Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 13 November 15 >

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. ✗plicit 13:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allanah Starr[edit]

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

How this survived for so long I have no idea. The sourcing is completely inadequate, fails GNG N & BLP Spartaz Humbug! 23:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 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. ✗plicit 00:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Mars[edit]

Natalie Mars (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 potential rs (no 3) is a research paper and name checks her in a list of performers. There is nothimg otherwise that is not an interview, non rs or a self-reverential mention of an award win or nomination. Total GNG, V and BLP fail. Spartaz Humbug! 23:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winning 3 AVN awards in 2020, significantly contributes to the notability of Natalie Mars. 89.8.182.139 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another AVN Award, in 2021, adds to the notability. That German-wiki has had an article since March this year - without discussion about notability - is not a bad indication (even though they have their own rules). 89.8.92.96 (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • since PORNBIO was deprecated award wins and nominations no lomger count. What are your sources. Spartaz Humbug! 20:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feel like this one could have more to find. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a prime example of "overwhelm by reference-bombing", 57 with most going to porn sites. Not a shred of notability to be found here, porn awards count for zero, so the IPs keep above should b discarded outright. Zaathras (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT, per review of available sources. Industry awards as indicators of notability (what the IP's vote is based on) have been deprecated, along the entire WP:PORNBIO. There's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a won-awards PORNBIO without sufficient RS coverage to pass WP:BASIC or support any WP:ENT claims. As noted above, 54 of the 57 citations are porn award rosters. The remaining 3 are a brief mention in an academic journal paper, an interview and a social media post. Take out the primary-sourced puffery, and these only reliably verify that the subject is a porn performer. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 21 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 Idaho State Bengals. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Growl, Bengals, Growl[edit]

Growl, Bengals, Growl (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 song, only primary sources cited and I cannot find any (in-depth) secondary ones. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge based on the addition of new sources. There won't be a lot about a school song, but I'm satisfied with the new additions. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The other Colleges in Idaho have their songs in the same category; maybe with more references, but about the same size. Seems reasonable to keep. - Mjquinn_id (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is about consensus building regarding policy, not by gut reactions. Especially in comparing to other articles, see WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just about a consensus to merge, but there has been some additional new sources also added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Idaho State Bengals. I looked through the sources and it doesn't seem notable enough for it's own article. It's mentioned in passing, but not the subject of any of them. Plus, as said above, it makes more sense and is easier to find as a sub-section of the Bengals page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Idaho State Bengals, It shouldn't get its own article, but shouldn't get deleted. Wp9097 (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Idaho State Bengals per the above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Idaho State Bengals, per above comments, I agree that this should be included in it's own section in the teams page. Spf121188 (talk) 16:28, 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. ✗plicit 13:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RV Public School[edit]

RV Public School (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 demonstrable notability. For an elementary school/grade school/middle school to be notable, there would need to be some good RS, none of which can be found here. WP:NSCHOOL states schools must satisfy WP:ORG, which this subject does not. Kbabej (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sources nexist and I believe the school outcomes debate allows for a local consensus to determine notability. Lightburst (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point us to RS for this subject? —Kbabej (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin, please note the above user has been abusively !voting at AfD discussions, as covered here. --Kbabej (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The user has been banned from participating in deletion discussions for six months. --Kbabej (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can tell reference wise there's three trivial news articles available. One is about a telescope and the others relate to two specific students that attended there. None of those sources are usable for notability though and I was unable to find anything else. So this is pretty clearly a delete in my book. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to achieve a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 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. ✗plicit 13:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Wisconsin Film Festival[edit]

Central Wisconsin 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)

I was unable to find any significant coverage for this film festival. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of references added by Eastmain.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The references are routine announcements with two of them ending with "To learn more about the Central Wisconsin Film Festival, visit www.cwfilmfest.org." and three of them being local. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Lacking indepth significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 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 no consensus. There appears to be an even numerical divide between editors who believe this article should be deleted and those who believe it should be kept, with reasonable arguments from both sides. There is a somewhat weak consensus that a small amount of content is probably worth salvaging, and possibly enough to sustain a short article. This AfD has been relisted twice, but failed to generate any further discussion of substance to determine whether coverage surrounding the subject of the article meets the relevant notability guidelines beyond any reasonable doubt. (non-admin closure) Haleth (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Flynn[edit]

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

I've done a WP:BEFORE search, and I am just not finding any significant coverage. The vast majority of the article is cited to "Behind The Voice Actors", a voice acting roles database. The only coverage I can find is surrounding the replacement of his voice acting in World of Warcraft following the "Beware Quinton Flynn" allegations, but these don't seem to have been picked up by reliable sources, and I can only find borderline blogs like Bounding into Comics covering it, and I don't think they should be included for WP:BLP reasons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found an article in Gamespot briefly mentioning it, but that's about it as far as RS coverage goes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources you mentioned are the "borderline blogs" I was talking about earlier. Niche Gamer is an unreliable source per WP:VG/RS, Bounding into Comics is a pro-Comicsgate (the comics counterpart of Gamergate (harassment campaign) publication that seems to have little reputation, it got a mixed-negative reception at RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293#The_Reliability_of_"Bounding_into_Comics". The Eurogamer piece doesn't really talk about Quinn as a voice actor or note his accomplishments, but is simply about that he hasn't got a callback for his recurring role in the Metal Gear series that he later got. Nerd Reactor piece looks good, but it also looks like an obscure publication. I might ask VG/RS about it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is enough coverage for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, albeit grudgingly. Flynn is a D-tier voice actor who lucked into one notable role (Raiden), and Wikipedia is not IMDb. That said. There's a twilight area of actors of borderline notability who have articles, and the more roles, the more there's a presumption that this actor will eventually become notable. Flynn has been around long enough he probably meets that threshold where having an IMDb-esque article that is essentially a recap of roles he's in is probably worthwhile. Some of these actors never really will be notable, but enough of them do that Wikipedia has seemingly made a policy decision to keep such articles. If this sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, well, that's because it is. If Wikipedia wants to start cleaning out minor actors (producers/ composers / etc.) who never really made it big, there are much, much more minor actors out there to start with "first". By the existing criteria used, Flynn is safely away from that deletable tier, even if his current RS coverage is fairly poor. SnowFire (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Weak* Delete per Hemiauchenia's analysis of the sources provided by Toddy1. Among the four sources linked, Eurogamer is reliable but doesn't really include much analysis beyond paraphrasing of his interview with The Gaming Liberty (i.e. reliable but not really significant). Nerd Reactor appears reliable as a source per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Nerd Reactor but the non-primary coverage in the article consists of a few sentences in total (hence perhaps not "significant"). So you're looking at two reliable sources that are not really significant plus other sources of questionable reliability. That said, one can build a non-stub article using the Eurogamer and Nerd Reactor sources plus other passing coverage. feminist (+) 02:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:49, 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. And salt. Sandstein 18:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Tajbakhsh[edit]

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

Cross-wiki promotion (Special:CentralAuth/مدلینگ ایرانی) and re-creation of an article previously deleted via AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Tajbakhsh), relying purely on press releases, promotional videos and interviews (no independent sources). The article subject does not appear to pass any of the WP:NMUSICIAN criteria, and looking for significant independent coverage in the WP:BEFORE sources doesn't yield useful results.

Nominated after a notification by Johannnes89 at my talk page (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep- Hi, this article is well known for several reasons:

  1. According to paragraph 8 and 9, the WP:SINGER states this (Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.) Reza Tajbakhsh has won our prestigious musicema awards. Link.
  2. The next item in WP:SINGER No. 12 and WP:NALBUM No.6,7 is the list (Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.) Reza Tajbakhsh appeared on a television program on Iran's IRIB TV5 channel, which was broadcast on Iran's national television, and the subject of the program was about him.Link.
  3. And another thing in WP:BAND is that he is a member of Zarbofoot.
  4. And the next thing is about his concerts WP:NCONCERT. (In the year 2018, a number of pop singers led by Reza Tajbakhsh Orchestra performed the concert "Pop Romance" in the hall of the Ministry of Interior. "Pop Romance" concert with the joint performance of a number of well-known pop singers, including Roozbeh Nematollahi, Amir Abbas Golab, Reza Sadeghi, Hamid Hami, Mehdi Yarahi and Siamak Abbasi on May 14 and 15, led and arranged by Reza Tajbakhsh, was held in the hall Ministry of Interior Hall.).(Mehrnews-ilna.news-Young Journalists Club News-Tabnak).
  5. And my last reason for the article's popularity.(Reza Tajbakhsh was present at the closing ceremony of the 33rd Fajr International Music Festival. Amir Abbas Golab and Reza Tajbakhsh sang together at the Fajr Music Festival. Reza Tajbakhsh also participated in this Fajr Music Festival as the conductor of Babak Jahanbakhsh Orchestra.)(Baamaagroup-Eghtesad Online News-Namnak-Tasnim News) And with all that said, the article easily crosses WP:GNG.Thank you all dear ones I hope I have raised all the important issues.--Modeling (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* keep Awards mentioned in the article according to this ref Musicema Awards is the creator of this award indication that the subject meets GNG.--Alireza Khabib (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) note that this editor's vote and comment has been struck as they are a confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Agree with above assessment, he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Chelokabob (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete fails WP:GNG and was created by a sock. 219.251.78.18 (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another SPA delete voter from an IP. To be fair since page is protected now and he placed the vote with a new account, this one should be removed now. Someone with higher rights, please do this. I believe there is a Rogue DELETE voter with personal vendetta doing votes from IP's. ATTN: Rosguill Chelokabob (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy {{Db-g4}}. The previous page was deleted in August, 2019. The only claim in the current article subsequent to that time is a non-winning nomination for the next year of an award he had won previously. Those (won) awards were prior to the previous AFD. So if they weren't enough to carry the article then, then a non-winning additional nom for the same award doesn't improve the situation. Much of the prose is word-for-word same as the deleted content, suggesting there is a PR firm or copyvio (uncited original) at work here. DMacks (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not valid argument. You cannot base your decision on what happened in prior AFD. It had only one vote and a premature closure. It should have been extended another week to get more votes. He meets WP:MUSICBIO as follows:
- Criterion #6 as part of Tehran Symphony Orchestra, it has a Wiki page so it is notable Ensemble. Also he participated in Fajr Music Festival as the conductor of Babak Jahanbakhsh Orchestra. Babak Jahanbakhsh also has a wiki page so he is notable as part other ensembles.
- Criterion #8 or #9 : won four awards Musicema Awards, it has a Wiki page so it is a notable award.Chelokabob (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have improved this article. Removed big chunk of album song listings, which was not needed, removed 10-15 bad and low quality citations and kept the better ones. Added 2 new citations. These sources are in-depth and from reliable Persian publications: MehrNews citna.ir Aftabnews.ir yjcnews navayefars.comfarsnews.ir. In addition he has a profile on major musical instruments manufacturer site Kurzweil, you can't be a nobody and get such a profile! Chelokabob (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*I agree with the are Article successful WP: GNG and WP: NMUSICIAN. keep--5.123.166.237 (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with prejudice. This is unambiguously spam, and has rightly been deleted from all the other Wikipedias it was created on, except for fr where they chickenheartedly plastered it with maintenance templates instead. In my view, the opinion statements offered by others above, saying that this meets the GNG, are totally unsupported by the sources cited in the article, and may quite safely be disregarded.—S Marshall T/C 23:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your assessment. The Awards are verified by citations, so he meets WP:MUSICBIO. His involvement as part of other popular ensembles can also be verified by citations, which is another criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. You can use Google Translate to read the Persian sources. I do not believe there is anything now that reads like advertisement or spam, because I cleaned it up, but if you feel anything sounds like advertisement or not supported by citations, please point it out. Chelokabob (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right to say the awards are verified by citations, but that doesn't by itself pass MUSICBIO. The citations need to be to reliable sources: good quality, independent sources with a reputation for fact checking.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep he meets (WP:MUSICBIO and WP: NMUSICIAN and WP: GNG) with policies easily compliantd.2A01:5EC0:B003:4752:9026:3EC5:D1F9:B70A (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. 106.168.123.161 (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Strike !vote from blocked proxy.—S Marshall T/C 12:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @ToBeFree:, @Daniel:, @DMacks:, @Dreamy Jazz: as sysops who've participated here. To mitigate the constant disruption and sockpuppetry, please could one of you semi-protect this AfD.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't protect a deletion discussion I've started, I'm afraid ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill if page is now protected , doesn't it mean that we should also strike this above DELETE voter from an IP??? to be fair both KEEP and DELETE voters should be treated equally.Chelokabob (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: There are 2 IP voters that should be striked! Chelokabob (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chelokabob, eh I don't think that's necessary per WP:NOTVOTE, the closing admin should be able to assess the discussion as it appears and the comments will be judged on their substance (which is lacking from the IPs). Additionally, I haven't seen any clear evidence that the delete IPs are socks. The protection was to stop the ongoing and disruptive spamming of sock !votes that w interfering with ongoing discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One IP is from Japan and the other from Korea. These scream proxies to me. Can you initiate an investigation? Chelokabob (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One now blocked as a proxy, struck accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides the sock poppet, I seem to be the only person voting Keep. I don't see how everyone is ignoring the fact that he meets several criteria from WP:MUSICBIO above and although Persian media may seem unreliable, he has many many of them and it just shows his popularity. Several of the Persian media are popular Iranian publications. I have also removed a large chunk of un-sourced material and just removed list of singles too. Chelokabob (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete fails WP:GNG and was created by a sock, As I checked each source, the coverage is trivial and probably created by PR firms Mardetanha (talk) 11:32, 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. SouthernNights (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sbusiso Mdingi[edit]

Sbusiso Mdingi (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 individual who doesn’t meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Xclusivzik (talk) 22:42, 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. SouthernNights (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Kamil Sattar[edit]

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

Promotional article on a Non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up unreliable sources such as this. Two third(more than half) of the sources used in the article are unreliable per RSP and the other sources used are fake referencing. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Celestina007, Hello and greetings! The person had a reasonable number of coverage in national and local independent news sites already. I don't think any of my reference was wrong. If you check each and every link I used it'll be clear to you that the person made to national headlines, and a notable show host. Please don't ignore these facts. I don't see a reason why this should be deleated. Nothing here is promotional and it's based on facts. The person is seen on Channel 5, CNBC, DailyMail, Mirror UK and lot other local media and national news sites. Facebook, Instagram, and Youtube had already validated and verified him as a notable public figure. 24.72.83.241 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@24.72.83.241, I’m not sure what you mean by “seen on” because using a google translator to translate all the sources optimized in the article, all seem to be unreliable, I’m aware of WP:NEXIST this i did a before & it turned up nothing cogent too, but you can bring any of the reliable sources here for is to vet. Celestina007 (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Insider source is OK but does not meet the "multiple" part of WP:GNG, and didn't find anything else to meet the bar. Closest thing I found is this Vice article which only has a short paragraph about him. Jumpytoo Talk 18:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Representative Office of Northern Cyprus in New York[edit]

Representative Office of Northern Cyprus in New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Office of an unrecognised state, without diplomatic status, and no apparent notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken Web[edit]

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

Website and organisation that appears to fail WP:NORG and WP:NWEB. There is a project based in India by the same name that may be notable (doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11322-2_4, doi:10.1145/1943403.1943484, [5]), and the general concept of audio-based access to the internet is probably notable, but this website based in Tel Aviv does not appear notable. I found this page while looking for Spoken Web, a Canadian site for oral history of literature—yet another unrelated project. The author, Eyalshalom, also seems to have a WP:COI, since (according to Spoken Web), the website was founded by Eyal Shalom. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:12, 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. ✗plicit 13:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eya Bellaaj[edit]

Eya Bellaaj (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 reference used to source her international appearance is only the called up list for the competition. She could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme1499 18:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Amara94: If sources are unavailable, then the subject shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. Not everyone deserves to have a page. Nehme1499 18:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A picture isn't enough to verify a person's identity. Also, please remember to sign your comments with the four tildes (~~~~). Nehme1499 20:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would give Amara94 a few days to find potential sources confirming she has played for the national team. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing further time as suggested for further sources to be found given lack of consensus at the moment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no verified caps and, more importantly, no evidence of any significant coverage. A picture on Facebook does not make a Wikipedia article. Searching "ايا باللاعج‎" did not yield any WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 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. A technical NFOOTY pass, but one where GNG is not supported through any arguments presented here. Fenix down (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Payungsak Pannarat[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2017 and was given a PROD in 2018 due to being a BLP with no sources. This tag was removed without a valid source being added; the external link is permanently dead; I have looked in the web archives and can't find a usable version. A Google News search comes back with one hit in Thai, which is simply an appearance in a list of Thai League 3 coaching staff attending a training course. A Thai source search similarly also had nothing that could be used to demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG. I also can't find any database website that lists him so can't even verify an WP:NFOOTBALL pass at the moment. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the coverage offered so far falls significantly short on GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Video Game Rating Act[edit]

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

2006 attempt at legislation quickly died without comment from journalists. Fails guidelines about notability and not news. Jorahm (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nomination is a WP:VAGUEWAVE that fails to address existing sources about the topic that demonstrate its notability. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you've seen the article or the sources but there isn't enough here to write an article which is why the article is so abysmal. It doesn't meet WP:NOTNEWS because all of the coverage is from the moment it was proposed in August 2006 and even that coverage was a short burst of nothing. The bill (thankfully) died and didn't get more than another a single mention when the senator ran for President. Jorahm (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the article is short does not mean there isn't more to be written. WP:NEXIST fallacy. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per plentiful third party coverage, and an apparent complete lack of understanding of NOTNEWS. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rusalkii. The article could probably be improved, but there's definitely sufficient coverage in RS for WP:GNG. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bill never actually came to the floor, was proposed as an extreme solution by an extreme conservative, and never had any chance to pass (thus the 'enacted by' field in the infobox is a complete lie). We don't have to have an article about every piece of legislation proposed by Congress.Nate • (chatter) 02:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that has any bearing on whether it meets the WP:GNG or not. Sergecross73 msg me 04:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And whether it was an "extreme solution" also doesn't disqualify it for entry in the encyclopedia. Or should I say, inclusion does not equal endorsement. For example, it could serve as an example of what not to do. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Given the sources found by Rusalkii, seems like it meets the notability guidelines. DocFreeman24 (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there appear to be enough sources to justify an article and even people agreed there wasn’t enough for a full article it should be merged with Video game censorship#US government legislation instead of being deleted entirely.--67.70.100.169 (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Rusalkii. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It's gotten the coverage as indicated, but what's really being covered is not so much this bill, but rather the legislative efforts to regulate video games in the United States. I think we would be better served to have an article about that topic, which would cover this legislation as well as, for example, the Video Game Decency Act and the Family Entertainment Protection Act; and probably 1993 congressional hearings on video games. (It would be a matter for individual consideration whether any particular legislation or legislative activity ought to have its own article, apart from a discussion in the umbrella article; the 1993 congressional hearings article, for example, clearly has enough to be separate; whereas the articles on two of the specific unenacted bills are stubs, and the one on the FEPA technically avoiding stubship only by having a section-by-section summary of the bill.)
Having a central article would, I think, be much better than three or more balkanized ones, and would give some better context to the individual failed bills.
We do have some articles -- and article sections -- that go into this, e.g. Video game censorship § US government legislation and Video game controversies § US government legislation, probably some others; but the topic would probably be better dealt with cohesively than as a combination of parts of some articles, and individual small articles on individual unenacted bills that are better treated and understood in context of one another.
In the meantime, though, I would still go for a keep in this AFD, without prejudice against a later merger into a more cohesive approach as outlined above. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Levine[edit]

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

If Bunny is notable, she is barely so. It's honestly a bit hard to tell. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – seems to be a bit part actress who only plays old ladies in minor roles. There are 1000s of them and Wikipedia does not exist for them all to have a page. That's what IMDb is for. Also, the user who created the page (who is now on their 4th new account in 2 weeks) seriously needs their IP blocked for BLP violations. --Jkaharper (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although she would be notable if she actually was 1.47 cm (1 in) tall as stated in the infobox :). WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. No determination on whether the nomination was made in good faith, but the result of the discussion below is a clear and obvious keep, with the article's sources establishing notability. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravens–Titans rivalry[edit]

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

Given the precedent set on other rivalry pages, I think this needs to go. Not enough notability backing up a rivalry. Jackmar1Talk 14:50, 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 speedy keep. No determination on whether the nomination was made in good faith, but the result of the discussion below is a clear and obvious keep, with the article's sources establishing notability. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giants–Packers rivalry[edit]

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

Given the precedent set on other rivalry pages, I think this one fits in the same category as Cowboys-Vikings, a historical match-up with lots of lore but not as currently recent. If we are willing to keep historical rivalries around with cultural lore (but not as currently toxic), than this can stay. The precedent recently doesn't support keeping this page. Jackmar1Talk 14:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmar1: It appears that you are trying to make a point as you stated in this diff that Giants-Packers has "lots of notability" but threatened to open this AfD if the other AfD didn't go your way. This type of practice is considered disruptive. See WP:POINTy. Cbl62 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources identified by BeanieFan. Also, this one of the oldest series (second only to Bears-Packers?) in the NFL, matching two of the league's legendary franchises, closely contested, and dating back almost a hundred years with 62 games played, including three NFL Championship Games. Cbl62 (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also "WP:NOTABILITY IS NOT TEMPORARY". A historic rivalry does not lose its notability simply if it becomes less competitive or "toxic" in later years. Cbl62 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If for no other reason than Lombardi's feelings towards his old team when they played. But of course there are lots of other reasons. Notability is not temporary. Rlendog (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Please see my comments on the Cowboys-Rams rivalry. I want to reiterate (and apologize if it doesn't feel this way) that I am trying to ensure consistent standards in how we view rivalries, not make disruptive posts. The key distinction I am trying to make and ask is that rivalries can exist for two reasons 1) current heat, fan bickering (think Cowboys-Eagles, Bears-Packers, Ravens-Steelers, Chiefs-Raiders) 2) historical clout but less recent games (think Cowboys-Steelers, Cowboys-Rams, Packers-Giants, Cowboys-Vikings). I'm seeing a lot of inconsistency in how people define a rivalry on Wikipedia and I think some are prioritizing current heat amongst fans instead of just notability. In my view, a rivalry page can exist to detail iconic NFL moments contained within one NFL match-up. But we just need consistency as my intial post alludes to in creating this discussion. Jackmar1Talk 14:50, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julian LeBlanc[edit]

Julian LeBlanc (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:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors do not get an automatic notability freebie just because acting roles have been had -- the notability test requires some quantifiable evidence of the significance of their acting roles, such as notable acting awards and/or substantive coverage about them and their performances to establish passage of WP:GNG. But this ascribes the subject solely with supporting or bit parts rather than major starring roles, cites absolutely no evidence of notability-building coverage, and has already had to have some "up and coming star" advertorialism stripped from it. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any proper referencing. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2008-08 ✗ A1
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 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. So this was an obvious COI contribution by a user who had created a totally spammy version earlier, and never disclosed their COI. The AfD has three "delete" votes, including the one that doesn't say "delete" and the one by the nominator; there are no keep votes, except a comment about sourcing, which was addressed. This didn't need to be relisted. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Quarry Gallery[edit]

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

A previous article by the WP:SPA editor about this stone retail company was tagged by Vexations and speedy-deleted. The present instance is sourced largely to press releases (including a Forbes India "Brand Connect" item) and their echoes, along with a posting on fashionfad about an associated event. Searches find further primary postings, such as this in Vogue India, but I am not seeing evidence that this firm has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not meet our requirements for independence and reliability. For something like prnewswire.com that's obvious; that's a press release. For other sources, that may not be so clear. Consider [6], and note how the website doesn't let you copy/paste the message at the bottom: "This story is provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/NewsVoir). NewsVoir, (https://www.newsvoir.com/) is a company that produces press releases. [7] Architectural Digest has the same problem: "Published by The Quarry" , it's an advertisement, not an editorial. Vexations (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NZ Herald / Bay of Plenty Times item is mentioning "Te Puna Quarry Park & venue 'The Gallery'" in New Zealand rather than this Mumbai firm; the AD item is a passing mention of another designer using materials sourced from this firm; the Vogue India item is straplined "Published by Quarry" so is primary; the Forbes India item footer says "The pages slugged ‘Brand Connect’ are equivalent to paid-for advertisements and are not written and produced by Forbes India journalists" so is primary; the Bold Outline item is an advertorial about an event which concludes by inviting readers to call the firm for an appointment; the Verve item is a brief photo-piece about an event, again with advertorial tone ("Against the backdrop of luxury marble, guests relaxed over wine and hors d’oeuvres, and marvelled at the granite and onyx available at The Quarry."); none of which, for me, exceed trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means much more than articles found in "reliable sources" or "independent sources" or purported "renowned magazines", it means nothing that relies entirely on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 17:37, 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 speedy keep. No determination on whether the nomination was made in good faith, but the result of the discussion below is a clear and obvious keep, with the article's sources establishing notability. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys–Rams rivalry[edit]

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

Given the precedent set on other rivalry pages, I think this one fits in the same category as Cowboys-Vikings, a historical match-up with lots of lore but not as currently recent. This is a quote on the Cowboys fan blog: "The Cowboys and Rams aren’t exactly rivals, as they haven’t faced each other enough to count as such." If we are willing to keep historical rivalries around with cultural lore (but not as currently toxic), than this can stay. The precedent recently doesn't support keeping this page. Jackmar1Talk 14:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmar1: Are you simply trying to make a point? You affirmatively asserted in this diff that Cowboys-Rams has "lots of historical match-ups and notability to back it up" but threatened to open this AfD if the other AfD didn't go your way. Please read WP:POINTy ("When one becomes frustrated with the way a ... guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. ... Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive ..."). Cbl62 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 14. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to meet GNG per coverage such as this, this, this, this, and this, among others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beanie Fan and the sources noted there. Most tellingly, CBS Sports rates it No. 6 on its list of the "1970s rivalries that made the NFL 'super'". See here. Also, per my note above, I have concerns that the nominator has opened this AfD to make a WP:POINT about the voting in another AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was certainly a notable rivalry in the 1970s when the two teams made the playoffs almost every year and as evidenced by BeanieFan11's sources. Notability is not temporary. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to CBL62, the previous AFD discussion was not a threat. My simple argument is that we need to apply standards consistently on Wikipedia. My point on this discussion is not to say it should be deleted out of spite (these are afterall discussions). I am trying to have a consistent viewpoint on what constitutes a rivalry. If the Cowboys-Vikings rivalry gets deleted, than this page should also be deleted because they both are similar - historical 1970's rivalries that were super hot and that have notability but have cooled a bit (as the quote above alludes to earlier). The real question is: if a match-up has historical clout / memories / lore and that constitutes a page, than this stays. If the editors are saying only current rivalries based on how the fans perceive the match-up (without regard to historical notability), than this goes (and honestly probably half the NFL rivalries on Wikipedia could be debated). Again the goal is consistency in our standards, not spite.

Jackmar1Talk 14:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmar1: Suggesting the deletion of an article you acknowledge is notable on "consistency" grounds after you object to policy interpretation in another AfD is precisely what WP:POINTy says to avoid. Respectflyy suggest you withdraw this before it goes any further. Cbl62 (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I never suggested deletion. My initial post asks a question: "If we are willing to keep historical rivalries around with cultural lore (but not as currently toxic), than this can stay. The precedent recently doesn't support keeping this page." Its an open-ended discussion. I'm not even sure how to withdraw this since the policies also say this should stay open for 7 days.Jackmar1Talk 14:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In an AfD, where there are no "delete" votes, the nominator can withdraw the AfD by simply typing Withdrawn . Cbl62 (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangaru Sankellu[edit]

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

PROD removed with no explanation. No evidence of notability. Would probably be a WP:A7 candidate if there was such a criteria for films (but as far as I know there isn't). Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:05, 31 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 17:26, 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) 17:32, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized finance[edit]

Centralized finance (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 term "centralized finance" (or CeFi) is used in crypto circles to designate traditional financial services and institutions (sometimes also referred to as "TradFi"), by contrast to decentralized finance (or DeFi). It is not a notable concept and fails WP:GNG. It's essentially crypto-jargon.

In any case, the article in its current form conflates centralized markets and centralized finance, but the two concepts are not similar: the former is a market structure where securities are traded on a central stock exchange (as opposed to dark pools, payment for order flow, internalization etc.) while the latter is the crypto jargon described above. JBchrch talk 17:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The current content is not properly supported by reliable sources.
Neither Coinbase nor Analyticssteps.com appears to be reliable.
The Corporate Finance Institute source may or may not be reliable, but it is about "centralization" as a business or management strategy. It is not about "centralized finance", nor even about "centralized markets". Using it here would be a misrepresentation of the source.
That leaves Investopedia. It is "yellow" per WP:RSP, but in context it is about "markets", not "finance". As JBchrch mentions, this distinction is very important. Further, the NYSE could be reasonably called a "centralized market" in some contexts, but an adjective and a noun together doesn't always make an encyclopedically noteworthy phrase. More and better sources would be needed. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsupported neologism. Nobody except crypto pumpers uses this term, and even they can't get much traction with it - David Gerard (talk) 00:13, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Media City[edit]

Dubai Media City (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 just a bunch of buildings owned by Dubai Holding. There is nothing to indicate that the collection of buildings are independently notable and deserve their own Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Large developments and distinct neighborhoods tend to be notable, and this appears to be precisely that. From Reuters: "the United Arab Emirates' media hub that hosts hundreds of media companies and most of their Middle East headquarters"[8]. Coverage can be found in [1], [2], and [3], plus I'm sure other places if I looked more. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab states today : an encyclopedia of life in the Arab states. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. 2009. pp. 128–129. ISBN 9780313344428.
  2. ^ "A tale of two cities: Dubai Internet City, Dubai Media City turn 20". Gulf News. October 19, 2019. Retrieved 11 November 2021.
  3. ^ Media clusters : spatial agglomeration and content capabilities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 2011. pp. 281–305. ISBN 9780857932693.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, passes WP:GNG, per the significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources. Such as those already linked and those below.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Marat Terterov, ed. (2006). Doing Business with the United Arab Emirates. GMB Publishing. p. 150. ISBN 9781905050727.
  2. ^ Inc. Ibp (2017). Middle East and Arabic Countries Free Trade, Economic Zones Law and Regulations Handbook Volume 1: Strategic Information and Regulations. International Business Publications. p. 75. ISBN 9781433033643.
  3. ^ Tourya Guaaybess, ed. (2013). National Broadcasting and State Policy in Arab Countries. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 199–205. ISBN 9780230367166.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Sean Wallace. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Books[edit]

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

US publisher. No third-party sources (WP:V) and no indication of notability (WP:N). A Google search finds no qualifying sources, even after attempting to strip out false positives relating to Amazon Prime or "prime books" in the descriptive sense of "good books". Sandstein 13:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 13:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Sean Wallace, the founder, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Of the two sources I found, one provided a few paragraphs of coverage and one was an interview with little non-interview material:
    1. Keene, Brian (February 2002). "Oh, the horror!". Science Fiction Chronicle. Vol. 23, no. 2. ProQuest 205498435.

      The article notes:

      A new small press publisher has emerged with the launch of Prime Books. Founded by Sean Wallace and Garry Nurrish, Prime hit the ground running with a half dozen new novels and collections.

      The promising debut line-up includes City of Saints and Madmen by Jeff VanderMeer, The Nature of Balance by British sensation Tim Lebbon, Dregs of Society by Michael Laimo, the Distance Travelled by Chiaroscuro's Brett Savory, Gene O'Neill's collection of sci-fi/horror blends Ghosts, Spirits, Computers, and World Machines, Tim Waggoner's All Too Surreal, and I-O by newcomer Simon Logan.

      Wallace is one of the founders of Cosmos Books. Nurrish is the editor of Redsine, a popular Australian horror magazine.

    3. Dziemianowicz, Stefan (2004-07-26). "Prime Suspect". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 251, no. 30. ProQuest 197102536.

      The article notes: "PW Talks with Sean Walace, editor of Prime Books. PW: Prime has become a major player in fantastic fiction publishing in a very short time. How did it evolve into the publisher it is today?" This is an interview so cannot be used to establish notability.

    Cunard (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That‘s fine with me. Sandstein 20:56, 14 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) 17:30, 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. Sandstein 09:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man (pinball)[edit]

Iron Man (pinball) (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:NPRODUCT, sources available do not satisfy WP:GNG. Previously a long standing redirect. Would support merge and redirect to suitable target as alternative to deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes WP:N includes references and secondary sources. Admittedly still in stub status but more to be developed and part of a large recognizable media franchise. Expandinglight5 (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The references do not establish notability. Pinside is not a reliable source. Polyamorph (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those provided in the article, and all others available via a search engine came up with sites simply selling the product or unreliable sources. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. Polyamorph (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source, Pinball Compendium ISBN 978-0-7643-4107-6 contains coverage on this and many other pinball machines. This is a book not a catalog. If the issue at hand is reliable sources, please tag the article accordingly and I will continue to develop the article. There are multiple pinball books as well as the IPDB.org. The article is in stub status at the moment and is a work in progress. Expandinglight5 (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say the pinball compendium was a catalogue? I do not see how a mention in that book among many other machines proves sufficient notability for an independent article here in Wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expandinglight5: stub status at the moment and is a work in progress? Eleven years to give an article wings? How is this a work in progress? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of RS with SIGCOV has been presented. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is a problem with many other pinball articles; on the other hand I'll note that in the past I've seen some pinball articles rescued with some old, poorly digitized articles dug in in newspaper/magazine archives.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:GNG based on WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources.Expandinglight5 (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Expandinglight5 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

  • Delete. I was going to suggest moving to 'Iron Man in other media' but i see it is already included there. Having 1 RS and being a stub this is just a content fork. Vanteloop (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:05, 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 keep. SouthernNights (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaaban Abash[edit]

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

Notability tag for six months. Contested prod. Corporal who won the Cross of St. George. Potentially notable. scope_creepTalk 16:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. In addition to the sources already present there are articles about his family on RFERL-affiliated Ekho Kavkaza and in Sputnik-Abkhazia [9]. Alaexis¿question? 21:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep has some coverage, whether its significant is debatable. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep as a stub but this needs to be justified by more detail being provided for what is just a stub. 1.2M Cross of St. George of all classes were awarded, so that it is not a notable award. However it is possible that his post-war service under the leader of the Abkhazia SSR might be. He might be notable as being of mixed race, including African descent, which would be unusual there. There appears to be a Russian WP article, but only of similar length to this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those references are passing mentions and no more. I haven't seen anything yet that convinces now the Cross of St. George is not notable. scope_creepTalk 16:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage is that exactly?
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. The article is entirely unsourced, and is contested content, which makes deletion mandatory for now per WP:V. It can be recreated with proper sources as proposed by Less Unless. Sandstein 17:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urochysche[edit]

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

A quick search only finds some hotels, but no real indication of notability. Qwerfjkltalk 21:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minnow nominator: For not even attempting searching in applicable languages, like Russian or other Soviet langs. Curbon7 (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I deserve that :) ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But does it or does it not fail WP:DICDEF? Geschichte (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this does seem like a dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedia article. In Russian the word appears to be "Урочище" which has this article, which is much longer but also seems to be a dictionary definition, in the Russian Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are right - this is a rather a dictionary definition of a specific term often applied in Ukrainian, Russian, and some other languages. I have found that such articles already existed in Ukrainian and Russian wiki, so decided to provide an English version. The reason was that often people do not know what is Urochysche and either misapplied this term or incorrectly translated it. For example, often Ukrainian biographists translate into English it as a tract, which is not totally correct and leads to misunderstandings. I faced this problem for many years working as a journal editor, so decided to make a small topic here just to help others in the semantics of this word. I will appreciate it if you will leave this article, which, I believe, will be helpful for many, but it is for your decision, of course. Thanks. Novikoffav (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -GorgonaJS (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify for further improvement. The Russian and German versions look good enough for a translation and expansion. And there's enough sources. Less Unless (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 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. ✗plicit 00:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Stained: When No One Comes Looking[edit]

Blood Stained: When No One Comes Looking (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 significant coverage. I couldn't even find a review. Outskirts Press is a self-publisher. SL93 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just checked the article creator's userpage and it says that they are a publicist for the author. I would have just prodded the article if I noticed that sooner. SL93 (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG Onmyway22 talk 15:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did find a source for the book ([10]) but I figure that at most this can be mentioned in Maust's article. I created a section "in popular culture" to this end. It doesn't need its own article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found just enough to justify a pop culture section in the article for Maust, but not enough to justify its own article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I don't really think that it needs to be a search term. It's not that commonly searched, to be honest. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:00, 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 speedy keep. No valid reason to delete article given by nominator. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Amara Sulya Freedom Movement[edit]

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

Creating rift between communities

The nature of this article intends to create/widen the difference between two warrior communities in India. This article also shows the U.K. in poor light for its former acts on colonies in this time of globalization. The article is also a matter of copyright violation, where the content has been picked up from another article and large parts are ambiguous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah B. Smith (talk • contribs) — Noah B. Smith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  1. ^ Social Science 10 Standard. Bangalore: Karnataka State Government. pp. 28–37.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith[edit]

Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith (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 film, could only find a single review (of questionable notability). All other references are just minor mentions. Also full of original research CiphriusKane (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree. Here is the dropbox link of the pdf printout for then coverage from the reliable source known as Daytona News Journal report: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j7vviqb565dfddk/Kingdom%20of%20Dust%20Daytona.pdf?dl=0 that clearly described the facts of the premiere. The original URL no longer works due to the dire funding issues here in US local news across the country. The pdf printout downloaded from dropbox is from Factiva. I beg for mercy and can kowtow to the nominator if this make them happy. Please keep this page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermann (talk • contribs) 14:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Sir! Was the comparison to Buried really not supported in the "60 Minutes With" text? "The low budget constraints are visible here within the one set, but much like (the bigger budget) ‘Buried‘ which was predominantly filmed in a far smaller set, the limitations do not hinder the progression of the narrative." Thanks. Supermann (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison was presented in the WP article without proper context and in my view was deceptive. The comparison between the films was to how the narrative unfolded: "the limitations do not hinder the progression of the narrative." but the statement that I removed made it seem like the comparison was related to the quote which was from the following paragraph CiphriusKane (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have improved it without removing Buried? "Deceptive" is a very strong way to put it. Are we back at not assuming good faith? I thought the author was coherent and did not hinder my reading comprehension. Both are quotes essentially. I just didn't want to make it too long, so I paraphrased it. And I don't think I took his words out of context. Ultimately, it doesn't seem like he was UPE and tried to give a 5 out of 5 for Hogan or the movie. Supermann (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What has UPEs got to do with anything? And yes, it was deceptive, as the way it was written it made it look like the comparison to Buried was about the acting rather than the narrative. And I am getting quite fed up of being accused of assuming bad faith every time we disagree CiphriusKane (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was not an out of context comparison to acting. It's a comparison to the whole movie experience. UPE has to do with COI. I didn't "original research" this 60 Minutes With review. Djm-leighpark found the URL. And I saw Buried last night. I only comment on things I have experienced. And we agree to disagree. I wouldn't use terms like deceptive to describe another editor. I have not used such term in any of my interactions. All I want to do is to sing Kumbaya with my fellow Wikipedians. Supermann (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UPE stands for Undisclosed Paid Editor (WP:UPE). Paid editing is a conflict of interest, but not all conflicts of interest are paid editing. Someone cannot be a paid editor, disclosed or undisclosed, if they are not editing the articles in question here on Wikipedia, so UPE has nothing to do with the author of a review on another website. You should understand this already, as it's been explained to you repeatedly (as early as 2017). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When one is on the receiving end of wikipedia:casting aspersions and Wikipedia:Harassment by fellow Wikipedians, I would like to do everything I can to prove I am not UPE. Supermann (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - oddly, despite not being a copy at Archive.org, there is a copy of that Dayton reference right now in the Google Cache here, which I've archived at Archive.org here. Nfitz (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. Local news has been dying for a long time now. Supermann (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being added to online streaming platform(s) after the fact is not a "re-release". Online streaming is a form of home video; it's not a re-release -- it's just broadening the home-viewing market. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Oscars now accept nominations from streaming platforms and have awarded films that never got shown in the physical movie theaters. Times have changed thanks to the pandemic. Please see 94aa_rules.pdf (oscars.org). Thanks. Supermann (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop WP:BLUDGEONING, side-stepping, and posting irrelevant walls of text. Being added to online streaming platform(s) after the fact is not a "re-release", it's just broadening the market, the same as with any form of home video. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I have decided to remove my !weak keep vote and will slide to neutral; I might be inclined to go delete possible TOOSOON. But I've certainly got better things to do than concern myself with the nuances. 09:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

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

  • Comment on the reviews The nom and myself have commented that the Richards review from BluePrintReview (not to be confused with the publication that has a Wikipedia article) is of questionable notability. The 60 Minutes With... Podcast also seems to be of questionable notability. Reviews to establish notability for a film themselves have a bar of notability to meet, see WP:NFSOURCES. I cannot find an editorial board for the former, which doesn't allow establishment of a reliable publication process. The latter is noted to be a team of hobbyists, which lends itself to fail as a reliable source for reviews to establish notability. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blueprintreview does not even cite any sources on its own creation. It is not even as notable as this film itself. It should be AfD and yield the spot to Blueprintrev which still publishes to this month. Yes, the Blueprintrev I did cite is not the NYTimes for sure, but considering Justin Richards' review of the film, 2.5 out of 5 stars, one can tell he wasn't bought by the production company/distributor or there is Chequebook journalism here. Not sure why we keep this dark world view of guilty of being unrealiable until proven reliable. A simple solution is to watch the film and see if the reviews' unflattering description is merited. But I guess we just won't do that. Instead, we have to debate about reliable sources endlessly. This is fundamentally wrong in my view. Dave at "60 Minutes With" also says, "None of us get paid for this, and it is a hobby that we all do because of our love of movies, video games, music and live events." And that's exactly my passion too, though probably not live events, given the tickets are expensive. Supermann (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that would constitute original research CiphriusKane (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That meaning Blueprintreview that doesn't cite sources? Yes. It's original research thru and thru. Supermann (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A simple solution is to watch the film and see if the reviews' unflattering description is merited." This would constitute original research CiphriusKane (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." It doesn't say to completely ignore or rule out watching the film which is the primary source. Supermann (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for your "citations needed" on "With footage from BBC Motion Gallery and Getty Images, the movie was filmed at Shepperton Studios of England," it's in the movies' end credits. As it rolls, it says, "Special thanks to Christopher Gibson & BBC Motion Gallery; Josh Rucci & Getty Images...Filmed at Shepperton Studios, England." As said before, I don't comment on things I haven't seen. Supermann (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Self-published web sources (bloggish review sites, personal film-review sites, user-contribution sites [that don't even give last name of the so-called "reviewer"]) are not reliable independent coverage. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage from any major review sites or other reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:30, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niv Sultan[edit]

Niv Sultan (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:NACTOR, WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 02:21, 31 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) 06:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aldersley High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aldersley High School (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 and WP:ORG. No significant coverage. Schools are supposed to proof their notability, they are not automatically notable, as per this 2017 RFC The Banner talk 12:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references in the article are subpar and the other stuff I could find was a few name drops in a couple of school directories. Plus brief mentions in articles about other things. For instance the principle being banned from the school and the usual trivial COVID related news that most schools have right now. I don't think any of that is enough for this to be notable though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily enough sources to satisfy GNG, as with any other secondary school in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have expanded this article and feels it more than meets GNG standards. -- Bleaney (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 11 sources of which two government listings, four times the own website, two links to a pages about a disgraced vice principal (but not about the school), one passing mention (opposite of ...). I am in doubt about the source about cycling. Only the minimal source 9 about the growing school might be worth something but is on its own not enough to confer notability. The Banner talk 09:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added an additional reference. It is also likely the school has received coverage in local and print press that is no longer accessible online. NemesisAT (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, I have removed the double text and added the source to the already existing text and sources. One extra source for the same fact really enhances the notability (not, but okay). The Banner talk 22:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm unsure why you removed the text I added. The expansion in 2013/14 was a different project to whatever happened in 2019. NemesisAT (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as sources meet the GNGJackattack1597 (talk) 12:23, 21 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. Sandstein 20:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacroDroid[edit]

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

A mobile app with no indication of notability or significance other than "it exists". Self-sourced, too. — kashmīrī TALK 09:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 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. Sandstein 09:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sankalpa[edit]

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

A dictionary word without significant coverage in general media. Only has passing mentions and fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given sources are online dictionaries or books on special topics. The sources used only provide passing mentions. The first line sourced to a Sanskrit dictionary, from the second para the article gets into poorly sourced gibberish like "It is a great delusion, a mental and physical sickness,", sourced to a "song book". Venkat TL (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Behind the moors (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A copyright violation investigation has been launched on the articles by the creator at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20211117 and the creator has now been blocked. Venkat TL (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I came to this article following another nomination from this nominator with a very similar theme. Can the nominator talk through the WP:BEFORE checks that were done before flagging this article for deletion? This to me is a lazy nomination where there is a vague reference to General media. What does that mean? You are less likely to see content on this topic in The Guardian or The Washington post, but, books specific to the topic should be examined. Also, if the nominator perceives some text as Gibberish, they should feel empowered to WP:BOLD and fix the encyclopaedia. Not a lazy nomination for an AfD. Ktin (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please talk about the subject of the AfD and not the nominator. WP:BEFORE was done and no source was found to justify a Wikipedia article. Your own searches seem to have ended up in similar manner, hence the comment on AfD nominator. The criteria of WP:GNG is not met when this word could only gather passing mentions. The article has been nominated on AfD as the topic lacks notability, and not necessarily because the article contains gibberish junk and WP:OR Venkat TL (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Without an analysis being done on the sources that have been referenced this is a sham of an AfD nomination. The nominator is better served by analyzing some of the offline sources being referenced, lacking which I would recommend that this AfD be speedily closed. Ktin (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You should read WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR Venkat TL (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly recommend the nominator to withdraw this above comment which seems to be made in violation of WP:AGF. Ktin (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It contains WP:MEDRS violating claims like "the body and the mind becomes charged with special waves that make a person self-confident, resolute and motivated."Venkat TL (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely nonencyclopedic in its current state; patched together from sources that are not necessarily discussing the same subject. I imagine an article could be written here, but given the issues with inappropriate synthesis, this would require starting from scratch in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna (captured ships)(1805 - 1812)[edit]

Fortuna (captured ships)(1805 - 1812) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overly specific list that fails WP:SALAT. Move over, one-eyed horse thieves from Montana. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:07, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Ayoubi (composer)[edit]

Mehdi Ayoubi (composer) (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 existing sources are not reliable and independent. 106.168.123.161 (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC), in Special:Diff/1055154381/1055180732[reply]

The article creator, Melikason, is blocked for sockpuppetry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep adminstrator in this version have said that Special:diff/1054607433/1054674817 (declined, this is not block evasion (created before the master account was blocked))So the creation of the article by socks was rejected by the adminstrator.contest PROD, the article is too substantial to be deleted without prior discusison IMO.Special:diff/1054789999/1054837410 this is another user comment that has reverted the IP edit. he has won two prestigious music awards in the awards section it also has good coverage in news sources.--5.124.76.235 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC) ::IP above is a sock of User:Hoseinkandovan, who also flooded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Tajbakhsh (2nd nomination). 106.168.123.161 (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep he provid Wp:SINGER.5.124.92.242 (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not seeing any reliable source with WP:SIGCOV, just press releases and discographies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedly Delete I agree with Ohnoitsjamie, There is no Reliable Sources Either. Chip3004 (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no coverage in independent sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:57, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cargo ships[edit]

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

Worthless incomplete list. There have been many many thousands of cargo ships over the centuries, this is just too general to be of any use to a user Lyndaship (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well that would have some merit but I can't see how a bot could be made to do it. The ideal field would be class and type in the general characteristics info box however many ships articles do not have it filled in, secondly it's a free text field so sometimes you just have just the class listed there but no type and thirdly there re a profusion of different descriptions listed - reefer, container ship, tanker, gas carrier, freighter, bulk carrier, livestock carrier, vehicle transporter, VLCC etc etc. As this would change the list totally perhaps WP:TNT applies until such time someone has the interest to create a bot which could do it. Btw thanks for removing the ships which don't have articles but really every entry needs review - there are Ocean Liners, Fishing Trawlers and generic types listed there Lyndaship (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It has already been "split out into different smaller lists", some of which are already in Lists of ships. The existing (and new) cargo ship lists could be placed in a subsection of commercial vessels, rendering this list unnecessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Convert to a list of lists per Thryduulf. “cargo ship” is one of the three primary categories of large water vessel alongside passenger ship and warship. To say a list of every known current and past cargo ship, or even every notable one, is overly broad is a gross understatement. Dronebogus (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Delete voters seem unfamiliar with concept of lists in Wikipedia, and in particular wp:CLNT i think. The topic of cargo ship is notable. Some (many) cargo ships are notable. It does not make sense to cover them all in the cargo ship article. It is better to split them out to a list-article. The huge size of this list goes to show some importance has been obvious to others. Dropping the list would violate concept that lists and categories and navigation templates are complementary. Basically, a arge category -> list is justified. List can include redlink items and sources and discussion and photos. It would be fine for someone to develop this more, but it should obviously be kept. --Doncram (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your logic doesn’t make much sense. It’s big, so it must be important? Both individual cargo ships and cargo ships as a whole are notable, therefore it has WP:INHERITED notability? Lists can theoretically carry more information than categories, therefore one that doesn’t and probably won’t should be kept? Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you don't make sense, and you don't understand AFD guidelines. If you think the list-article is not good as it is, that means you could tag it and call for development and participate at its Talk page. The current state of an article does not determine notability of the topic. You are misapplying wp:INHERITED. There's nothing inherited here. The topic of cargo ship is notable. And a list of cargo ships is notable. Did you perform wp:BEFORE and look for sources on the topic? Of course you did not. Of course there are zillions of sources, many included in the articles that this list links to.
      • Further, you claim the list is overly broad? Well, that is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to participate in editing, for example to subdivide the list in a different way, or to give the list multiple columns which are sortable. Another editor suggests wp:TNT; please see wp:TNTTNT, an essay to which i contributed, which explains why wp:TNT is almost always wrong (main exception being copyvio, not present here). --Doncram (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is a reason to participate in editing— namely converting the article to a list of lists per Thryduulf. Prettying up the article as you suggested isn’t going to make it less overly broad. But I don’t see how “it’s a notable topic therefore literally everything written about it on WP must be notable” isn’t just saying “it’s inherited”. Dronebogus (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is an AFD calling for deletion of the list-article, which I opppose; Thyrduulf's suggestion of an approach for editing could be pursued without the AFD, and the AFD should be closed "Keep" in my opinion, though perhaps with a call for editors to pursue some improvement program. Dronebogus, you don't need to reply to every comment that disagrees with you, and it is basically rude in AFDs to do so. But, you are spouting nonsense as far as I can tell. You suggest you are paraphrasing me with "'it's a notable topic therefore literally everything written about it on WP must be notable'". What??? I think you are suggesting that writing in Wikipedia can be Wikipedia-notable so there should be articles in Wikipedia written about Wikipedia articles, nonsense. I am glad you seem to agree you don't see what wp:inherited means and how it can be sensibly used in AFDs. I don't care to receive further comment from you, and if you do go on, I probably won't reply further. --Doncram (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:SALAT most certainly applies. May as well have a list of people named "Smith" or "Jones" in English speaking countries. A list of lists has some slight merit. Palmeira (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as it remains a list of ships with wikipedia articles, which to me would satisfy notability and also limit the length. Also beneficial to readers in terms of navigation. Rhino131 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more in the scope of categories than of useful lists, and current scope is impractical. However, it should be possible to salvage the content by splitting into more specific lists, which could be types of cargo ship, and renaming to list of lists, so modify and keep. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: All of the Liberty ships lists were up for deletion back in 2008, I recall. Now, the number of Liberty ship lists could/should be reduced by combining into just one or two lists now. It was I who combined numerous more ones, perhaps 26 in total, e.g. "List of Liberty ships (A)", etc. into those 5, and made them sortable, back in 2008! Also there was a duplicate system of lists by their numbers rather than names, which I felt could be eliminated if I made the lists sortable, and that went over okay. To find any specific number, you'd have to sort or search in 5 lists. (Here is the list of A ones, just before I started making edits. That was back when there was guideline that no Wikipedia article should be more than 100k i think. --Doncram (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:SALAT as too broad. The sheer number of cargo ships from the sailing era...staggering. Llammakey (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are a lot more specific than “cargo ships”. At the very least this list should be categorized by type— i.e. bulk carrier, container ship, tanker, etc. Dronebogus (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep everything currently in the list is clearly notable as they all have articles, and it's not a particularly large list. It seems useful and in the spirit of WP:STANDALONE. In fact it's small by most list article standards. I do think it should be qualified more though to stop people adding non-notable ships to the list. It does however need an inclusion criteria in the top description such as "list of notable cargo ships", and ships without a Wikipedia article will be deleted or the like, it can't just be "list of cargo ships". Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The project should consider an across-the-board purge of all 'list' articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While that is an option, that is not a reasoning for this article. While our policies and guidelines, and even the main MOS, supports the creation of standalone list articles saying they should all go isn't a valid reasoning to delete this one. If you wish to change our guidelines and MOS you can by all means have that discussion in the appropriate place and try and change it across the project. However while the project as a whole supports such articles, this isn't a policy or guideline reason to delete this one. Canterbury Tail talk 18:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm content, to let the AfD closer evaluate my 'delete'. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Thryduulf, Convert to a list of lists. The topic is unquestionably notable but is too broad as it stands, so it needs to be divided up. The impossibility of handling a single list is no doubt the reason why such a small number of ships have actually been included in the list to date. Subsidiary lists would of course each be smaller and more manageable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SALAT which says we should split lists that are too big, it's not a policy that supports deletion of this article. Splitting should take place, but it's not within the remit of AfD to require it, especially as it may take time and lengthy consideration including further discussion on the article's talk page. It's not something we should mandate action on with any kind of time limit. ----Pontificalibus 08:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nobody(?) is saying that more specific/manageable lists wouldn't work (there are some already). It's just that trying to somehow salvage the content in this list, rather than blowing it up and starting afresh (WP:TNT), would be more work than it's worth. And there's already Lists of ships, which has plenty of room for these other lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and convert to list of lists per Thryduulf and Dream Focus. Broad list topics can be kept as valid navigational lists per WP:LISTPURP which seems to be the case here. Turning this into a list of lists would be better for navigation than a very long list of notable cargo ships. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of DC Comics characters: I. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impala (DC Comics)[edit]

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

Fictional comic book hero, rather minor. The article has no section on reception/significance, and my BEFORE found nothing except brief mentions in passing and the occasional short fictional biography, nothing that meets WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. She exists but is not notable. At best I think we can redirect her entry to Global Guardians or List of DC Comics characters: I. Note: SOFTDELETE is preferred, of course (just redirect, don't hide the history). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:27, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Edwards[edit]

Jerome Edwards (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:BASIC. Tuskegee Airman killed in a training accident who never deployed overseas. Sources are unreliable (CAF), passing mentions or relate to a mural memorializing him and his brother.


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://cafriseabove.org/jerome-thompson-edwards/ Yes No The source is an unreliable User contribution site Yes ✘ No
https://www.theintelligencer.net/news/community/2020/05/legacy-of-2-tuskegee-airmen-from-steubenville-honored/ Yes Yes No passing mention only ✘ No
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/clementsead/umich-wcl-F-158edw?view=text Yes Yes No The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail, more about his brother ✘ No
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementTuskegeeBillSigned04112006.html Yes Yes No about the Congressional Gold Medal awarded to the Tuskegee Airmen in 2006, not about him ✘ No
https://sewickleycemetery.com/the-tuskegee-airmen-memorial/ Yes Yes No listing on a memorial site ✘ No
Tuskegee Airmen an illustrated history Yes Yes No not actually mentioned ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

about 150. Mztourist (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that about the average # of airmen bios, for all air groups? GoodDay (talk)
I really don't know, we don't usually have such large numbers of pages created for airmen from a specific group/background. This seems to be a very U.S. phenomenon, like pages being created for everyone who featured in Band of Brothers (miniseries). Some Users apparently believe that every Tuskegee Airman is notable Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet GNG, the collective Congressional Gold Medal doesn't meet the individual award expectation of ANYBIO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment https://www.heraldstaronline.com/news/local-news/2019/09/tuskegee-airmen-mural-in-downtown-steubenville-takes-flight/ He's in a mural someone painted, but not much in that article written about him. “My grandma said he was so insistent on flying his own plane, he didn’t want anyone to test his plane,” Caroline Edwards said. “He wanted to test it himself. He took off and it malfunctioned." I guess he died before he could accomplish anything worth writing about. Dream Focus 18:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Tuskegee Airmen. Per Mztourist's analysis, there is not a lot of good sourcing in the article already; per my own newspaper archive searches, there is not a lot of good sourcing to be found and added. I did add one source; most of what I could find was about his unfortunate death. I must confess that this doesn't seem like too bad of an article, and I'm confused as why Tuskegee airmen are the locus of so much drama around here lately — but I can't really justify !voting to keep it. jp×g 20:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG, in the currently used sources, and my WP:BEFORE is not turning up anything but passing mentions lacking SIGCOV. He was one four Tuskegee pilots to die in training accidents from May-June 1943, and "died in a training accident" is relatively tragic but undistinguished event, especially considering his entire military career was a few months or years of being in training. Aside from the street mural there doesn't seem to be much lasting or greater than usual interest in this person over other pilots. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BASIC is not met as the available sourcing offers very little non-routine or in-depth coverage. Avilich (talk) 14:33, 21 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 , nomination withdrawn. Star Mississippi 14:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Span's Cultural Gallery[edit]

Span's Cultural Gallery (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 of notability. No coverage at all except for the cited 58-word description in a now-dead online travel guide from 2003. No snippet matches in Google Books, which should be the case were it notable enough to be included in Lonely Planet or other guidebooks, even if it later closed down. Paul_012 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't appear to exist anymore and never met NORG or GNG anyway. Retswerb (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The gallery location is moved thus not easy to find. Google its telephone number 532-2733 found this [13] and using the same Thai name "ศูนย์สปัน อารยวัฒนศิลป์" found some more of matches. It's new name appears to be "สปัน แกลเลอรี่" and googling that finds coverage by Manager Online [14], True ID [15], Komchadluek [16] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, nice detective work! (I had actually tried searching with the phone number, but made the mistake of adding the modern 02 prefix and thus naturally found nothing.) Thanks for finding those. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw and keep, per Lerdsuwa's findings. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:00, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomomi Jiena Sumi[edit]

Tomomi Jiena Sumi (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 a voice actress who has had multiple roles but I don’t see any in depth coverage in independent sources. The sources in the article are cast lists, an interview, social media and passing mentions. There may be other sources in Japanese I haven’t found. Mccapra (talk) 09:11, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoxall, Colorado[edit]

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

Likely not notable (WP:NGEO), may be a hoax. Only thing I could find in GNIS was a ditch. https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/55e239de-f2fe-5c77-9723-31b9006d77df/summary wizzito | say hello! 07:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete it does appear to have been a Union Pacific Statio; however, I cannot truly verify this as the book that appears to have this content, "Official Freight Shippers Guide and Directory of Union Pacific Railroad" is not digitized and not, to the best of my knowledge, available in any form online. In fact, the nearest library to me which has this book is over 500 miles (800 km) away, having said that, even if it was a train station that is abandoned and is only mentioned in a railroad directory, it is certainly not notable under WP:GEOLAND. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 03:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I found this 1906 gazetteer [17] which also describes it as a "station in Weld County on Union Pacific Railroad". Barring better documentation it appears to fail to meet our standards. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete sources do not meet WP:V. - Scarpy (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All sources point to this being nothing more than a railroad station siding, nowhere close to GNG-level coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 17:15, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas New[edit]

Thomas New (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 genealogy entry, looks like this was a person but likely not one of note: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/15525949 wizzito | say hello! 07:30, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Park, Bucks County, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

It's a youth camp and a road, not a community by any means: http://www.highlandparkcamp.org wizzito | say hello! 07:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 07:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 07:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of legal recognition. No evidence of a WP:GNG pass through multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Concur with nom. This is a "non-profit, multi-denominational Christian organization" (from their website) summer camp. It could be potentially notable as an organization (but it isn't) and definitely is not a populated place per GEOLAND. Note that Highland Park is also one of 41 neighborhoods in Levittown, Pennsylvania, about 30 miles away, also in Bucks County. This could redirect to there, but I don't believe there are redirects for the other 40 neighborhoods nor should there be. MB 15:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. –dlthewave ☎ 20:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be simply a summer camp. A redirect to Levittown is a possibility. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 12:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grozny (horse)[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage, notability not established for generic horse that won a single minor race Reywas92Talk 04:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 04:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in this case, the horse won a race that is very significant in Peru. (It is akin to one of the Triple Crown Races in other nations) The problem is there are a couple other horses with the same name plus all the sources on this horse are in Spanish —and no one at WP:Horse racing apparently is fluent. Do not conflate sourcing with notability. This is a problem for athletes in the global south generally, not just racehorses. Montanabw(talk) 04:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability – WP:GNG – is absolutely based on sources, and there is no automatic notability without significant coverage. A "presumption" can be rebutted by the lack thereof. If you're attributing notability purely on this one race, it could redirect there instead. Reywas92Talk 14:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • significant coverage would be in the sports press of Peru, And sourcing is an ongoing issue for all topics in the global south.Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Montanabw. Skyerise (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Montanabw.Lankyant (talk) 00:15, 23 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. Procedural close; with a very well attended AFD and DRV supporting a keep in the past month (and no new rationale) this nomination is out of order. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Brandon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Let's Go Brandon (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 pass RECENT or LASTING. We can revisit in 6+ months if it persists. soibangla (talk) 03:52, 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 keep. SouthernNights (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys-Vikings Rivalry[edit]

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

There is no demonstration of an actual rivalry between these two teams. The fans don't look forward to their matchups any more than those against any of their other non-divisional opponents, and any famous games between them can be covered in individual articles, provided notability can be satisfied for those. – PeeJay 02:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • BeanieFan11 found several sources. And I am sure a more comprehensive database of newspapers and magazines from the 1970s would turn up more. Rlendog (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Herschel Walker trade and that they both were activated as franchises around the same time is the only thing that could really make this a rivalry, but other than that, there's really not much to connect them as rivals otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 08:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per others. Also, the prose content is mostly trivia. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading the entire debate, and seeing some reliable sources, I'm note sure whether I'll still prefer it to be deleted, so switching to neutral, but the prose still needs to be fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No rivalry exists between these two teams. This is evidenced by the lack of reliable sources establishing a rivalry. Frank AnchorTalk 14:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Changed to neutral in light of the new sources added by User:Rlendog and User:BeanieFan11. I still think that the term "rivalry" is overused when describing matchups in any sport, but the sources are present to establish there is (or at least was) a rivalry between these two teams. My only objections to this page now fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid deletion argument.Frank AnchorTalk 14:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Perhaps not now, but BeanieFan11's sources validate that a notable rivalry has existed. Rlendog (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per others. This no longer a notable rivalry. If anything, this should redirected to this page.Spf121188 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this POV, but the rest of that part of the article states: "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article." I'm simply thinking that this should be redirected to National Football League rivalries. It's nothing personal. Spf121188 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my vote to neutral, with the caveat that the sources that were presented, though valid, do stress that this rivalry was most prominent in the 1970's, yet the article itself almost exclusively highlights games from 1989-2021. There isn't anything wrong with this in principle, but I think the article just needs to be re-vamped to highlight the matchups during the 1970's. Just my opinion, but I will change my vote to neutral. Spf121188 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. A rivalry is worth keeping if notability exists which was proved in the first source. Rivalries don't have to be currently toxic; they can have historical clout like Brady-Manning. These teams have met 7 times in the playoffs (one of the most played NFL playoff match-ups) and have the Herschel Walker trade and Hail Mary as significant NFL cultural lore events associated with it (most NFL rivalry pages don't have any "lore" associated with). This was considered one of the best NFL rivalries in the 1970's. 3 of their last 4 games have been primetime games which means the NFL views the match-up favorably. I think if this page doesn't survive, than the discussion on AFD will be opened by me on Giants-Packers, Cowboys-Rams, Titans-Ravens, and Giants-49ers. All of these are equivalent to this - a non-divisional match-up with lots of historical match-ups and notability to back it up. Jackmar1Talk 14:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's what my search turned up: this from the Fort-Worth Star-Telegram; this from Inforum.com; this from the Austin American-Statesman; this from Daily Press; this from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram; this from The Missoulian; and this from CBSSports. I'm slightly leaning towards Keep but I'm not completely sure. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, in addition to what I listed above, here is another article describing the teams as "rivals", convincing me that this is a notable topic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They may not be particular rivals now, but they were in the 1970s (as evidenced by BeanieFan11's sources) when one of these two teams played in the Super Bowl almost every year and they played each other in the playoffs four times, including twice in the conference championship game and once in the Hail Mary game. Notability is not temporary. Rlendog (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meeting several times in the playoffs is nice, but it is WP:OR in establishing a rivalry between the two teams. The sources provided do little in establishing a rivalry between the teams, compared to what is required by WP:GNG Frank AnchorTalk 23:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple articles stating that this was a rivalry. That is not OR. That is GNG. These were the dominant NFC teams in the 1970s and anyone who was a football fan then knew they considered themselves rivals, as these articles (and I am sure there were others from 40+ years ago) establish. Rlendog (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are not multiple articles stating that this is a rivalry. There are articles stating that the two teams were competitive in the 1970s, but that's because they were both two of the best teams in the NFC at the time. Whether there was any enmity between them has not been established, and whatever enmity did exist has definitely waned by now. As I said further down, the NFL has been going for so long that you're bound to find periods when any two given teams met on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean they're actually rivals. The Vikings have had some notable games against the Seahawks in recent years (e.g. the Wide Left game), but that doesn't mean that the Seahawks and the Vikings are rivals, just like the Cowboys and Vikings aren't rivals either. – PeeJay 12:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enmity" is a very strong term and I think it is rare that even fierce rivals consider themselves enemies. I agree that the rivalry between the Cowboys and Vikings has waned, but that is irrelevant. They were rivals for a period, as validated by reliable sources that literally call it a "rivalry", and the resulting notability of that rivalry is not temporary. Rlendog (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why you think "enmity" is a strong term, I didn't mean it as such. Either way, as I said, if you create a rivalry article for the Vikings and Cowboys in 2021 based on a tenuous claim of rivalry in the 1970s, you could make a case for rivalry articles for pretty much any pair of teams in the NFL. The Vikings–Cowboys "rivalry" simply is not comparable to the Vikings–Packers or Cowboys–Eagles rivalries, or even those of the Vikings–Lions or Cowboys–Giants. – PeeJay 14:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt you can make a case for rivalry articles about any pair of teams. For example, I am not convinced that the Eagles-Vikings rivalry article is notable. Notable rivalries will generally be teams in the same division that play each other often, teams in the same geographic areas (e.g., Jets and Giants), or teams that are great at the same time and compete multiple times in the Super Bowl or to get to the Super Bowl (Raiders-Steelers, Cowboys-49ers). Some of these are punctuated with particularly memorable games (Hail Mary for Cowboys-Vikings, Immaculate Reception for Raiders-Steelers, The Catch for 49ers-Cowboys) that help solidify the rivalry. But if you could make a case for rivalry articles about any pair of teams then that wouldn't be a problem if it was backed up by enough reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like Rlendong said, they may not be rivals now, but there were three dominant teams in the NFC during the 1970's, the Cowboys, Rams, and Vikings. these three would be in the hunt for the Super Bowl and would win their division almost every year. The Vikings were also on the receiving ends of two extremely import moments in NFL history in both the Hail Mary and the Herschel Walker Trade; both of which are so significant that they received their own articles on this website. So in short, I think this topic is very much deserving of its own article. Vinnylospo (talk) 8:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Those two incidents are significant, that's fine, but I don't think the sources listed above actually support the idea that the Cowboys and Vikings consider each other to be rivals; some of them are even basically the same article (from the Associated Press). They had a brief dalliance, but if you look back in the NFL's 100 years of history, you're bound to find stretches of "rivalry" between any two given teams. Notability may not be temporary (re: User:Rlendog), but you've got to establish notability first. The two incidents mentioned are notable and have their own articles, but the idea that meetings between the Vikings and Cowboys down the years constitute a rivalry is rather ludicrous to me. – PeeJay 21:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just responding to this, it seems its moving closer to 50-50 on keep vs delete but maybe still a slight preference in favor of delete. My only preference is that we let this run its course with the other pages being contemplated with AFD (Cowboys-Rams, Giants-Packers). The key distinction I am trying to make on those pages (because they are analogous to this page) is that we need consistency in whether a page should exist simply because of current heat (think Packers-Bears, Eagles-Cowboys) or whether lore / iconic NFL moments / 70's & 80's rivalries that happened decades ago can justify a page existing. In this match-up, the Hail Mary and Herschel Walker trade are iconic NFL moments. That may be a reason to have this page. It may not either but then we go down the discussion of deleting Cowboys-Rams too based on the same premise. The goal is to be consistent in how we evaluate these rivalries. Jackmar1Talk 14:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion needs to pertain to just the notability of the Cowboys-Vikings rivalry. Should other rivalries be considered candidates for deletion, an AFD can be drafted, but the discussions need to remain separate for each page. (Personally, I can think of a half dozen or so non-divisional “rivalries “ that could be potentially deleted but that is not relevant to the Cowboys-Vikings discussion) Frank AnchorTalk 00:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "maybe still a slight preference in favor of delete" - all the delete !votes claim a lack of sources but were made before a number of reliable sources were uncovered or based on recentism or the current state of the article, so these aren't really based on policy. Rlendog (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources claim that the Vikings and Cowboys were rivals once upon a time based on the fact that they were both competing to be the best team in the NFC, but there's no real claim of an *actual* rivalry. – PeeJay 15:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reliable sources literally call it a rivalry. And here is another. I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make between a "rivalry" and an "actual rivalry" but even if there is a difference, the article refers to the "Cowboys-Vikings Rivalry," not to the "Cowboys-Vikings Actual Rivalry." Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This most recent source has literally nothing to do with the two NFL teams, it pertains to a rivalry between two high school teams in California (nicknamed the Cowboys and Vikings). Frank AnchorTalk 15:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, even if this is a "real rivalry," isn't the purpose of this page to determine whether the rivalry was noteworthy enough to have its own page? I'm a little new to this in particular but that's what I've come to understand. The page notes itself that they've only played 33 games, so maybe this should be re-directed to this page? Spf121188 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Frank Anchor: - you are correct. I was careless with this source but that does not detract from the relevance of the others. @Spf121188: Our guidelines, WP:GNG in particular, set a standard for whether a topic is noteworthy enough to have its own page. That is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. And this rivalry satisfies that. The fact that the rivalry was primarily strong in the 1970s rather than now is irrelevant. The fact that they only played 33 games is not particularly relevant given the importance of some of those games that led multiple independent reliable sources to write about it as a rivalry. Rlendog (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that PoV completely. One thing I'd like to add, is that if this page stays, it seems like it needs a bit of an overhaul. It's generally understood based on what I'm reading that the rivalry was at it's strongest during the 1970's, which is true. Most of the [Moments] part of the article discusses games from 1989-2021, and is in some parts seems to have sensationalized wording, promoting certain players, such as "It was in many ways the introduction to the world of his talents given the stage of the game," referring to Randy Moss. It also needs several citations. Not disputing the raw content about the games, but it does seem to undercut the argument about this being a huge rivalry in the 1970's, since most of what's highlighted are in the decades following. I'm not trying to make this more difficult, just noting my thoughts on the matter. Spf121188 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it needs work but I think a conclusion need to be made on keeping vs deleting before someone puts any more time into it. Jackmar1 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Seven 1970s Rivalries that made the NFL 'Super'. I think this suffers from recentism, i.e. that the rivalry isn't as strong as it once was. A brief query on Newspapers.com also shows a number of reliable sources from the 1970s and 80s calling this a rivalry. Plenty of sources to establish WP:GNG. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • if I'm adding this correctly, the votes are Keep 6 Delete 5. I know these usually stay open 7 days but who decides the "final" decision? It seems very split.Jackmar1Jay 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An AFD is NOT a vote, the content and substance of the votes is much more important than the number of votes each way. The decision is made by a closing administrator who is not involved in this decision. More information can be found at WP:AFD. Frank AnchorTalk 22:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep per the sources provided by BeanieFan11 and their shared history in the 1970's. Barely scrapes by WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:28, 21 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 Direct costs. ✗plicit 13:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specific cost[edit]

Specific cost (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:DICDEF; there is no coverage of this term in and of itself. Qwerfjkltalk 12:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to direct cost: sufficient given text in article for its content to be folded into direct cost and this redirected since these are names for the same concept. Foonblace (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:17, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atmakaraka[edit]

Atmakaraka (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 due Lack of coverage in independent general media. Terminology from Fringe topic and Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given sources are books on WP:FRINGE theory (pseudoscience WP:PSCI). Article makes claims about human nature violating WP:MEDRS Venkat TL (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Where to begin with this nominsation? Well first of all, the page is an awfully written article, but that alone is not grounds to delete it. The FRINGE claim is hard to fathom, the topic is not a fringe theory of Vedic astrology. As far as I can tell, it is a mainstream concept in that field. Articles on pseudosciences such as astrology are not forbidden on Wikipedia, they are perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is treating them equally with the scientific consensus in an article. But this article does no such thing. Invoking MEDRS is just a complete nonsense. No medical claims are being advanced. Would we accept FRINGE and MEDRS as reasons against Virgin birth of Jesus just because we don't believe in the concept? Of course not. NOTDICTIONARY, well yes, the article is NOT a DICTIONARY definition. Finally GNG, there are enough sources that verify this is a notable concept in Vedic astrology;
    • Dinesh Shankar Mathur, Predictive Astrology: An Insight [18]
    • Bangalore V. Raman, Studies in Jaimini Astrology, [19]
    • K S Charak, Yogas in Astrology [20]
    • Mridula Trivedi, T.P. Trivedi, R. Asthana, Astro Equations for Specific Professions, [21]
    • "Moon as Atmakaraka: A Jaimini Appraisal.II", The Astrological Magazine [22]
    • Komilla Sutton, Shodasha Varga: The 16 Divisional Charts of Vedic Astrology, [23]
SpinningSpark 14:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These books/publishers are neither WP:Mainstream nor independent of the subject of astrology, they are books on WP:FRINGE theory (Jyotisha i.e. Hindu astrology). Such sources cannot be used to gauge WP:GNG. Only those aspects with coverage outside the WP:NFRINGE sources are notable and this is not. Please see the old discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). For WP:MEDRS violation, please see the last line of the article. Quote: "'The Rasi and Nakshatra in which the Atmakaraka is placed plays an important role in deciding and determining your true nature ". This is nothing by WP:PSCI garbage. Venkat TL (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are you determining what is mainstream in astrology? It is as ridiculous to reject a book on astrology in an astrology article as it would be to reject a book on physics in a physics article. Reliable sources on science topics are written by scientists, reliable sources on astrology topics are written by astrologers (unless we're discussing evidence for whether it actually works or not). Your MEDRS argument is so laughable I'm not even going to try to reply to it. SpinningSpark 16:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I request you to read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). I could not explain it any better. In short, There is no mainstream in astrology. Only those aspects of Astrology that are covered in mainstream media (not related to astrology) are relevant enough to be covered on Wikipedia. And this is not one. Hence my nomination. If you disagree please present relevant sources from mainstream media and I will withdraw my nomination. Please read WP:NFRINGE too. Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are really enough results in Google Books that make this subject notable. Shankargb (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shankargb passing mentions in books on fringe topic does not count as significant coverage that is needed for WP:GNG. If you have seen books on mainstream topics covering this in detail, then please share and I will withdraw my nomination. Venkat TL (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No out-of-universe coverage. The idea that we should accept books about astrology written by astrologers because we accept books about physics written by physicists is not tenable. Physics is a generally accepted mode of inquiry with clear standards for truth and falsehood. Astrology is not. Likewise, I would not accept a phrenologist's treatise on phrenology. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Spark's excellent analysis and search for sourcing. I'd also support a redirect to Hindu Astrology if a sub-section was created there. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 21:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's already "Karaka (astrology)" dab entry on Karaka which redirects to Hindu_astrology#Bhāvas – houses where it is handled in a single sentence. Which I see as indication of it's non-notability (this is one among a list of karakas, as I understand it) Hemanthah (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is irrelevant what another Wikipedia article says – that cannot be used as a guide to notability since Wikipedia is inherently unreliable by our own definition. The karakas referred to in that article are planet-house associations which are fixed associations. The subject of this article is about one of a different set of karakas; planet-zodiac sign associations. These are not fixed associations but vary from chart to chart depending on the position of the planets in the heavens. These are not discussed at all in Hindu astrology. SpinningSpark 09:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mainly pointing out that a dab and redirect exists where this might go and I wasn't clear, sorry. Atmakaraka, being one among a list of Karakas as Hindu astrology and other sources say, is IMO an indication of non-notability.
    I've argued non-notability deeper in my delete comment. May be you could address that? In brief, if it is one among a list of Karakas, which themselves are attributes of planets and handled so in every source you listed in a couple of paragraphs of chapters on planets, it's hard to see it as notable. Hemanthah (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll expand at your main comment. I'll just say here that merging into an article on karakas in general is not such a bad idea. This article already goes off at a tangent and lists the other Chara karakas. It could be moved as is with a slight tweak to the lead sentence. SpinningSpark 17:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for much the same reasons as Gandanta. Sources from within the fringe bubble are not the reliable documentation we need in order to establish the notability of the topic and write about it in a properly encyclopedic way. And even if the notability of the topic were established, the text is in such a state that WP:TNT would be warranted. XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see it covered as notable concept from the refs or the books Spark listed. There's no specific chapter for it, let alone for Karakas (this is one in a list of Karakas, I gather) in the books. Even the number of mentions is small - in 7 paras in >400 page Mathur book, for eg. The para in BV Raman book with Atmakaraka bolded is a dicdef (Trivedi and Sutton books are not used as sources anywhere on en-wiki, so I didn't check them)
    • Mentions of Sanskrit terms in english books can't be used for GNG. For eg, BV Raman book shows 17 hits for Kendra - which just means center. It can't be used to conclude that Kendra is a notable concept in Jyotisha.
    • From what little I could glean from this page, it is an attribute of planets. Books cover it as such - under chapters on planets. So I see this as having en-wiki entry for Gaseous or Dwarf - as specific to planets, apart from their general definition - which makes no sense. Hemanthah (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not an attribute of planets, it is more along the lines of aspect (astrology) in Western astrology, although I don't think "aspect" as such exists in Hindu astrology as far as I know. The information in my sources ultimately comes from Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra or some other similar ancient text. In that text it explicitly states that the Atmakaraka is the most important karaka, and some of my sources directly cite that passage. It is covered over two pages in this transcription (but to be fair, half of that is translation and notes.) SpinningSpark 17:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for not linking to the relevant page in the source, I can't get that to work. It's on pages 317 and 318. SpinningSpark 09:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've got it. I'm trying to see if I can expand Hindu Astrology Planets and Bhavas sections and merge info in this page there, but the topic is dense for me, so it's taking a while. (If you or somebody else would like to do that, that'd be great too, please go ahead). Hemanthah (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a brief para under Hindu astrology#Grahas – planets.
    It's not aspect - as the quotes from sources show. Some other chapters regarding angles have been translated as aspect, which also indicates that this refers to something else.
    I still see this as similar to Kendra. Karaka, from Karana, meaning something that causes/produces. BPHS etc all use it in that sense. So I don't really see why the rest of this page needs to survive. Hemanthah (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG based on the sources linked by Spinningspark (talk · contribs). SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub-ify I checked two of those sources, and there's nothing there beyond a definition. I removed all the unsourced material and was left with one sentence. I see no reason to delete that; Glossary of Hinduism is not a good merge target and Glossary of Hindu astrology is a redlink. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored that. I agree a lot needs to be done to make this into an acceptable encyclopaedia article, but that stubification completely lost the sense that the atmakara is one of the planets, let alone which one it is in a given chart. It completely lost the information that this is the most important of a number karakas. In short it turned a bad article into a meaningless one. It certainly should not have been done while the AfD was still ongoing. SpinningSpark 07:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    力 Powera, now you know why Stubify is not listed as an option on WP:AFDR. We are here to discuss the notability of the article. If the arcane word of fringe theory fails to garner more than a passing mention then it clearly fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. That is a sign to delete. See WP:NOTDICT. @Hemanthah has explained his opinion very clearly and I agree with his findings and suggestion. --Venkat TL (talk) 15:22, 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. Even though many participants in the discussion did not say "delete", the consensus about failing WP:V seems clear. Geschichte (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Vayner[edit]

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

Hello! I am proposing this article for deleting because I am quite sure that it is a hoax. Evidence that I gathered tells me that every fact apart from real name of the person (Zinovi Arnoldovich Vayner) was made up by author. First of all, in sources "Розстріляне відродження: Антологія 1917—1933: Поезія — проза — драма — есей" (it's just compilation of poetry), "Простір свободи. Україна на шпальтах паризької "Культури"." (this book has just 266 pages, not 528 as said in the article), "Енциклопедія історії України" and "These horrible words: Solovki, Sandormokh" that are cited in the article, there is no mention of such architect "Igor Vayner". I could not find online copy of book "Novoselitsa Synagogue", so I cannot tell anything about it. Next thing is factual inaccuracies: it says that Igor Vayner was "close friend of Mykola Zerov" and even was arrested with him in Vinnitsya by the NKVD. Mykola Zerov is real person and he really was arrested by NKVD but in Kyiv near Moscow (thats my mistake, sorry), not in Vinnitsya. It says that Vayner was listed among the architects of National Palace of Arts. Author of this article, maybe, put this information, because real architect of Palace was uk:Вайнер Ілля Гершович (Ilya Vayner; completely different person with the same surname). Also it says that street in Vinnitsya was named after Vayner but there is no such street. Why would anyone do that? In book titled "Реабiлiтованi iсторiею. Вiнницька область. Книга 1" there is mention of Zinovi Arnoldovich Vayner who was agent of NKVD but in 1937 was sentenced to death because of some reasons. Maybe, in such way, someone tried to "change history" by creating fake person with the same name but different life choices. The only unknown thing to me is photo: I could not find out where exactly it came from. P.S. Article in Ukrainian was translated from English and will be nominated for deletion as well. Renvoy (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, I searched in Russian and I only find a KGB officer with this name and years of birth/death [24]. The bio seems to be a hoax and needs to be deleted. Even if some things are not a hoax it is impossible to separate them from whatever was made up. One probably needs to look at the article creator more closely.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPD: Today I recieved all avalible materials on case of Zinoviy Vayner from State Archive. Long story short, my initial assumption was correct: bio of real person is completely different from the story in the article. Vayner was an electrician, not architect. Later he was studying in so called "High Party School", not Chernivtsi National University and so on and so on. Real bio of person is described in these, these, these and these documents from the case (in Russian). Some other materials on the case are avalible here.--Renvoy (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 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. ✗plicit 13:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzo (desktop environment)[edit]

Mezzo (desktop environment) (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 the UI of Symphony OS whose page was itself deleted due to the OS not being notable. The desktop environment itself does not have and has apparently never had any significant user base, even by the page's own description of it it has no special or innovative distinguishing features over other more notable user interfaces and desktop environments and its inclusion in a non-notable hobbyist OS further confirms its lack of notability. Two of the three references are given to something called "Kuartet Desktop" which the article claims Mezzo inspired, however the links do not support this and no reference is made on them to Mezzo at all so these appear relevant - and this is even assuming that Kuartet Desktop is notable in and of itself, which it isn't since it is itself a minor hobby project that has not had any kind of activity since 2006. Simply put, the page does not meet WP:GNG by any reasonable definition. Foonblace (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete several reasons. Article created by single-purpose account Special:Contributions/TomatoBob whose only other edit was to !vote against deleting the Symphony OS article. Two of the sources appear to be about Kuartet instead of Mezzo. The first source is by Jason Spisak. His article claims he designed Mezzo, and only an anonymous editor in 2009 changed this to say it was instead Ryan Quinn. Quinn appears to have put the source into github in 2016, with no updates since then. Never caught on enough to be notable, at best a one or two person project. W Nowicki (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 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. ✗plicit 13:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samaria (water)[edit]

Samaria (water) (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 brand of water, fails WP:NCORP; no significant coverage to be found. Unsourced (other than to a defunct version of the brand's website) and tagged for notability since 2012. Lennart97 (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_14&oldid=1057017842"