does that also mean that ALL regional terms should be removed from Wikipedia? This may also relate to regional culture and history, and would be another reason to keep it. As a disclaimer, I grew up in NW Missouri and this was a dish my mother often made. The term may not be "notable" to everyone but it is notable to those who have heard of it, and search using that term. --RobOfEP (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RobOfEP, the question is not whether it's regional (many regional specialties have articles) but whether it's notable, which we show by finding sources that discuss it. If we can find even a single local source we can merge/redirect Spaghetti Red to Chili mac so that if people search on Spaghetti Red, they get to Chili Mac. —valereee (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @-valereee, There are recipes and discussions for it so it does exist. I also see where it's been argued in years past that it is not Cincinnati Chili so it is unique in that regard. Plus, Spaghetti Read and Chili mac are not necessarily the same. I believe it's still notable, admittedly for a small minority; but the point is that it's still recognizable. Lastly, does this mean that all "less notable" items are to be erased from Wikipedia or redirected to a generic pile? I think Wikipedia is important in that it retains the outliers if it is to be complete.--RobOfEP (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RobOfEP, no one is questioning whether it exists. Clearly it does, although various descriptions differ on whether it's chili on spaghetti or red gravy on spaghetti. The question is whether it's notable, which means has it received significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the local area. —valereee (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would establish that this topic can be a standalone article. The article asserts that Fred and Red's originated this dish. I tried to find sourcing for this but was unable to come up with anything. If this can be sourced, then a merge to the Fred and Red's article would make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 19 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 13:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryeland (surname)[edit]

Ryeland (surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NNAME, If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created. A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list. This stub fails on the first count, as there are no articles on people with this surname. There is also no significant coverage of the surname itself; the source currently used in the article is a genealogy hobby project. Lennart97 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no articles on Wikipedia for anyone with this surname, and the article miserably fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NNAME. The most notable person I can seem to find is an editor in a fictional series of novels (Magpie Murders and Moonflower Murders); however, the character herself does not seem to warrant a page, and even if so, there would need to be two people and I can only find one person close to notable with that last name other than the aforementioned fictitious Susan Ryeland. The other people with the last name of Ryeland I could find on anywhere other than seemingly social media or genealogy websites are: an author who has written a number of self-published books on Amazon, but does not meet WP:NAUTHOR , local councillor who fails WP:NPOL, a therapist from New Zealand who could potentially pass WP:GNG as there are three references to her in articles, but they do not necessarily establish notability. Regardless, none of these articles are written, so delete per WP:NNAME. If articles for two aforementioned people do pass WP:GNG and are created this page could then be recreated, but holding it here until/if then seems unnecessary. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 14:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree: can't see any reason not to delete. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would agree with above arguments, particularly that the lack of notable people with the name makes the article redundant. I don't think being an unusual name (which the article seems to imply is why it exists) is sufficient grounds for it to have an article. If there were lots of sources covering it, or discussing it, it might be different, but I can see now sign of this. Dunarc (talk) 23:44, 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 13:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yonca Şentürk[edit]

Yonca Şentürk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same case as Pamuk Güllü Yılmaz and Sude Mihri Çınar.

Şentürk does not meet WP:GNG; the article is currently a WP:REFBOMBing of stats-only coverage from UEFA and the Turkish Football Federation, all of which are in youth matches or WP:NOTFPL matches which fail to confer notability. The only exceptions are Denizli Haber and Hurriyet, both of which only mention her once in the entire article.

Google News has her down for two passing mentions with regards to rugby and the third is just an article about İlkay Gündoğan that happens to contain a trivial mention of her only. A Turkish source search offers nothing other than database websites and social media. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daveyboyz[edit]

Daveyboyz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a conspiracy theorist YouTuber that fails WP:NBIO, WP:NFRINGE, and WP:GNG. The article is superficially well-referenced, but on closer inspection almost all the references are to Bass's own YouTube videos, interviews with local press or, bizarrely, links to the home pages of publications that the article claims Bass was featured in (but there is no evidence of). Once you filter out those, I can't find any significant independent coverage, just passing mentions in dubious sources (e.g. [5]). – Joe (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I know nothing of the subject, but I do not think "conspiracy theorist" is correct. Nevertheless most of the content seems utterly trivial. He has appeared a few times on TV and in other contexts, in one case dealing with a controversial subject (the whereabouts of Sodom). I am not sure whether the right solution is deletion or to remove the trivia and see what is left. I note that the vast majority of the edits are by unlogged-in users or SPA. I suspect this results from COI. If the subject wants all the trivia of his public life on the web, he should use his own webpage for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I started to try to trim the trivia and poorly sourced material, then gave up and brought it here when it became clear I was removing everything. "Conspiracy theorist" was in the lead until recently and is based on stuff like this: [6][7][8]. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - despite the absurd number of references, none appear to meet WP:GNG. Kind of impressive, really. PianoDan (talk) 18:20, 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 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 13:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Rademacher[edit]

Jake Rademacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Seems to be part of a walled garden built around the marginally notable film Brothers at War. Edwardx (talk) 11:33, 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 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 13:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EVP World[edit]

EVP World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Gnews reveals a few hits of incidents at the park but nothing indepth about the park itself. The Tamil version of this article also has only 1 source. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tried searching for the source, but unable to find. Only some accident related coverage. Behind the moors (talk) 13:38, 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 merge to List of radio stations in the United Kingdom#Former community radio stations. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Herts FM[edit]

North Herts FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable community radio station with coverage that does not meet the GNG, all primary/affiliated sources and links to Companies House. Despite the name, never broadcast on an actual FM frequency, as far as I can tell. My PROD was declined by NemesisAT—this station might have been salvageable if it had broadcast on the FM dial, but it didn't. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me and not being on FM is not a reason to delete. The article gives a good description of the history of the station and includes references. Rillington (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: TheComet.net article is the only semi-reliable source that covers the subject to some extent. The other sources are not reliable nor establish notability. Subject does not meet criteria for WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Internet radio services do not get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:BCAST just because it's possible to verify that they existed; the notability test requires them to pass WP:GNG on media coverage in sources independent of themselves. But this is referenced 5/6 to primary sources (a business directory entry, its own self-published website about itself) that are not support for notability at all, and the only independent source is a short blurb in a community hyperlocal, which is a start but not in and of itself enough to get this over GNG all by itself if it's the only independent source in the mix. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of radio stations in the United Kingdom#Former community radio stations per ATD-R. Merits a one-line entry in that list.—S Marshall T/C 12:10, 19 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 12:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UltraBrowser[edit]

AfDs for this article:
UltraBrowser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. The subject never received any significant coverage. This article was nominated for deletion in 2011, nomination receive only one comment siding on delete side; then nomination was withdrawn because the nominator already "relisting too many AFDs [that day]". Anton.bersh (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This Trident-based browser receives a few "other browsers" mentions but I am not seeing the substantial coverage that would be needed to demonstrate that it ever attained notability (WP:GNG / WP:NSOFT). (The adapted version of this browser is mentioned on the Tiscali page, which might be a plausible redirect.) AllyD (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews, no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florent Koara[edit]

Florent Koara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability as has only played in WP:NOTFPL leagues and lacks the significant coverage for WP:GNG. Appears to have been created in a bundle with Messouke Oloumou and Bikash Meraglia, both of which are up for AfD also. I found two bits of coverage here and here as well as a couple of transfer announcements in other sites but it's not sufficient, in my view. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:07, 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 Speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). With the entries on two people with this surname found below, the article can stay as a basic surname list following WP:NNAME. I've moved it to Levchuk, removed the OR etymology, and added the list. (non-admin closure) Lennart97 (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewchuk[edit]

Lewchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced surname etymology stub. Per WP:NNAME, If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created. A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list. This article fails on both counts, as there are no articles on people with this surname (unless maybe there are spelling variants that I'm unaware of) and there is no significant coverage on the surname itself. Lennart97 (talk) 09:16, 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. ✗plicit 13:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian Wikipedia Marathon[edit]

Latvian Wikipedia Marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Initiative to expand Latvian Wikipedia - to me it doesn't look like it passes WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG. Some really interesting aspects about this, like a special tram dedicated to Wikipedia editing, but it seems like coverage is focused in 2015 [9][10]. If this isn't notable, maybe it would be good to move this into project space? Bridget (talk) 07:03, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Price (football coach)[edit]

Maurice Price (football coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football player and coach who fails GNG, NFOOTY. All references are basically obituaries, while Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL BlameRuiner (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is some sourcing prior to his death e.g. [11] (4 paragraphs about him), [12] (few sentences about him). I think more could exist, but the news results are skewed by the recent ones post-death. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I feel there is just enough to pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the references seem to be memorials after his death. And my understanding of WP:NFOOTY is that he would likely qualify as a head coach of a team, but not as just a member of the coaching staff. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obituary in the Independent is enough to confer notability. GiantSnowman 13:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in principle. If the subject's notable enough for a decent length obituary in a major national newspaper, added to Joseph2302's first piece mentioned above, they're probably a bit more notable than what WP:NOTMEMORIAL is intended to cover. Plus Joseph2302's first piece above. The issue I have with the article as it stands is that most of the career content is copypasted from source #1, and if anyone here knows how to properly deal with that sort of thing, it'd be good if they could do so. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I think the article sneaks by GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India Walton[edit]

AfDs for this article:
India Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. At the time of the first nomination it was thought that she would for sure be the next mayor of Buffalo. An upset occurred, and she did not win. She therefore fails WP:NPOL. Her failed campaign does not make her notable, and neither do any of the other activities listed in her bio. Banana Republic (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a democracy, you're not a politician until you win an elected office. All the coverage that she has is about how she tried and failed to get into elected office. Banana Republic (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the term politician. Being an elected official and being a politician are related but not necessarily overlapping careers. School board members in most places serve as volunteers for a few hours a week. They are elected but cannot be classified as politicians. High profile candidates like Walton usually have political careers outside of elected office in advocacy, media, party organizing etc. These are also fields in which politicians are common.--User:Namiba 14:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has garnered media coverage well in excess of a typical nominee for her political positions and their unexpected success in a declining industrial city. She's also notable for losing to a write-in campaign, something that very rarely happens in a race with this many ballots cast. SS451 (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While politicians are generally subject to a higher standard than WP:GNG due to almost always seeing some level of routine coverage, Walton's shocking upset in the primary clearly elevates the coverage beyond merely "routine". The fact that she ultimately lost in the general election not only does not retroactively remove her notability, but it arguably makes her even more notable, as it is extraordinarily uncommon for the nominee of the dominant party to lose to a write-in candidate. Mlb96 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As passing WP:GNG for being featured in many stories as a prominent example of a divide within the Democratic Party in 2021. That said, her failure to win election is why WP:CRYSTAL remains an important policy to consider. Several comments in the previous discussion suggested that her winning the Democratic primary was tantamount to election, and as the nominator to the first discussion said precipitously, "there can sill be write-in candidates." Obviously, those statements suggesting the subject would win election in 2021 were incorrect. --Enos733 (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The office was local, but the coverage was national and not what I'd call "routine". WP:NPOL says straight-up that unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline, and that guideline is amply met here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yeah, she fails the SNG but more importantly she passes GNG as her campaign attracted significant attention. The Nation and NYT articles evidence that. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per WP:NPOL an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. As others have noted here and as I said on the talk page, subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The nomination also misrepresents the first AFD where the closer noted Consensus is that the subject ... has been the subject of fairly significant press coverage; her notability as a political figure with significant press coverage strongly meets WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary, so "changing circumstances" have nothing to do with satisfying the GNG which was the consensus in the previous AFD. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although there is tons of coverage about her, it's all about her surprise primary win and then surprise general election loss, so all that tons of coverage is effectively a single source per WP:109PAPERS. The references cited by Beccaynr as to why Ms. Walton could continue to make an impact are effectively WP:CRYSTAL. Banana Republic (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to 2021 Buffalo mayoral election, per WP:NPOL, WP:BLP1E, and WP:109PAPERS. Reading through the "Keep" votes from the first AfD reads like a textbook example of why Wikipedia is is not supposed to be a crystal ball, which, ironically, is what people are trying to do again in this AfD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support your Merge/Redirect proposal!! Banana Republic (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow that argument. In this AfD, I see people talking about the coverage she's already gotten, not projecting into the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In their keep !vote, Beccaynr provided the references Why India Walton's candidacy could pave way for left-leaning politics in Buffalo and India Walton Lost, but She Started Something That Could Last Banana Republic (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I listed a variety of sources in my !vote above, and also recently added Buffalo's India Walton won the Democratic primary for mayor. Now she has to defeat incumbent Byron Brown -- again (CNN, Oct. 23, 2021), and ‘It’s a disgrace’: Progressives take aim at Buffalo mayor’s DNC post (Politico, Nov. 8, 2021) to the article, which both discuss broader political impacts related to her and her campaign, and appear to be further examples of sources that support her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. That coverage still demonstrates that she's become a major local political figure. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet WP:NPOL as she fits Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It hasn't been determined yet, as to who won the 2021 Buffalo mayoral election, so best not to delete. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm of the view that she's notable enough even with a loss. Radical views, a fairly large city, a political upset and a political comeback from the opponent. --Killuminator (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She still gets coverage after the election, so passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 05:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsuccessful candidate for municipal office is not notable. Most of the big-name sources that cover her are only mentioning her in the broader context of the 2021 election and Democratic primary. So a redirect to 2021 Buffalo mayoral election is feasible if there is no consensus to delete. KidAd • SPEAK 17:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Even if she still loses the election as expected, she is still notable due to her political positions and what her victory would have meant. If not, then merge with 2021 Buffalo mayoral election.--WuTang94 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her candidacy got extensive media coverage over several months. Binarybits (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been expanded with information from the October 29, 2021 New Yorker profile, which includes a substantial focus on her biography and career, in addition to analysis of her campaign. Beccaynr (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What matters is whether the figure is notable, not whether they get elected. Once a figure is notable, under the premise that the notability was not mistaken, they don't suddenly lose the required notability. And it seems to me that she clearly qualifies as being a notable figure.TheGEICOgecko (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has been gained by the nature of this race and the amount of attention it received, and the amount of attention she received. And to piggyback on above comments, she is a politician by nature of running a political campaign for an elected seat of government, regardless of outcome. JesseRafe (talk) 17:06, 19 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 05:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuya Wakamatsu[edit]

Yuya Wakamatsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:MMABIO notability criteria, as he does not have 3 fights in top tier promotions, nor has he been ranked inside the top 10 of his divison by sherdog or fightmatrix. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 04:43, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Askari, Lahore[edit]

Askari, Lahore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable housing development, the article for which is only supported by a press release prepared by a real estate sales website that presumably listed it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the purpose of the AfD it is not what refs are in the article or how it is written that matters. The issues are surmountable - looks like there is a community there. WP:DEL-CONTENT. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The article is not even clear about what it is about, a housing development called 'Askari' or a company called the 'Askari Housing Society', which is obviously the organization pushing the real estate project. There is a lack of clarity on the basics, and questions can be raised about quality, long before one even gets to the question of sourcing, whether provided here or available online. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Lightburst; there's clearly a community there, and communities of that sort of size are reckoned to be notable. But the article desperately needs attention to remove promotional material; perhaps reduce to near-stub status and hope someone can find some useful references rather than endless estate agents trying to sell houses in it (which is all I can find, unless you count one Subway sandwich outlet). Elemimele (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The only problem with creating a stub is that there is no reliably sourced information at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • From sources such as this we can see that this is a housing development owned by an arm of the Pakistani military, which seems to involve itself in many areas of life outside defence. I don't have access to a university library this academic year (I hope to resolve that by next year) but someone who does may be able to find some notability-showing sources by performing searches such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to see a more thorough analysis of the sources provided in the article and in this discussion to determine notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - There is currently a single source in this article, from what appears to be a promotional page on a Pakistani real estate listing website touting the high standard of living and good security within this housing development. Askari is obviously not a city or a town, and it's difficult to tell if it is even a legitimate neighborhood in Lahore. It appears to simply be a gated community in a large city. The WP article is highly promotional in nature. The single source in the article clearly does not establish notability per WP:GNG, and neither do any other sources that were brought up within this discussion. There is absolutely no way that this small residential community within a large city is notable per WP's standards, based on the available sources. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability and haven't added any reliable source the article even written like an advertisement.  Wikisuper945  Talk Here  01:20, 12 November 2021 (IST)
  • Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND #1 as there is no evidence of legal recognition of the location. Fails WP:GNG as well due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 20:15, 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Faith Betty[edit]

Nia Faith Betty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why is this 20 year old notable? The coverage of her isn't there. The article and sources are mostly on the Révolutionnaire clothing company. The company does not have a depth of sources. It is promotional. Mvqr (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Roots. She has basically only done one thing: set up Révolutionnaire. This seems to be distributed by Roots, so that is the logical target. If she does something else notable in the coming years, an article may be warranted. At the moment this is a single accomplishment that does not merit an article, as the coverage is not sustained enough. --- Possibly ☎ 18:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bulleted list item

Révolutionnaire is not distributed by Roots. Roots carries the collection just as Nordstrom carries Calvin Klein items. Merging Calvin Klein to Nordstrom wouldn't make sense just because they are a distributor. She has been an inspiration to members of the Black community both on the activism and fashion side. To merge her into a subheading of a White owned brand would likely diminish the impact that she has made as a young Black woman who has founded a tech platform and leading apparel brand for people of color in Canada.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EstellaAdora (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What helped shift my !vote is that the Roots source linked above by Possibly says "Révolutionnaire by Roots", so it does not appear to be the same as a department store carrying a brand item, and the social network appears to be closely linked to the branding, e.g. the same link states, "Inspired by their impact within the dance industry and passion for social change, Nia, and her sister and co-founder, Justice, made it their mission to build Révolutionnaire into a platform to address a range of social justice issues", continues promoting the platform, and links to the Révolutionnaire About page, which is clearly promoting the clothing along with the network. The network itself is soliciting email addresses. Based on the current available sources, merging seems like an appropriate alternative to deletion for now, subject to the usual caveats. Beccaynr (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I joined the network recently, I recommend you check it out because it isn't about email addresses, it is an actual network about change making. I met someone on there last night who is helping me with my project to feed the homeless in LA. Aside from the article the platform is actually really good :). As for the clothing, the sources state that she launched the apparel line in 2019. The Roots collaboration launched in 2021, the brand was not created by Roots. The partnership is a collaboration hence the use of the word "by" some brands also use "x" as a substitute for "by" hope this helps clarify things. This is all through my research on Google and easy to find information from their interviews.EstellaAdora (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as the editor above said, she is a separate entity from Roots. After reading the articles, it is clear that she does have some weight in the activism world as well as in Fashion. WWD is like the fashion bible. I agree that merging with Roots would be the wrong decision, it makes her entire entity a footnote of Roots rather than recognizing her experiences and what she has created in fashion and activism. At the end of the day, she has to be notable to be featured in publications like Forbes and Essence. I was on the fence but after reading the above, I recognize that it would be insensitive to merge the page of a Black female activist with a brand that she worked with twice rather than recognizing her own accomplishments that the sources detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha2397 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC) — Sasha2397 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

She's done more than just one thing - she created a whole social network for social change , I came across the Forbes article and learned about her EstellaAdora (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EstellaAdora (talk • contribs) 22:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, [13] 4 hits on google. Article is overly promotional of the clothing brand and noted contribution history of the article creator. This is a series of minor changes to articles and then bam a new article created. Whilst I wouldn't want to discourage a newbie, this seems a suspicious editing pattern for me. WCMemail 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJumping in here as the article creator, this was my first article and I was really excited to start working on wikipedia. I'm working on my second article right now. It seems strange to delete someone's article because the author is new to the platform. How can anyone new get involved if anything we try to create is deleted because we are new to wiki? Genuinely asking because I want to get more involved in wiki but if everything I create gets deleted because I am just starting out how will I be able to become actively involved?EstellaAdora (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting it's deleted because you're a newbie but it's pretty unusual for a new editor to be creating articles straight away when their edits are in single figures. That rather implies you are more familiar with wikipedia and this may not be your only account, editors may only have one account to edit with. Given that the article was somewhat promotional in nature, do you have a connection that may perhaps violate our WP:COI policies? WCMemail 06:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have any connection with her and haven't met her but I read the Forbes article as part of a school assignment and googled her and found all of this information and recognized that she is someone who is notable, doing great work and has been featured in a lot of media and wondered why she didnt have a wiki page. EstellaAdora (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EstellaAdora (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep It's thin to the sources, however the ones available are not the best, but it all builds up. There are a few more different things online, I am sure there is more to come. Govvy (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:I am not sure what the debate is. I've taken the time to research this young lady and she is absolutely exceptional. This company Revolutionnare was founded by this young lady. It involves a private social network for individuals seeking to do good in their community and internationally. She has created a wealth of information inside this network. Information and action guides involving the very important issue around racial equality, criminal justice reform, environment, homelessness and others. She's an advocate for Mental Health - another very important area considering the developments internationally over these past two years and the resulting mental health issues. That to me is note-worthy. The fact that this young lady also founded a clothing company for diverse skin tones that are sold all over the world, while still, a teenager is also noteworthy. She has empowered women such as myself who come from diverse backgrounds to feel proud and easily access clothing for my daughter's dance. The fact that she then partnered with the largest clothing brand in Canada to expand her clothing line is noteworthy. Roots has never partnered with a teen-aged designer. She's made history. The fact that Roots recognized the importance of her message and decided to expand the collection speaks volumes. I think individuals need to research, read and review before commenting. She's an inspiration and definitely worthy of having a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlaSanchez416 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC) — CarlaSanchez416 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I have struck through a comment above, which was made by a CU-confirmed sock of the article's author. Both accounts are now blocked. No comment on the article, I haven't looked at it. Girth Summit (blether) 14:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment for any closer, SPI report here. WCMemail 08:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Experienced editors have suggested Keep, Merge and Delete with no option having a clear upper hand. More discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article looks fine to me on the notability front. Essence, Toronto Star, CTV, and WWD are reliable. There are some occasions where the company and the person are synonymous when it comes to coverage though admittedly I’m not always a fan of that either. Google hits is not a valid deletion rationale, so I disagree with Wee Curry Monster there. Trillfendi (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- The article can be improved, promotional content can be removed to end the confusion that whether it's about the person or her company. Because currently most of the content is about her company. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 05:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of socks here. I would suggest a procedural close soon. – The Grid (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 02:05, 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 no consensus. Actor had one significant role and the article exists primarily on that basis. The opinions are that this is very much on the borderline of notability, but on balance, there is not enough clear consensus to judge conclusively. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Wall[edit]

Jane Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only notable role of Wall's I can identify is her 4-season stint in The Bill as Di Worrell. The only notable page regarding this role is apparently a depiction of the character in a painting.

All in all, not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. -- Pingumeister(talk) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Pingumeister(talk) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Pingumeister(talk) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Pingumeister(talk) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I recognise her from the The Bill but she has been going since 1994. I see she is represented in a art work by Bod Mellor in the Tate [14]]. There is some other coverage on her but it is very minor. scope_creepTalk 16:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Borderline case, but only having one significant role in a notable work isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR and there doesn't appear to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several comments assert they are "borderline", more input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Given her long-running role in The Bill, I would have no objection to the article remaining, even though it's a borderline case. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've added as refs a couple of articles digitised from the Daily Mirror in 2001, directly about, and interviewing, Wall. Still just regarding the one role on The Bill. -- Pingumeister(talk) 20:04, 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 02:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe, Arizona[edit]

Adobe, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another mis-labeled "populated place" in GNIS. There is a small peak in Phoenix called Adobe Mountain (Adobe Mountain is another peak in California). Nearby is Adobe Mountain Desert Park and Adobe Mountain School. There is also an Adobe Mountain Dam, and other roads and things named after the peak. No evidence there is any community of "Adobe". The area is formally within the Deer Valley Village neighborhood of Phoenix. MB 02:00, 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. ✗plicit 01:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jisse "Model" Deruiter[edit]

Jisse "Model" Deruiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a teen model. The article is sourced entirely to the subject's own Instagram posts and his casting agency, both of which are primary sources. A BEFORE found no significant or secondary coverage in reliable sources. Fails GNG and NBIO. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 01:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies, tagging you because of editing privileges and acquaintance with the Netherlands. Any other procedures expert is also welcome to react! Delete looks like a no-brainer to me. Maybe we can speedy?gidonb (talk) 22:59, 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. ✗plicit 01:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Document International Human Rights Documentary Film Festival[edit]

Document International Human Rights Documentary Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find any significant coverage. The only source given is its own website. Created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 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. ✗plicit 01:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch Mapping Community[edit]

Scratch Mapping Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:46, 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 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 01:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falstaff International Film Festival[edit]

Falstaff International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage. It appears to be a one off festival rather than recurring (which would get more coverage) LibStar (talk) 00:46, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_12&oldid=1056203889"