Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 19 November 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to List of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air episodes#Season 1 (1990–91). MBisanz talk 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bang the Drum, Ashley[edit]

Bang the Drum, Ashley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence proves this episode is worthy of an article, which is just plot and cast. Nothing an episode article should have like viewership, feedback from viewers and/or actors, or pre-production or background work. It did not jump start the career of any actor nor did they receive fame or win or been nominated for any awards. Having a notable guest star does not make this episode notable and the article's three sources do not prove it is any different from the show's other episodes. We will not have an article for each one, are we? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Murad Coburn[edit]

Paula Murad Coburn (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:NACTOR; none of her roles are significant enough. She's only known for being the wife and widow of James Coburn. The Film Creator (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: She does not pass WP:NACTOR. Most of the citations on this page come from a website run by a foundation she started with her husband, so not exactly WP:RS. The only reference on her page that is about her and no one else is her obituary. A google search brings up very little. Her filmography is so thin it needs roles like "Reporter #2" to pad it out. There isn't much out there to add to this article, so it doesn't really have "has promise" as a great defence either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asilvering (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Did my due diligence and I can't find any reliable secondary sources that provide WP:SIGCOV. I even used my advanced Newspapers.com subscription and only found passing mentions of the wedding or her appearing in occasional photographs with her husband. Fails WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larysa Poznyak[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG notability. I'm not seeing much significant coverage of her online, either in English or Ukrainian.

Previously, the article made an unsourced claim that she won Miss Ukraine, but I also couldn't find any sources verifying that. Even if she won that award, I'm not sure if it's notable enough on its own without other significant coverage. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. She didn't win Miss Ukraine. She won a beauty contest for children when she was 6. I couldn't find any good sources either. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All GNews pulls up is a TMZ "article". Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any significant coverage in WP:RS that helps her qualify for WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 21:15, 24 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 Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University. MBisanz talk 03:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kanpur[edit]

AfDs for this article:
University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kanpur (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 page clearly warrants a second nomination.

First, there are no references cited in the page. Second, no notability exists with the page and no reliable-independent sources have been cited that show it meets criteria for WP:GNG or WP:ORG; Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And third, there is no indication it meets criteria for WP:UNIN and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. A quick online search leads to the details that it is a department of Kanpur University and not itself a college or university; the word 'university' is sometimes added in the name of schools to mislead even though it is not. So the de facto rule does not apply. This page qualifies for speedy deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid, if it is regarded as a college or university there needs to be reliable, independent sources to validate that. There is none in the article. Notability is not inherited, so because it may be part of a bigger educational body, that does not mean it should be of inclusion in the encyclopedia. If there are references cited confirming that it is a college or university independent from the subject, then it may warrant a redirect, otherwise, a deletion is necessary. Multi7001 (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect has nothing to do about inherited notability, it's an alternative to deletion. Upon looking over WP:RPURPOSE, I meant to state merge to Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University. – The Grid (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is a form of endorsement and inclusion within the encyclopedia. The point is that there is no indication that establishes notability, and as such, it should not be included at all in the encyclopedia. Since there are no references, and it may possibly qualify for speedy deletion, it would require it to be wiped out from the articlespace. Without any reliable sources, there is no way of validating the true nature of the subject (e.g., if it is a legitimate entity or not; no .edu domain extension is used, posing a possible security risk). Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, a merge must be approved based on consensus from other users first, given the nature of the deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 20:40, 19 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) 20:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge selectively into Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, the publicly funded state university of which it is a part. We do not have separate articles for components of universities unless there are sources to support independent notability. The list of departments should be removed and left to the university website. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XiXi Yang[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. All of the sources I could find on her are either paid advertising/press releases,[2][3] or are interviews of / passing quotes from her.[4][5]

The two sources that look the most "reliable" are these: [6][7], but both are from questionable sources (onscreenasia and NewsBytes, not to be confused with Newsbytes) and both sound like they were written by marketing teams.

Seeing as her article was recently edited by a sock (who seemed to be part of a UPE farm), and all of the major edits to the article are by SPAs, I imagine a lot of the information and sources out there are paid for. Whisperjanes (talk) 20:06, 20 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. MBisanz talk 03:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raisa Modorova[edit]

Raisa Modorova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fair enough, but my reading of the article is that she is a woman singing traditional men's songs. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:38, 25 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) 22:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fitil[edit]

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

Russian TV series with no real coverage in reliable sources. --Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like RIA Novosti is listed at WP:RSP as "No Consensus", and the comments state that "RIA Novosti was an official news agency of the Russian government. There is a broad consensus that it is a biased and opinionated source. It is generally considered usable for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability. See also: Sputnik, which replaced the international edition of RIA Novosti." However, the conversation appears to be from 2016 and is considered stale. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it is not about politics.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- sources listed, as well as in Russian article, seem to very clearly meet the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 23:59, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y. V. Phatak[edit]

Y. V. Phatak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of an Indian gynaecologist of uncertain notability. He clearly had a distinguished career but it’s not clear that there were any specific things that would give him a claim of notability. A lot of the sourcing is from family genealogical records and closely affiliated sources. He apparently did not win any honours during his career. Mccapra (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DAV College Road[edit]

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

Unreferenced and non-notable road. Per WP:GEOROAD Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. While it does appear that this is somewhat of an important road in the area, I can't find sufficient sourcing for it to be considered notable, but as I do not have intimate knowledge of Pakistani sources, I'd like to take this to a broader discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:33, 20 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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ROX Desktop[edit]

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

Subject of article is a minor hobbyist window manager with no sufficient install base or evidence of any real notability that has been discontinued for ten years. Subject article's sources are not sufficient in order to establish notability according to GNG. Foonblace (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The LinuxUser (via linux-community.de) reference/note looks solid, but the other RS in the article (AcornUser) is only a short news. I also found this article on pro-linux.de ([11]), but this may be an user submited content. There may be more on RiscOS related sites/magazines (eg. drobe.co.uk which is offline), so I assume the article subject is notable enough for a stand-alone article (my keep would be strong with more sources). Pavlor (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. ROX may be a minority, even moribund, sport these days but it was influential in its day and it was the route by which a number of RISC OS features, such as the taskbar and drag-and-drop app installation, made it to the outside world. We don't use stone axes much either these days, but that is no reason to axe (sic) the article. There is RS out there for ROX, sadly few editors capable of digging it out (cleared out my mags decades ago, darn it). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:08, 27 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 Raise Vibration. MBisanz talk 03:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's Enough![edit]

It's Enough! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
5 More Days 'Til Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to the album article: Raise Vibration. The songs fail WP:NSONG and WP:GNG, with not enough in-depth commentary from sources, which mention it in passing. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ride (Lenny Kravitz song) for a similar article expanded by the same editor which was also redirected to the album. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the two song articles claim to have chart success, but this is not confirmed by the cited sources. For "It's Enough!", the cited source is Lescharts.com which gives a release date but no chart ranking. For "5 More Days 'Til Summer", the cited source is Ultratop.be which also gives a release date but no chart ranking. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Raise Vibration. The French chart position was for the downloads-only chart, not the full official French chart, and even then it only peaked at no. 196. I can't see anything further than Kravitz's press release and the usual announcements of the song's release and "watch the video below" articles. Richard3120 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:21, 20 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. MBisanz talk 03:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Impacts of Disintermediation in Automotive Industry[edit]

The Impacts of Disintermediation in Automotive Industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well, I tried moving this to draftspace, but Hyun01 moved it back. That is there right to do, but as it stands the article still fails WP:NOTESSAY. I hate to do this, but it really should be deleted if it is not dramatically changed.

For the record, we already have an article on Disintermediation. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is awkward. @WhoAteMyButter: You seemed to have moved the article back to draftspace after I already nominated it for deletion. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies here since I already moved it, so I am moving it back to mainspace. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coincidentally, I had just moved it to draftspace at the same time you nominated... do you want me to move it back, or do something else? WhoAteMyButter (📨talk│📝contribs) 05:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good, but we really need to stop with the edit conflicts, haha. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I thought I'd have a look at whether merging it into Disintermediation would make sense and there's actually very little worth porting over, since it's basically that article again with different examples at the end. I'll tinker with Disintermediation a bit right now to move those examples over. -- asilvering (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There, done. The sources in the rest of the article don't look particularly worth keeping, so I didn't look very hard at the differences between the two articles except the bit at the end. If someone wants to save more of it they're welcome to, but I think the effort would be better spent on finding better sources for the material that is already there. -- asilvering (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Phanichkul[edit]

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

Promotional article, barely-cited and not at all to RSes. No evidence of meeting WP:NCREATIVE, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. A WP:BEFORE shows zero RS coverage. Deleted once at AFD already. David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 20 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 draftify. Daniel (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MIFA Allstars Ontario[edit]

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

Spam, WP:NORG failure JohnnyHunt (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that IamJayYas is blocked as a sockpuppet of Billyatthewheels.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify There's major issues with the article as it is, mainly that MIFA is not just a women's team, but an organization with several teams. I've edited the article to try and fix this issue, but there's other issues with COI/UNDUE/REFSPAM that also need to be addressed. I do think the sources provided constitute significant coverage for WP:ORG (especially considering WP:AUD as this is a regional team for Mississauga/Toronto), but the article in its current state is a mess that isn't ready for mainspace. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:13, 20 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. MBisanz talk 03:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Sudhra[edit]

Kali Sudhra (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 porn actor. scope_creepTalk 18:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google search brought up some good citations, including LA Weekly review and ranking. I have improved the article with more citation and info, including from salon.com, Xbiz, Filmmaker Magazine, DESIblitz, and Refinery29. Chelokabob (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chelokabob:None of these new references meet the standard as significant coverage by independent reliable sources. LA Weekly: sponsored promotional content ("Want to be featured here? See our OnlyFans promotion packages.") XBIZ: repackaged press releases (promotional, not independent). DESIblitz: interview (primary source). Salon: quote from the subject (trivial). Filmmaker Magazine: trivial mention. Refinery29: extended quote from subject. The DESIblitz interview indicates possible greater than zero notability, but it's not useful by itself. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit I had not seen the sponsored tag on the LA Weekly article, but it is not evident if the article was not done by LA Weekly writers independently, ranking the actress in the top 25 and even if it was provided by OnlyFans, still it doesn't change the fact that someone has ranked this person in their Top 25 listing. Plus there are still plenty other citations of her, so I'll stick to my keep vote based on that. Chelokabob (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source provided above is trivia, still not good enough. VladimirBoys (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock struck, Sandstein 11:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hey there fellows! Spanish Wikipedia's Wikiproject Sexuality user here. I think you must keep in mind that most of Sudhra's activism was done in Spain, and it's referenced in Spanish media, so you should count it at the time of the deletion decision. She was interviewed and referenced in two Spanish magazines (1, 2), in Primavera Sound's official radio (3), in catalan Ara newspaper(4), she has co-written a book about being a migrant sex worker (5) and also she was noticed for her sex education work in a Mexican magazine (6). Maybe she's not the best known sex worker in the world, but, keeping in mind also Erika Lust's speech on her, plenty of compliments (7, 8), I think she deserves the article.--Su Neutralidad (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of recently presented Spanish-language sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not believe that interviews amount to all that much, as they are primary sources. They can be used to support content in an article, but are not a marker of notability. I see nothing in the non-English sources provided that would swing this to a keep. Zaathras (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed with Zaathras. Unless interviews provide substantial coverage of the subject from the interviewer they cannot contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Su Neutralidad, the Ara article is walled. Aside from that, the only plausibly independent and non-trivial coverage comes from the Metal magazine article. The mujermexico.com article coverage consists of brief mentions and the remaining articles are interviews of the subject or Erika Lust, an associate of the subject, not independent. • Gene93k (talk) 06:55, 25 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) ––FormalDude talk 08:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Militi M.B.1[edit]

Militi M.B.1 (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 concerns. This plane was apparently never mass-produced, and it's unclear from the article whether the one model ever flew. Web search just finds wiki-mirrors. Possibly could be merged to Militi M.B.2 Leonardo, which also has notability issues but is at least mentioned in a few printed works. Bruno Militi is a redlink and I don't see coverage for a biographical article. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't meet general notability standards, but does indeed seem to meet NAIR. Fails WP:GNG. Could only find a single mention in a list of all aircraft ever made. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Militi M.B.2 Leonardo and redirect since Militi M.B.1 article is only stub. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We only put one set of aircraft specifications in an article. A merge would force us to delete one set and focus on the other aircraft. It is not clear to me that that would be appropriate here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I only mean to merge text, not specs table, though mentioning some basic dimensions in text would be good for comparison. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Yes, specs would be lost but they are not so very relevant. Otherwise, Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan olieslagers (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as originator) clearly flew and information was from a reliable source (Janes). Being mass-produced has never been a criteria for aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourced to a highly reliable source so meets notability requirements. Wikipedia covers more than just mass-production aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Jane's is about as reliable as any source gets. The aircraft flew. If Wikipedia was limited to aircraft that saw mass-production many of the most interestion machines would not merit an entry.TheLongTone (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the above three comments. WP:NAIR has long held that if a recognisable type flew then it is notable; these "I didn't realise that" nominations do pop up from time to time. This plane is clearly stated as having flown, as cited from a highly respected reliable source; quite why the OP thinks otherwise is a mystery to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are all party balloons inherently notable as flying devices? User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BURDEN. If you can find RS that says they are, then yes they are. However, until then they are not. I wonder whether you may be confusing the linguistic issue of definition with the encyclopedic issue of notability. See also the associated NAIR talk page discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [Updated 13:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)][reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that WP:NAIR is an essay; editors should discuss whether this article meets policy- and guideline-level inclusion standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. We have five Keep votes, two merge and only the OP's rationale for deletion. While WP:NAIR is indeed a mere essay, it has been endorsed by the Aircraft Wikiproject, used to assess thousands of aircraft articles for over a decade, and stood the test of many challenges such as this one. Do we really need to go over all the old discussions which shaped NAIR in the first place? See for example its talk page. And if we do, then it should be thrashed out on said talk page before coming here, otherwise some Project member will re-implement it for the Militi M.B.1 and y'all will be going round in circles, joy unbounded. Anybody re-assessing the present discussion, please be realistic about this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets GNG. BilCat (talk) 21:59, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Chandra (state commissioner)[edit]

Satish Chandra (state commissioner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a former state commissioner in India: cv-like with routine coverage and no real notability. Mccapra (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: He has good reliable news coverage and was interviewed by top news channels like ETV and DD channels.Chanakya Netha (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Chanakya Netha (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Delete per nomination. No coverages that contribute to notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the citations are mostly mentions, not in-depth. Jaxarnolds (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A regular civil servant. Non-notable. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 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 redirect to Tulip Telecom. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H. S. Bedi (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Founder of a company that has some notability but it is written in a promotional way. But, company's notability doesn't directly translate to his own. Apart from Forbes article and some others on his arrest because of tax evasion, there isn't much that comes out. Fails WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles William Ledbetter[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, non-notable Tuskegee Airman created by an SPA, source analysis follows:


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://logicalthinker2.tripod.com/Tuskegeeaircraft.html No blog about the planes flown by the Tuskegee Airmen No blog No about the planes flown by the Tuskegee Airmen, not him ✘ No
https://gravelocator.cem.va.gov/index.html?cemetery=N901 No unable to assess, dead link No unable to assess, dead link No unable to assess, dead link ✘ No
https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c81j9h4r/ Yes Yes No Two sentences about him ✘ No
https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ213/PLAW-109publ213.pdf Yes Yes No Law relating to the award of the Congressional Gold Medal not about him ✘ No
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/pe/name/charles-ledbetter-obituary?id=27758512 No Apparently published by The Press Enterprise but unclear who actually wrote it No unclear who actually wrote it, reads like a death notice published by his family or the funeral home Yes ✘ 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) 08:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet GNG. I don't even think there's enough reliable information here to do a merge. His WW2 unit is not indicated in any sources (the online finding aid from the California archives source lists subjects but no specific information...which means he might just have had an article clipping or ten about the fighter squadrons). Intothatdarkness 17:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic lacks sufficient coverage to meet BASIC and sufficient individual distinction to meet ANYBIO. Avilich (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Barrows[edit]

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

Biography of an American Civil War veteran, tagged for notability since July, that does not make any claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:30, 20 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 (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 21:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Groote Beer (botter yacht)[edit]

Groote Beer (botter yacht) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks signficant coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited Cometosea and Sailfeed do not appear to be reliable. The first is a defunct personal website, and the second appears to be a blog for a sailing magazine. Seems to rely on the fact that the boat was built for Hermann Goring, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Cannot find significant coverage elsewhere to justify an independent article on this boat. Polyamorph (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources are not as bad as is being made out by the nom. The blog is part of Sail Magazine and is written by the magazine's executive editor Charles Doane. Doane is the author of numerous reliably published books on sailing, for instance The Modern Cruising Sailboat published by Mcgraw-Hill. Thus, Doane is an easy pass for WP:SPS test of reliability. The cometosea page is by Jack van Ommen, also a sailing book author, but mostly self-published as far as I can tell so his page as such cannot be treated as reliable. However, the main purpose of it being there is to link to his articles on the Groote Beer in Spiegel der Zeilvaart and Wooden Boat which are reliably published magazines. Our article has not used any of the personal information from van Ommen's page as far as I can tell (which in any case is very short). Only the reliably published articles have been used. So the references need to be formatted better to make them clearer, but they are not unreliable. SpinningSpark 10:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A self published website and blog are not particularly reliable sources. I stand by my original opinion on these sources. But the additional information about the authors does help, and the additional sources you've added below also help establish there is some coverage in reliable sources (although I would argue only [2] represents significant coverage).Polyamorph (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are acceptable if they meet the conditions laid out in WP:SPS or WP:NEWSBLOG. Have you read those guidelines? If you have, I don't see how you can reject Doane since he clearly meets both. Even van Ommen is a borderline SPS case since he is reliably published directly on the topic of our article in multiple magazines. So if you accept there are now sources, why are you not withdrawing the nomination? SpinningSpark 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not great, of the ones you posted below only one actually appears to represent significant coverage. I might withdraw but would like to see other opinions first. Polyamorph (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Yes of course I have read WP:SPS and WP:NEWSBLOG but as you have also read these you will be aware that they must be used with caution and it is preferable to find alternative reliable sources, especially for establishing notability. Polyamorph (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. More soures [16][17][18]. SpinningSpark 11:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources are clearly sufficient for keep. Nomination can be withdrawn. I recommend a rename to Groote Beer (barge), Groote Beer (yacht), or something of sorts. Current dab is way too detailed. Maybe this choice can introduce some interest into this discussion :-) gidonb (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is also a New York Times article, for the most part behind a paywall.[19]
  • Withdraw nomination, coverage in reliable sources has been demonstrated. Polyamorph (talk) 05:53, 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 Watertown City School District. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case Middle School (New York)[edit]

Case Middle School (New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a public middle school that appears to fail WP:NBUILDING and WP:NGO. It does not appear to have general notability separate from the Watertown City School District, the New York State district by which the middle school is run. I see no reason to have two separate articles. Therefore, I propose that this article be redirected to Watertown City School District, where the school can be adequately covered. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watertown High School has it's own page at the same length of Case Middle School's page, why doesn't that get deleted too? Lallint (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
High schools are much more likely to pass the general notability criteria than pre-secondary schools. At one point, we presumed them to be notable if we could find proof of their existence, though we now require non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (including local print media; see this RfC) as our guideline for high schools. Middle schools and elementary schools, unless there's an exceptional circumstance in which their notability is established as being separate from the district it is under, are typically redirected into the article of their school district. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for more. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the target already identified as this clearly isn't a notable school from what I can tell. The same could probably also go for Watertown High School. Although I'll leave it up to others to decide, but at least redirecting it as well would avoid the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:09, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Kropff[edit]

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

This article on a broadcast journalist does not meet the WP:GNG. Note that the Emmy awards mentioned are regional awards, as is common in this field, and are not notable national awards. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:01, 20 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. MBisanz talk 03:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

33rd Midsouth Emmy Awards[edit]

33rd Midsouth Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pages for individual years of regional Emmy awards (granted by specific chapters of NATAS). These do not confer notability and are overly detailed cruft for the encyclopedia. These are the only such pages of their kind. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

32nd Midsouth Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
31st Midsouth Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
27th Midsouth Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
26th Midsouth Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
24th Midsouth Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
23rd Midsouth Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
22nd Midsouth Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 Southeast Emmy Award winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 Southeast Emmy Awards winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzana Páníková[edit]

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

She exists, but there's no significant coverage I can find either in Czech or English language sources. I could not find any coverage outside of databases. (t · c) buidhe 06:37, 20 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 draftify. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kkatamina[edit]

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

The main source used on this page is through a website called Dexerto, which on many occasions has been deemed unreliable as per WP:VG/S and the current discussion, also seems to conclude that the source is unreliable. Further, the article does not demonstrate much notability for the subject, it only links one RS which is the one used to explain the subject's growth, the rest of links used are either situational ones or just contextual ones, e.g. YouTube & Twitter. As of right now I feel this article is unreliable and should not have been moved to the main space by the author, let me know your thoughts. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 05:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for reviewing the page Delta fiver. I do think the achievement of breaking the world record for most Twitch subscribers ever as a female streamer is extremely notable and surpasses Wikipedia's notability standards. However, the article was written instantly after the record was achieved so there was not widespread media coverage yet. Let me search for and add more sources. While Dexerto does promote sensationalism sometimes, they are one of the few publications that regularly reports on gamers and streamers, and most importantly in this case they are reporting on a fact-based record breaking achievement and thus I think it is reliable for this article. Let me know your thoughts. Catyeo18 (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of issues with the subject, mainly the lack of notability, I understand that there is impending notability through the ongoing achievement but as of now, it is my personal opinion that it should not be in the main space. Further, upon inspecting the sources on the page, I realized that the same Dexerto article was mentioned twice, which I will link once for better review in both parts mentioned. The page on RS conveys in the unreliable sub-section that, if they are mentioned, editors should try their best to replace them, which I don't think could happen in this case, due to there being no articles to do so. The page also states that it provides the current consensus regarding the reliability and usability of specific video game-related sources. so unfortunately, we can't really decide here on what level of reliability the sources provide, it has been determined on various occasions through discussions that, Dexerto mainly creates click bait articles and would thus, just be passing mentions on the Wikipedia. As of now, articles especially in the twitch streamer space, have had Dexerto articles wiped from their pages due to unreliability, see the revision history on Fedmyster. My final issue includes there being four YouTube links and one link to Twitter out of the total eight links, which as primary sources are unreliable, unless they are linked along with an article for context, which isn't the case right now. There have been many articles that have not passed the AFC if they mainly had YouTube and Twitter links as primary sources or as the higher amount of sources in the article. These are my main concerns, thank you. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 06:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response Delta fiver. Is there a list of reputable gaming-related publications that Wikipedia deems approved? I have found more sources that I would like to add to the article to ensure YouTube/Twitter links are not the main sources. Catyeo18 (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi no worries, there is a video game related page with the reliable sources here on the Wikipedia, you can find it here. When on the page, go to the Reliable sources subsection and you will find the names of the reliable sources mentioned in green, while the ones that are situational, are mentioned in yellow. Just wanted to highlight that so far, there is still not much coverage on the subject, regarding the main case for notability and that being the subathon, in my opinion. I understand that it is a great achievement within the space but I don't think it meets the guidelines as yet, atleast until more coverage has been reached to support it being seen as a great achievement. Further I would also like to convey that having a record in something does not always correlate to notability, as subjects like Edison Park, does not have a Wikipedia page for his world record, when he streamed the most hours out of all creators which did not only include males. Another similar example was Ludwig, he too held a record for his subathon, but the difference is he also had external coverage, that helped prove his notability in the community and to the Wikipedia, he was included by Business Insider, Business wire and the US Chess Federation for external aspects. Kindly keep these aspect in mind when making the edits or additions regarding the subject. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 07:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Delta fiver, I have added a lot more secondary sources to Kkatamina's Wikipedia page to show coverage of her and her record-breaking achievement. It includes a few international sources too to illustrate her notability and influence internationally. I have removed all Dexerto references as well. As a long-time writer of Wikipedia and especially the Wikipedia Women in Red project, I truly believe this is a well-supported, well-written article featuring a notable individual who isn't just notable, but an incredible trailblazer for many future women in the field of gaming and one who definitely deserves to be on Wikipedia. I really appreciate your help so far in giving me constant feedback and suggestions on how to improve this Wikipedia page, let me know your thoughts. Catyeo18 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cat I noticed the edits, I commend the good effort put in to establish her notability and I understand how you feel regarding the subject. I truly appreciate your contributions towards adding more articles regarding the great achievements women have undertaken throughout. I surprisingly enough, actually wanted to write an article regarding XChocobars a while back, unfortunately, she wasn't notable enough back then but I noticed that you had written it and if I may add, you have done a great job with making the article. I went through some of the references mentioned and if I have to be completely honest, I'm a little unsure and still not convinced enough regarding the notability, as per the guideline I've been following for gaming related sources here on the Wikipedia. One of the references mentioned on two occasions was by Game Rant, which will have to be removed even though it falls under situational as the guideline requests that it be treated with caution and excluded from BLP pages, which the article falls under. The other referenced sites of Win.GG, Esportmaniacos (in Spanish) and Esports.net, mentioned have not been discussed as yet, what I feel is I can't establish notability and credibility of the articles here and thus, I'll get some more opinions by contacting those who have reviewed the credibility of the sites before, hope it is alright with you. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (delete). The relevant policy here is WP:BLP1E. The reliability of the sources is secondary to this point. It appears that this person is notable only because she is currently the most subscribed female Twitch streamer, a status which seems to be temporary(?) if other subathon-based records are any indication. The rest of the article is biographical details which do not establish notability. I am sensitive to Catyeo's efforts with Women in Red, which is why I suggest draftifying until further accomplishments indicate more lasting notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Axem Titanium's response. Good efforts so far. The article is headed in the right direction but yes we need other accomplishments. Troutfarm27 (Talk) 20:28, 25 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 Banu Fazara. (This is an amended closure after discussion on my talk page.) Sandstein 14:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Qirfa[edit]

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

Fails the WP:GNG. Most of the sources used in this article are WP:PRIMARY sources. Even the sources published by Oxford University Press and Routledge are translations of medieval Islamic texts. Philips doesn't look reliable. Mubarakpuri only gives the subject a passing mention. I asked for reliable secondary sources in September. VR talk 04:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. VR talk 04:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: Well, this story is surely notable, however poorly the article may currently be sourced. Scholar returns multiple scholarly discussions on the subject. I have no opinion on whether this should be covered as a separate article or merged with something else on the history and myths around the origins of Islam, but the topic is clearly of encyclopedic interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the google scholar results, only the first one appears to give depth of coverage required for GNG, the other ones appear to mention the subject only in passing.VR talk 21:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge the secondary-sourced bits to Banu Fazara. The only in-depth coverage I found that wasn't just repetition from ancient historiography was doi:10.2143/JA.282.1.2006115, which is a good source; and [20], which is middling. The nom is correct: most of this is WP:OR based on ancient historiography in translation—hardly a recipe for success. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw the second source you mentioned. Thanks for giving the archive link because google books doesn't have a preview of it. But yes, this source seems to only contain 4 sentences on the subject and merge to Banu Fazara seems like a good idea.VR talk 13:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
a) As of now my opinion is Keep or redirect plus merge in any case article content be accessible in future as and when some one comes with further set of sources.
b) Just a couple of weeks before nominee of this deletion proposal themselves suggested merger at the article talk page with statement "..This article also looks like WP:1E, meaning she is notable for her role in Expedition of Zayd ibn Harithah (Wadi al-Qura). If so, this article should be merged into that one.."
C) Many times close friends followers even prominent enemies of notable subject gain notability simply being close or prominent. Umm Qirfa gets notability just not being enemy of so and so but just being a female warrior of medieval times. Her being a warrior is no where contested, only the way she died has more than one version and one version largely being contested since modern times being not suitable to be narrative of modern times.
d) I do not want to insist on this question but simple question of logic, a secondary source written in 21 century will cease to be secondary in 32'nd century by lapse of time and it's translation in then popular language? Similarly I do not get how a scholar ( Al-Tabari ) who wrote exegesis becomes primary just because he wrote in non–English language Arabic and wrote twelve centuries back. Secondary then is secondary today and translation of secondary then is secondary today.
I do have 2 more points but to keep concise as of now I leave it here. Pl. avoid pinging since this much participation from my side is more than enough as of now. Thanks.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG, per significant coverage in scholarly sources.[21] "Umm Kirfa" is another popular spelling of the subject and brings enough result. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a WP:Secondary source, which is a requirement for WP:GNG.VR talk 14:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge -- This appears to be one of the less attractive episodes of early Islam and as such is notable. Citation of primary sources, particularly ancient ones, ought to be acceptable, as these are the best source available. Indeed a translation is in a sense a secondary source. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that the English translation of a WP:PRIMARY source is a WP:SECONDARY source is a strange one. If this idea was true, then it would imply that the English translation of the Bible is a secondary source, an implication contradicted by WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.VR talk 20:42, 27 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) 06:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway, Wyoming[edit]

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

I can find nothing else about this place than that there was a post office there. Topos and aerials show a pair of farmsteads/ranches and nothing more. Mangoe (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've found a source that describes some history about the place, about there being a school, the residents, and how it got its name. It must've been notable at one point. There's also a passing mention in this source that describes it as a community. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete (Flip to Weak Keep per new sources) - WP:GEOLAND requires that this place be one of two things - either a legally-recognised community, or that it be able to pass WP:GNG (which require multiple instances of significant coverage). In this case neither is true. Simply having a school-house/post-office does not show legal recognition, as these may be located literally anywhere (e.g., between two communities to serve both). For legal recognition you'd typically want some evidence of it being self-governing in some way, which is not present here. The two links provided above at best show one instance of significant coverage (a low-res image of a photo with a description that can just about be read). The second is obviously not significant coverage of the subject because it simply mentions it in a list. @WaddlesJP13: - If a second source is found with significant coverage, ping me and I'll consider changing my vote. FOARP (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: These links might not exactly be a source or that useful, but this is a book about a family from Halfway, and this is a book about the post office in Halfway. The books themselves could possibly be used as sources but those are just websites where they can be purchased from. Here is the Halfway Post Office at the Green River Valley Museum, though only a photo and just some context about the book about the post office going to be published. The community and post office clearly have some historical significance and there's good coverage, but unfortunately the free coverage that can be used as sources is scarce. Here's a very miniscule amount of coverage on the post office (just barely), though. The Pinedale Online site seems to mention this place a whole lot. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @WaddlesJP13:. The first book I'm not sure about because it's not clear who published it, the second is published by the museum who will hopefully have done at least basic fact-checking/editing so it's not exactly a self-published book. Since another source appears to exist, per WP:NEXIST that's sufficient to keep with the photo you provided. None of this is great but it's just enough to keep. FOARP (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Waddles' sources. –dlthewave ☎ 05:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per Waddles. Apears to be a ranching community, as a lot of cattle and horses were branded here. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 13:43, 26 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 03:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Bansal[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. A portion of the article was edited by the artist's sister. I cannot find any reliable sources for biography or career. No notable collections or exhibitions WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment Slightly ambivalent about it because of the Hindu article. May be more sources exist in print? But without them being presented, we would only lean to delete. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 14 years ago, a 20-year old psychology student took up painting as a hobby. According to [22]:"Despite it being her lifeline, Reema never opted for art as a career, because she wanted "a balance in life both objectivity and subjectivity." Not a notable artist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Did my due diligence and did not find anything that qualifies her for WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST. No news coverage, no works in major collections... Missvain (talk) 21:39, 24 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 ABP Group as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friends FM[edit]

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

No sources for at least three years, and writing not understandable enough to salvage. Can perhaps stay if written from scratch. Uness232 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only ref even worth considering is a press release. Can't salvage when no source. Hemanthah (talk) 03:48, 20 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW and WP:GNG.

Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Garard[edit]

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

fails WP:NCOLLATH, mostly falls under WP:ROUTINE. The selection in the 1939 draft doesn't cut it as per WP:NGRIDIRON. Hyperwave11 (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morgarten (band)[edit]

Morgarten (band) (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 band. Some fringe coverage at metal sites. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 20:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The coverage is certainly abundant, much of it in German or Dutch. Some reviews of the first record include [23], [24], [25], [26], the second album [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. While I tried to exclude blatant blogs there is certainly a big difference in quality among these, but being covered by Metal.de and RockHard.de goes a long way. Geschichte (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the coverage shared above is enough to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobody is listening to this band. They have 746 monthly listeners on Spotify makes them the equivalent of a pub band. There is no social media coverage and what coverage is there, is metal sites covering a heavy metal band. There is no mainstream coverage that you would expect if they were truly sucessfull. They have been playing since 2005 and they have NOT made a mainstream breakthough. scope_creepTalk 14:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia's music guidelines are open to bands without mainstream success, specifically mentioning indie labels, and in conjunction with that, reviews written by indie publications as long as the publications are WP:RS and preferably WP:THREE. Also note that I only searched for reviews, and that there may or may not be coverage of other aspects of the band. Either way, it's important to be aware that what coverage there is will mainly be in the German and Dutch languages. Geschichte (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind German and Dutch, I translate them all the time, and they are equally valid in terms of quality as any another quality sources. The point I'm trying to make that in 16 years they have been in existance thy have had no mainstream success, which itself constitutes a level of failure, that for me, makes them non-notable. The coverage you have put up, reflect that failure. They never reached the front page, as far as I can see of the two metal sites as far as I can see. A lot of it, kind of routine coverage, new album stuff, touring, the sort of stuff. Its all very basic and routine. Its fine to say that the Wikipedia guidelines offer guidance on Indie, but there is a level that must be reached. That fact that nobody is listening and nobody is interacting/writing about them on social media, means that magazines are essentially supporting their existance. They are right at the bottom of the scale. That is the definition of non-notability. scope_creepTalk 16:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:44, 20 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. MBisanz talk 03:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Sharma (disambiguation)[edit]

Kapil Sharma (disambiguation) (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 dab page is superfluous per WP:TWODABS, WP:ONEOTHER and unanimous consent of participants at Talk:Kapil_Sharma#Requested_move_13_October_2021. In short, there is a primary topic Kapil Sharma which has a hatnote to the one other use of this title; no need for a dab page. В²C ☎ 04:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not sure whether Kapil Dev Sharma is notable or should himself receive an Afd nomination, in which case TWODABS would still apply. His sole real claim is, as far as I can see, based on being in Marquis Who's Who, which I can't confirm. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's as may be, but then it's often difficult to find references when there are so many others with similar names (e.g. K. J. Kapil Dev and Kapil Dev). Deb (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons above, but note that there are two other pages, not just one, on people of the same name. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:43, 20 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. MBisanz talk 03:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masaki Kurihara[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Only sources that seem to exist are database entries. Article has been tagged for notability since it was created in 2011 and has remained virtually unchanged. Would have PROD'd but it survived a group AFD in 2011. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete or Draftify only one sentence after a decade since last AfD, and what is listed would fail to meet WP:COMPOSER imo. At a quick glance, it looks like it only survived AfD because it was added as part of a bulk list, not because of its own merits to notability. If someone wants to do the research to bring the article up to standards and maybe even find additional roles bring it to notability standards with a draft, I'd support that. But as it is today, this article doesn't need to exist, and there's no reason to believe it'll be brought up to standards on its own. Canadianerk (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - has anyone analyzed the sources available at the Japanese version? Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look and found the page: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A0%97%E5%8E%9F%E6%AD%A3%E5%B7%B1/ - for anyone who wants to pursue that angle/argument in favour of keeping, or updating the EN article. Canadianerk (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to consider sources/further contributions to discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete with WP:REFUND if sources are found. I admit that dealing with composer notability is not what I typically discuss at AFD. However, I am not sure this person meets WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:GNG. According to the website of the event, he did arranging for the song that won the Yamaha Popular Song Contest's award for best song in the 30th event. However, WP:COMPOSER #4 says Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers, specifically stating "composition". I admit I am incredibly unfamiliar with musical terms so apologies if I misunderstood something. It should also be noted that there may be other Japanese-language sources out there, just that I don't know enough about Japanese music websites to know where to look. Link20XX (talk) 16:45, 20 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) 01:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kraynick[edit]

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

As this page stands, it fails WP:NCOLLATH, and almost all sports content on page falls under WP:ROUTINE. The one rebuttal, the selection in 1939 draft doesn't cut it as per WP:NGRIDIRON. Hyperwave11 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also found coverage from The Charlotte News (listed in the article), further convincing me Kraynick meets the notability requirements. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's some more coverage (though short) from the Rocky Mountain Telegram and here's an additional piece from The News and Observer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'd like to note that 1. failing NGRIDIRON, NCOLLATH or any other SNG is completely irrelevant if the topic in question meets the general notability guideline and 2. Routine coverage applies to events, and not people according to this essay. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:22, 20 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 Quicksilver (Marvel Comics)#Film. There is consensus that at this time a separate article is not warranted, and that the character should be covered in existing articles. How to implement that and whether to merge any content from this article is up to interested editors. Sandstein 10:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Maximoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe)[edit]

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

InfiniteNexus thinks that this does not meet WP:MCUCHARACTERS, so I am sending the article to AfD on behalf of him. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:MCUCHARACTERS says explicitly that "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." So, there's no policy-based reason. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Andrew Davidson - You are misinterpreting Speedy Keep 1. It doesn't say that failure to advance a policy-based reason is a basis for a Speedy Keep. It says that failure to advance a reason for deletion is a basis for a Speedy Keep under certain circumstances. It also says: "Also be aware that the speedy keep criteria, particularly the first three, are not to be used to express strong disapproval of the nomination: a rationale that you don't agree with is still an argument for deletion, is not necessarily vexatious, and does not imply the nominator has neglected to read the page." You are saying I don't like it. A closer will recognize that your argument is a valid Keep but not a Speedy Keep. ("I don't like deletion" is also not a valid argument.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as the subject of the article only has had one major appearance so far (excluding two minor cameos), so any information regarding him can be found at Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe § Pietro Maximoff and Quicksilver (Marvel Comics) § Film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No valid deletion rationale under Wikipedia's deletion policy is advanced by the nominator, so either the nominator should withdraw the AfD nomination, or another uninvolved editor should speedy keep or close the discussion on procedural grounds. WP:MCUCHARACTERS is not a guideline or essay, a mere Wikiproject shorthand for local consensus which may be consistently evolving. Draftifying the article is pointless if the issue is not WP:TOOSOON; a redirect and merge back to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe would be the appropriate option, if there is realistic prospect for the character/topic to meet the presumption for a standalone article due to WP:GNG concerns. In any event, this should have been the focus of discussion in the Wikiproject's talk page, which is already underway at Talk:Pietro Maximoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe) at the time this faulty AfD was nominated. Let the Wikiproject decide whether there should be a standalone article. Haleth (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by Let the Wikiproject decide whether there should be a standalone article? The taskforce has already established a clear guideline specifying the local consensus on standalone character articles. Additionally, this topic has been the focus of numerous discussions, including here (an article that was actually rejected by Robert McClenon himself), here, here, here, and has also been brough up here. There is clear consensus among the taskforce. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again requesting input from @Favre1fan93, Facu-el Millo, Gonnym, and BD2412. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's up to the task force, then we already know what the outcome is: to draftify. This character is nowhere near the threshold—which is significant appearances in at least four projects or being a protagonist—having only two significant appearances in Age of Ultron and WandaVision. @Haleth: are you saying that this should be procedurally closed as speedy keep and then just draftified without the need of an AfD if the task force considers it? —El Millo (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
InfiniteNexus, I wouldn't know about the volume of discussions since I am not part of the MCU Wikiproject and I don't edit in the MCU topic area at this point in time. Again, this reinforces my belief that this article should not have been nominated for AfD in the first place, since the Wikiproject's members appear to be perfectly capable of deciding a clear consensus among themselves if there is a need to negotiate a merge of the article back into the main list of MCU characters. Not to mention the fact that there is already an active talk page discussion about whether the article should have been spun out. PS: I am not sure if you should be pinging other editors, even if you are doing it in good faith, since there are strict rules about canvassing in AfD's.
El Millo, yes I am saying this should be procedurally closed as speedy keep, but the ongoing discussion on the talk page should continue. As Robert McClenon have pointed out, it is counterproductive to sending it back to draftspace when the process of taking it out of draftspace was already complicated. If there is already a clear consensus from the project that Pietro Maximoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe) should not exist in mainspace, merging and redirecting to the main list means that its article contents would still be preserved in its article history and as part of a list entry, which would prove useful in the odd chance that a standalone article can be entertained if more coverage about this version of the character do emerge in the future. Articles in draftspace are not hosted indefinitely and will be deleted after 6 months unless their primary authors regularly updates and improves them. So the MCU Wikiproject should determine the finality of this topic, and draftiying it does not accomplish that finality. Haleth (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep.Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 13:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good-sized article with numerous refs Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Per @InfiniteNexus:. — ChannelSpider (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Quicksilver (Marvel Comics). I don't find arguments for splitting up such entities convincing. One page per fictional character should suffice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has enough reliably sourced material to meet WP:GNG, including out of universe material like production/reception that isn't on the MCU characters list or on the page for the comic book version. Such material would lead to disproportionately large entries on those pages. While WP:MCUCHARACTERS suggests four non-cameo appearances, I would note that it's not a policy/guideline, and that the unique nature of the casting for Pietro/"Pietro" in Wandavision generated a large amount of coverage by reliable sources that other MCU roles with similar screen time would not have received. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: As the initial creator of this draft, by copying relevant content from Peter Maximoff, and as an MCU task force member, I don't think this article is up to standards of notability just yet. There appears to be too much of a pairing with information relevant to Evan Peters' character in WandaVision, Ralph Bohner, as to the relationships and events. Those aren't relevant to what this character has gone through and what is with this character, as Bohner and Pietro are not the same, even remotely. Some commentary on the casting trick and impersonator should be discussed, but it shouldn't be a near 1/3 of the article's subject. The "Appearances" section seems it could use some more work, as does the opening to the article. The third background paragraph could probably be cut back to only focus on this character. It'd be safe to move it back to the draftspace so these issues can be civily discussed on the article's talk page, rather than trying to determine this complicated article's fate here and at the task force. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of different views and no clear 'best' one in terms of policy. Giving this one more relist to see if further input can lead to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as compromise per Cautilus. There is already a lot of overlap with the main topic and the verifiable aspects can be summarized there. There's a consensus that this doesn't meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:07, 26 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. MBisanz talk 03:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love Showdown (Archie Comics)[edit]

Love Showdown (Archie 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)

Complete WP:FANCRUFT, the storyline may have been notable from the Archie Comics comic books in the mid-1990s. From its only source, a 12-year-old archived page that is not dated mentions the storyline received press attention. I am not sure if any discoveries of articles about the storyline would save it from deletion. Pahiy (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Archie (comic book)#Significant issues- The only source included in the article is actually from the official Archie comics website, which is a primary source. Searching brings up a number of brief mentions of the storyline, mostly in regards to how it brought the character of Cheryl into prominence in the franchise, but outside of fansites, the only in-depth articles I can find discussing it are these two articles from CBR, which were written by the same author within a couple of days of each other using most of the same text, and thus should probably only be counted as a single source. While these articles do touch on a bit on the significance of the storyline, both are almost entirely just lengthy plot recaps, so I don't think its enough to pass the WP:GNG. That said, it is covered on the main article on the Archie comic as a "significant storyline" already, so Redirecting there makes sense as an WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per above, no evidence of stand-alone notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've incorporated a number of print sources, in addition to the CBR source mentioned above. Most of the significant coverage of the subject is contemporary, but it has enough lasting impact that I don't think it fails WP:NOTNEWS. While searching archives for coverage, I also found many mentions from 1995-to-present. The article could probably stand to be refactored to condense some of the plot summary material and focus more on the real-world impact and reception. Colin M (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Colin M's argument. Dimadick (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The updated info and sources convince me the subject is notable.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Colin M's excellent work referencing this article. AfD can be withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Other editors seem to have demonstrated notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:08, 27 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. Qualifies for WP:POL per the presentation of those who commented.

Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augustino Kiri Gwolo[edit]

Augustino Kiri Gwolo (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 couldn't find significant coverage in IRS to pass WP:GNG. WP:POLITICIAN also doesn't seem to be met here. Less Unless (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: position is equivalent to e.g. lieutenant governor in the US, which is clearly notable as a state-wide office per WP:NPOL. Rusalkii (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - elected as deputy governor of state meets NPOL for me. Whpq (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:34, 20 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. Keep - The movie is out and appears to have been reviewed in reliable secondary sources per WP:HEY work.

Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith with this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellam Sheriyakum[edit]

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

Ellam Sheriyakum

This film has not yet been released, and does not satisfy any current or proposed interpretation of film notability. The article says only that the film will be released, which can be mentioned under Jibu Jacob, the director. Nothing is said about production. A review of the sources shows that they all say that the film will be released. We knew that, and it does not yet make the film notable. It will probably be notable when released.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 english.mathrubhumi.com Announcement that teaser is out No No No
2 Asianetnews.com Announcement in Mayalam that teaser is out No No No
3 Times of India Announcement that teaser is out No No No No
4 Mayalayam News Announcement that film will be released on 19 Nov No No No
5 Gaana.com Brief article about soundtrack No Not about movie No


This article exists in both article space and draft space, and so cannot be moved into draft space. The draft can be expanded with reviews when the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Although the film is a confirmed upcoming one, due to lacking of production details I suggest draftify. So the author can later develop the production or can submit it after released Onmyway22 talk 08:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wait The movie is releasing on November 19th. I believe that this has enough sources to make a compelling case for WP:NFF but we can always wait till 19th to see if it gets the 2 mainstream reviews required. Jupitus Smart 18:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC) The movie has released and I was able to find more than 5 mainstream reviews some of which have already been included/ listed here. Jupitus Smart 02:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film is released today film review Onmyway22 talk 16:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - In order for this to be a Heymann close, a Reception section should be added, and the tense of the verb should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The film already released. I will improve the article and add more sources to establish notability. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of a reception section showing reviews of the now releaesdd film in reliable sources such as The Hindu so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:38, 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 redirect to King County Council with regard to all except Reams, Gaines, Barden, and Munro, who were kept. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Owen[edit]

Tracy Owen (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 county councillor; previous discussion has determined King County Council members are not presumed notable. No good redirect targets so I support deletion.

Also bundling a few similar articles together in this nomination for the same reason. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Laing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pat Thorpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tom Forsythe (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
David Irons Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bill Reams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bob Gaines (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dave Mooney (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paul Barden (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ed Munro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John T. O'Brien (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to King County Council. The focus for all of them should be about the council which seems to be the representation of the county from looking at county council. I think this is a strong mayor-council form of government. Looks like 4-5 counties in WA use this form. For comparison, it's no different for a county commissioner to be redirected to their respective county if they aren't notable. – The Grid (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing my vote as AfD has changed. – The Grid (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Some of these people have been state legislators as well which makes them notable, such as Paul Barden. Additionally, all current members of the King County Council have their own articles, some of which haven't held other offices over the municipal level. This gives reason for all of these articles being kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascampbell123 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I didn't mean to nominate the ones which had been state legislators (I guess I missed Barden because it only mentioned it in the infobox, not the article prose). If we do establish these are all notable, then Rod Dembowski should probably be restored. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Gaines, Ed Munro, and Bill Reams were also state legislators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascampbell123 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I've struck them from the nomination. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep those who have been state legislators; delete redirect (to the list of past councillors that now exists in King County Council) all who have not. County council is not an "inherently" notable level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — it is a level of office at which a person is notable only if either (a) they have also held a more notable office, such as the state legislature, at some other time in their careers, or (b) they can be demonstrated as considerably more notable than the norm for county councillors, by writing and referencing a really substantive article that demonstrates a reason why their career should be seen as having much more nationalized significance than most other county councillors. Just writing one line stating that the person exists or existed, referenced to one or two primary sources that verify said existence but fail to contexualize why their existence was important for an encyclopedia to maintain content about, doesn't cut it. And no, the fact that the current council have articles isn't a reason to confer instant free notability on all former councillors either — for one thing, at least two of the current council don't have their own standalone biographical articles, but actually exist solely as redirects to the article on the council itself, and for another, some of the others should only have redirects rather than standalone articles also. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not placing a bolded position here, but at minimum, all of the subjects (who are not state legislators) should be redirected to King County Council. A redirect is a usual and appropriate outcome when the subject holds a position on a notable legislative body. What I am going to look for is to see whether there is enough reliable sourced material that can provide information about what the subject accomplished in office (and not just a voting record or ribbon cuttings) and/or a substantive take on the subject's policy positions to see if the subject should be kept. --Enos733 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it really appropriate to redirect to a page that doesn't mention the subject? I wouldn't oppose redirecting to a "List of King County Councillors", but we don't have that. A redirect wouldn't really provide any useful information on these subjects. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think so. I think the page could easily contain a list of all of the members (past and present) on the Council. --Enos733 (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody can actually find a comprehensive list of all the past county councillors that we could copy and add referencing to support, then by all means they can do that and then a redirect would make sense. However, I don't see the value in maintaining a redirect if the article doesn't contain such a list of past councillors. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[37] Here's a list of all former councillors.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The list of County Councilmembers is added to King County Council. --Enos733 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Now supporting redirect for those councilmember who were not state legislators. --Enos733 (talk) 00:00, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Hoang[edit]

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

Spam, WP:NLAWYER failure JohnnyHunt (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. WP:NLAWYER is not a policy. There may be coverage in Vietnamese like this that I'm not qualified to assess, but the English coverage ([38], [39]) is pretty thin despite the copious WP:REFBOMBing. I will also say that the nom seems pretty WP:PRECOCIOUS. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AleatoryPonderings: The headline says "Second generation: Kate Hoang: First Vietnamese woman to be nominated for RIWA in 2020. The first para says she was then the VP of the Vietnamese Australian community and does community work for refugees, the second says what types of law her sole practice does, the third says she has organised some human rights protests/vigils and the fourth was that she was nominated for Rotary Inspirational Women’s Awards. Bumbubookworm (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- She seems notable enough. I searched and she has appeared in interviews both in English language and Vietnamese language (although Vietnamese is not my language so I can't say about that but the interview and coverage were in notable channels). In the reference section I saw that she also featured (a few times) in the news released by Parliament of New South Wales and received a couple of awards too for her work. I just think that the writing and structure of the article can be improved a bit. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 06:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment Multiple interviews can be found on different channels (including verified channels). A few References about her political career might be weak but overall the person seems notable enough. Thanks Billyatthewheels (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - A small businessowner (sole practitioner) lawyer with no notable legal achievements. Leaders of ethnic community bodies are not notable, and nothing actually about her achievements except that she was wheeled out to endorse a Senator who decided to parachute into a working class area. All the mentions are minor things in the media about inconsistency in political issues Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep probably. This one really needs some input from people who can read Vietnamese. Discounted "community leaders" aside, not everyone gets this type of responsibility and profile by a national reliable media organisation. Aoziwe (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I translated the Vietnamese thing above. I'm guessing you heard about the Tu Le stuff a couple of months ago. Kate Hoang came up tangentially a few times then, but Tu Le was the main subject of a lot of national newspaper articles and even ended up in the NYT. Do you think a Tu Le (a person who was blocked from running for parliament) article would/should survive? KH hasn't even run for parliament (which covers the whole community and Aus has compulsory voting) but is a leader of a community body that covers 1% of Australians (per census) similar to a union or the like that may cover 1% of the workforce. Also note that if one is a paying member of some organisation or own a few shares in something, you will get papers mailed to you when the election of the board comes up. For local councils voting is optional but the electoral commission sends you the forms when it comes around. I can't say specifically for other groups, but there is no membership log of Vietnamese Australians. If there is an election (and in the two states and territories that I've lived in, most times nobody new nominates so the same person keeps the job over and over) and you know about the election which isn't well-known, all you have to do is show them some ID card with a Vietnamese surname, so not exactly properly regulated. The state committee folks then choose the national leaders. Also, the government often needs ethnic community representatives to translate/disseminate messages. Simply organising/reading these out doesn't make one notable or the coverage about her Bumbubookworm (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree with you. In other words what I was meaning was that, if a reputable major information dissemination organisation believes the subject is "notable" enough to be used as an information vanguard then we too in wikipedia land need to look more carefully. Aoziwe (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Between the socking and the need to evaluate Vietnamese-language references, there is not yet consensus. As there is some reference bombing in the article, keep supporters identifying the best three sources here would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:32, 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) 00:33, 20 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 Mad (magazine) § Recordings. MBisanz talk 03:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dellwoods[edit]

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

Sources are Discogs (which is user submitted) and personal blogs (which are unreliable). No better sourcing found in music publications nor publications giving the history of MAD. Deprodded with edit summary of "it's fine" which does nothing to address the issue. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mad_(magazine)#Recordings Getting coverage here: [40], [41] [42] [43] [44]. All is passing or not significant and tied to the recordings for Mad. Wish I could find more but this is really testing the limit of my search ability. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) that article is pretty long already, 47kb which approaches the 50kb point where you might want to think about splitting the article, so this will start to constrain that article unless we go thru a splitting. If we split off MAD magazine in other media right now, then I guess a merge there would be OK.
2) But even so the non-Mad stuff about the Dellwoods isn't a great fit for the Mad article, but we probably don't want to delete it either -- if you think there's material in the article that should go, that's a good place for the article talk page rather than here.
3) I prefer short one-subject articles. Others don't. It's a matter of taste. Your tastes may differ, understood.
So anyway, the entity most probably meets WP:NMUSIC in that they have two records on a label Bigtop Records which, I don't know if that qualifies as "major record label or one of the more important indie labels" but they do have an article here, published Del Shannon and other bluelinked artists, and apparently were capable of America-wide distribution.
We know that it meets the WP:GNG if the sources are OK because there's enough material there to make a 4.7kb article. So... let's look at the refs.
Re Disogs, we do have {{Discogs artist}}} to make Disogs easier to cite, which seems not consistent with a bad source. And that template is transcluded in 11,550 articles... I don't know the details about how Discogs is written, but as an objective fact it's a fair source, I have used it and seen it many times over many years with no problems or complaints... But more importantly (and it's understandable that people don't know this), a lot of their facts are backed up with photos of the actual record labels, like here. These photos are 100%, legit, so we can 100% rely on facts so ref'd. Most if not all of the Discog refs are backed by photos. Besides which, there's a link to AllMusic which gives a second source for a lot of the Discogs facts.
And I mean only half (6 of 11) of the refs are to Discogs. So yes the others are mostly blogs, but it's not a good look for veteran editors to be like "Blog Taboo!", there are a whole lot more subtleties then that to vetting refs, which a lot new editors don't know yet and others don't care. It's a good idea to discourage editors from reffing to blogs before they are more expert, but you and I are beyond that Ten.
So let's see... the two facts ref'd to to "Doo-Wop Collector" (a one-person operation) are seconded at "Doo-Wop" (could be more than one person, or not) and vice versa, and neither looks to be copying the other (the facts they give and their prose are different). That is a good sign when you are dealing with amateur experts -- maybe they can't afford an independent fact-checking operation, but they are effectively fact-checking each other.
Sam Bobrick is very probably an OK source for facts about himself in the way he's used here, Josiah Hughes is just ref'd to his opinion, and it's 100% reliable that that indeed is his opinion (and it turns out -- I did not know this -- he's a professional music critic and writer and [https://cmw.net/speakers/josiah-hughes/ editor, so his opinion is not worthless). Chuck Rothman has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and he's written for the big mags like Analog etc. He's a serious guy and he takes his blog seriously. That doesn't prove that any of his facts are OK, but its a data point.
And by the way I'm not using Rothman to ref "The first single from it was massively popular" or the Doo-Wop Collector to ref "Before the album was released Mike Ellis overdosed on drugs" and so on. I'm using them to support basic facts that are indubitably true, and almost always in a context where there are two, three, or four refs independently reporting the fact. There's almost no statement here with just one ref, unless its an opinion or backed up by a photo. One statement by Sam Bobrick about himself where it's just vanishingly unlikely that he's lying or misremembering, and even that's backed up at Discogs.
What more do you want.
That's not counting a seven-paragraph review of one of their albums in an external link (admittedly in a obscure/local source, but still, a legit publication) which probably some number of bands here don't have and maybe couldn't. And it's not counting the several good new refs that User:Vladimir.copic came up with.
AfD is not really intended for articles like this. Let alone PROD, sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Herostratus: The sources you mentioned are all personally published blogs on Blogspot, or Discogs which again, is user submitted and not an RS. It'd be like using another Wikipedia article as a source. Your filibuster completely ignores WP:RS, WP:V, and so many other points of Wikipedia policy that I have no idea what you're even trying to accomplish. I didn't need you to also go all tl;dr on my talk page, either. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mnmh. Well, I hear you, and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Let's let others weigh in. But... I don't think "filibuster" is fair, yes my post was long but it's not (overly) prolix (I think), its detailed argument constructed of considering and vetting each ref beyond a simplistic level, and other (I think) cogent points. It's complicated. It requires thought, and that means it requires words to communicate beyond the soundbite level. We're supposed to be diligent, here. Herostratus (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:27, 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) 00:32, 20 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. MBisanz talk 03:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falguni Nayar[edit]

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

Nayar worked in a bank. She left. She started a cosmetics company. None of this is anything exceptional, and is a normal WP:ROTM career. Very PR filled referencing, but also WP:BOMBARD. 22 PR or similar references for half a dozen short paragraphs? I sample checked them. Fails WP:BIO, and is a promotional piece FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am the reviewer of this article. I had accepted it after discussing with the editor who submitted and also told them it is CVish and could be improved. I felt that article was notable but very recently I had some new epiphanies and hence, my perspective towards this has changed. In principle, it does seem to qualify WP:BASIC but the independence of the sources here is questionable and they seem to be driven by PR agencies rather than an honest interest of a journalist in the subject. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she's on a list of firsts for one of the world's most populous nations - "the country's first woman-led unicorn." [45]. "Feels off" isn't a great justification for deletion, and "does seem to qualify for WP:BASIC" means this should be a keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hopelessly promotional The sources do not jutify what the articles says or implies. L
a/ Fortune India did not call her the most powerful businesswoman in India, it ranked her 20th, up from 21st the previous year. It's one of a half dozen cateories, 40 under 40, 30 under 30, th next 500 etc.--all of whichare prmotional gimmicks desiged by PR people and publishers to geneate publicity. The evidence for that is what the "article" says "Her company’s focus on authenticity and commitment to customer experience" --that's not journalism, but advetising. I presume they copied it from the press release the publicist gave them, because who else could have written something like that? .
b/ Economic Times is a video of a promotional speech she gave--everything it says,she or her pr people wrote themselves.
c/ Vogue is a colletion of publicity stills of various entertainmentfigures with a few other people such as her added at the bottom as a pretence at verisimiltude--the prose is what you'd expect from the source--extravent puffery--and compare the "photo" of her with the real video in b, and judge if the text is any more reliable
d/ Forbes Asia, again, one from a list, this time of 25. At least it's a straightforward blurb,as such things go
I could go on, but I think it makes the point. the other refs fit exactly into one of another of these patterns.
looking at at those just added--I can't see Bloomberg, can the editor who listed it tell us what its says beyond the headline or did they not read it either? gq is a dead link. ndtv is apromotional interview, apparently reprinted from Bloomberg, where she says whatever she cares to: ""Our message to women has been that the spotlight of her life should be on herself. You are important in your story and should feel no guilt at being center stage,” Ms Nayar said in a recent interview with news agency Bloomberg." If that's the nature of the Bloomberg article, it's the classic form of a promotional interview that fails NCORP and shouldn;t be taken as reliable for any purpose.
As for being a unicorn, her firm did not become a $1.2 billion company by her efforts--her firm received the money as an investment from other firms. Looking at the articles carefully, her main business has yet to break even. Making a profit is the standard of sucess in business, not just taking other people's money who presumably hope that one will.
WP to be sure goes by news accounts, not intrinsic value, but a news account is only honest if there is somethig behind it. The standard for an unreliable source is when there's no actual basis behind the verbalism. She did have a previous career in an invesment banking firm, but there's no evidence it was significant--she apparently didn't get written about until she entered cosmetics, an industry notorious for extravagent hype. (It is possible to become actually notable in it, of course, and many famous women and men have, but one first has to be sucessful at it, not just sucessful at paying for PR)
This isn't the least unique to India--the level of the PR here is very skilled and polished, up to the international standard. We should treat such articles in all countries equally, by removing every article with a basis like this. -- DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to make the article less promotional and provide some more context. I will keep working on it until there is a consensus. Just because she received investment money doesn't mean it is not from her own efforts. GQ is not a dead link I was able to access it again and cited new information from it in the article. The Bloomberg article was substantial about the upcoming IPO of Nyakka and who owns it. Here are some pieces of information about her:
When India’s beauty retailer Nykaa opens its initial public offering to subscribers next week, it will catapult founder Falguni Nayar into India’s rarefied league of billionaire women.
Nayar’s Falguni Nayar Family Trust, the family’s Sanjay Nayar Family Trust and seven other related entities hold about half the stake in the company, whose shares are expected to start trading on Nov. 11. India’s stock market has rallied 27% this year, making it fertile ground for a string of blockbuster listings.''
It also talks about how rare it is for an Indian woman to be a billionaire:
Savitri Jindal -- who with her sons controls the OP Jindal Group -- is the only Indian woman on The Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a ranking of the world’s 500 richest people. Her $13.3 billion net worth ranks her No. 10 in the country. There are three other women worth at least $2.5 billion, according to Bloomberg.
And it mentions that the company is profitable. FiddleheadLady (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SURMOUNTABLE GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a quick Google search shows significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that demonstrate notability of the subject. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-It does look to qualify some points on WP:BASIC but the independence of the sources here is questionable and they seem to be driven by PR agencies rather than an honest interest of a journalist in the subject. I'm highly unsatisfied with it.--Jyoti Roy (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The AfD banner was removed. I have restored it FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not taking the time to look at all these source, but if the result is delete, it should actually be redirect to Nykaa. MB 15:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She is the subject of multiple articles and meets WP:GNG. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She just became a billionaire worth over $7 billion on 10 November. Plenty of coverage outside India as well. [46][47] EcoWizard (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She clearly passes WP:NBASIC based off of the coverage... in the article's sources. The Mint piece, while absolutely fawning, is still a feature piece on the individual by an established WP:NEWSORG. Similarly, The Economic Times covers her with a largely positive feature piece, and that is an established WP:NEWSORG. These two are bylined pieces, and alone would be sufficient to pass WP:NBASIC on their depth alone. Taken together with the Bloomberg pieces and the CNN Business profile mentioned above, it's crystal clear that she passes WP:NBASIC. Like Gorillawarfare, I believe that the other problems present are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and that deletion is inappropriate for a notable person like this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its passing wp:gng, and too easily WP:NBASIC. Behind the moors (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of the sources above, CNN contains a very small amount of content, Economic Times might be better used to justify an article on the company, Bloomberg is a self-serving interview where she says what she wants to, and the Mint artcle is in this case beneath contempt. Possibly she is important enough that non-promotional sources will appear in the future.
There are of course two other approaches to inclusion:
we include every billionaire on the assumption there will be sources
we include everything a significant number of people want to include
Either would make more sense than this sort of attempt to discriminate which of a batch of promotional sources is sufficiently non-promotional . DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 20 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: there is clear consensus that the subject of the article satisfies notability guidelines. Editors are highly encouraged to expand the career section with descriptions of the importance of the telenovelas she has featured in. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Domínguez[edit]

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

Not a notable person per WP:NACTOR or otherwise that can be determined with the single source, merely indicating that the subject is a notable person's cousin. Article also happens to have been created by a pageant sockfarm, but this not the rationale for nomination, just possibly an explanation for why it is so poor. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep. Obviously it needs sources, but the claims support notability as a telanovela star. BD2412 T 18:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Telenovelas are huge in Latin American culture. I would think that most of the regular cast of a popular telenovela would be notable. BD2412 T 23:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just google: https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/m/02q1jfd There are so many articles about the subject in every national newspaper that she has her own section in most of them. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above and per sources available on Google. AfD is no clean-up service. this is within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have three keep votes, one of which says "it would seem" they are notable, and two saying there are GHITS, but none of them actually offers a source for evaluation: say, a single award to hold up against NACTOR. It is disappointing and will be difficult for the closer of the discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have zero interest in telenovelas, and personally don't care if this article is kept or deleted, but I would say that the subject does pass point 1 of WP:NACTOR... she played the lead role in Los caballeros las prefieren brutas and also had a major part in El hijo del Cacique, both of which were major Colombian telenovelas of the last ten years or so. She was also in Do You Believe?, an international film which had plenty of independent reviews. As someone who lives in Colombia, I can confirm anecdotally that she is pretty well known here, and as mentioned above, regularly features in the Colombian press... although even the serious newspapers like El Tiempo and El Pais take a very superficial attitude to celebrities... usually it's just to gossip on their latest relationship or an excuse to print photos of the celebrity in their swimwear. Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need sources to be presented, not talk of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article had several sources. But the nominator removed them before nominating the article. Her participation in Miss Universe and Telenovelas are notable. BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What Daniel said
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have added several sources. Still !voting Keep for this article.BabbaQ (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Any thoughts on your zombie proposal being invoked in AfD (see above)? Move out of inactive project to essay? :) — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncensored With Ali Tajdary[edit]

Uncensored With Ali Tajdary (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 GNG for the all existing sources are not reliable and independent. Cassiopeia talk 03:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep : hi, there is no reason to delete this program, this is an iranian tv and internet series and has valid links from reputable news outlets as well as the news of this tv show in the national newspaper of iran, a tv and internet series with wide distribution in every country. this collection deals with problems such as addiction, gender problems, certain diseases, etc. in iran, and is also an important collection in this regard. in wikipedia rules, it is preferred. to increase the valid content and finally complete them until they are removed. this program has no reason to delete according to all the rules of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoseinkandovan (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC) (blocked sock)[reply]

Note: the above editor is the creator and sole substantive content contributor to this aricle. DMacks (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User mr wiki biography

this is a tv series. the tv series of each country are valid. it has links to the newspaper "shoroo" and the news is valid "sarshenasan" "akharinkhabar Agensy", the article does not need to be deleted. it is valid.--Mr wiki biography (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)(blocked sock)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:GNG, despite what is said above. the tv series of each country are valid tv shows are not automatically notable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication that the subject meets GNG.--Alireza Khabib (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ali Tajdary was deleted via AFD. DMacks (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 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) 00:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – this is a no-brainer if you look at the sources. There are several copies of the same press release, two references to sarshenasan.com which is the company producing and broadcasting the show, and one ref (used twice, no 3 and 5) that gives me a runtime error. Even if that one is independent, it doesn't make the show notable by itself. --bonadea contributions talk 21:47, 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 Miss Universe Myanmar. ✗plicit 03:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Myanmar 2013[edit]

Miss Myanmar 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough for their own articles, can be fully covered in Miss Universe Myanmar. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related articles for the same reason:

Miss Myanmar 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Miss Myanmar 2015 & 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Miss Myanmar 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Miss Myanmar 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Miss Universe Myanmar 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Miss Universe Myanmar 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-10 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect all to Miss Universe Myanmar. The individual years have too much information, listing the contestants is too much, for sure. Even the target lacks enough prose to justify an article. Efforts should be directed to improving content from sourced comment on the competition, and not on collecting list information. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to Miss Universe Myanmar - the events only seem to be covered in this level of depth on social media or the organisation's own website. There is no justification for separate articles for each event but redirecting should be done as they are plausible enough search terms. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to Miss Universe Myanmar. Significant coverage is nowhere to be seen. Information is sourced to Facebook and the official website. These are realistic search terms so redirect is sensible. There's nothing to merge. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:23, 25 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 20:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Scarf[edit]

Fred Scarf (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'm not sure what is the least impressive about this individual, his career as an entrepreneur, philanthropist or phone sex operator. While he seems to have received some coverage, I don't think he reaches Wikipedia's standards for notability. I initially PROD'd this article but the tag was removed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It probably doesn't meet WP:GNG and it's heavily WP:PROMO. Side note, I'm blown away that reference #4 is self-referential. It references his own wiki page! -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rated 4.5 stars on app stores, Stop Guessing is available widely on app stores." "Scarf moved up to San Francisco and started dancing at clubs." "Fred worked as a part time phone sex operator." Delete: even if he's notable, the article is WP:TNT material. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just read TNT and I agree. The page started bad and just got worse. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have considered all of you comments on this article and would like to know what else I need to provide to remove the deletion request for this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyemedora (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fred Scarf have been noted on CNN heroes, developed applications and has artistic contributions. We have used Advocate article, CNN interviews and Youtube coverage as references, removed anything on the article that promotes self referential and self promotion. Made revisions to make the article more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyemedora (talk • contribs) 17:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kyemedora: When you say that "we have used", who is "we"? Do you have some sort of WP:COI in terms of this article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No COI, I mean I have used, valid references and citations for this article to be published accordingly and not be requested for deletion. I made all the statement neutral and deleted promotional sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyemedora (talk • contribs) 21:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This man has had an interesting career—he founded 5 different businesses and organizations, became a model, was a "phone sex operator", and even dropped a single called "Manwhore"–but he just fails WP:GNG, lacks WP:SIGCOV and secondary sources, and the article is wholly spammy WP:PROMO content. There's a possibility that there may but secondary sources out there, but the article needs to be TNT'd because its damaged beyond repair. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WaddlesJP13, Bob drobbs, and Liz: I put the bare links into ref tags (with a script so titles are empty, I'm not putting too much effort into this unless notability is established) so now more links show up in the reference section. Besides CNN there's also Huffington Post and Jweekly and Bay Sunday – Fred Scarf, CEO, Earigami (01/10/16) from KPIX CBS SF Bay Area. I struck my vote above and for now I'm neutral: the article is still a mess but perhaps he would meet the notability guideline. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis, I am a little stunned that you spent some of your valuable time on Wikipedia polishing up this, well, let's leave it at "this". Kyemedora should be grateful. I still think this guy is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. We have illustrious professors and widely published academics who get their articles deleted for a lack of notability. Those are losses I agonize about, not a wannabe entrepreneur phone sex operator who released a single called "Manwhore". I don't think his biography adds much to this global knowledge resource we call Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Don't worry, I just pressed one button. (that script is unmaintained btw so I don't recommend installing it) We have many articles about trivial subjects, if the media report on it it's notable. That's not up to us. Jweekly is J. The Jewish News of Northern California, Advocate is The Advocate (LGBT magazine) and together with the other sources I'm afraid Fred may clear the bar for notability.. but if he does only just. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis thank you. Let me know if there is anything else I can update for the deletion discussion to be lifted. I appreciate all of your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyemedora (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not there yet. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dispute, Fred Scarf has contributions in charities and made a career from modeling and music. Let's be considerate of his contributions. Let me know how I can be successful with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyemedora (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyemedora: his contributions don't matter. We have articles for mass murderers and nobodies while we are missing articles for scientists who have discovered cancer treatments. As a general rule, all that matters is whether reliable sources have written about him. There are a few other factors (like being responsible for works that reliable sources have written about) but it's mostly just that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arinze Chilo-Offiah[edit]

Arinze Chilo-Offiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Resumé article on a Non notable banker and “special advisor” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 00:19, 20 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. Daniel (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wiegold[edit]

Richard Wiegold (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. Onlyreferences are his own websites. Rathfelder (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 20 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_20&oldid=1057856385"