Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 22	November 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melora Conway[edit]

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

A meticulously, thoroughly researched article, but no indication of why she is notable after all. It looks as if all references here are just passing mentions, and looking for other sources didn't present me with anything better. Her roles are either very minor, or in very minor productions. Perhaps I missed the few sources here which are really about her instead of just mentioning her: in that case, please indicate here which reliable, independent sources give the necessary significant attention. Fram (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Bit of a stretch, but the role in the "Full Circle" soap opera would seem to make her notable, although the references are rather flimsy. Oaktree b (talk)
- @Oaktree b: well, she isn't included in our article on the soap or at the IMDb cast list, and I can't find references for her role[1]. The article states "Conway's part in this is known only from a couple of newspaper mentions". Seems not really enough to consider this a notable role. This book lists more of the cast[2], and still doesn't include Conway. Fram (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bit parts then, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through a whole year of contemporary newspaper articles on "Full Circle", turned up several interviews etc that could usefully update that soap article, but again no mention of Conway. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time with this. Saratoga Sam (talk) 21:06, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Hugo Sporleder[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an activist, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for activists. The notability claim here is that he was involved in a group, but the potential notability of the group is not necessarily an instant notability freebie for every individual member of it -- in order to establish him as notable, there have to be reliable sources about him and his work. But there are none here, and the article was created by an editor whose username strongly suggests that they're a relative of the subject (which is a conflict of interest). As I don't have access to any database in which I could recover American newspaper coverage from the 1960s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better resources can actually improve the sourcing, but nothing stated in the text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have his notability established through media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - undecided on whether these are enough to establish notability, but some clippings. There's honestly not much more that's significant. [3] [4][5] [6] [7] Urve (talk) 19:42, 9 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) 21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Not convinced, even with Urve's due diligence. I could not even find a single mention of the subject worth noting on Jstor, etc. Missvain (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I did find two mentions of him on JSTOR, a misspelling of his name here and a blog about a Jim Sporleder who passed away in 2016 with content that matches the content on James Hugo Sporleder. However, the sources do not meet WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Mimic Defense[edit]

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

This page appears to be promotional in nature. It was created in 2017 by an account named MimicT, which suggests a close association to the original researcher, Jianxing Wu. The text praises Wu's cybersecurity theories uncritically and compares them favorably to prior approaches. There are several citations, but they all trace back directly to Jiangxing Wu.

Wu has written an academic book on this subject, so presumably there is some kernel of scholarship to all this. However, the text is written in what appears to be a deliberately obfuscatory style reminiscent of the Sokal affair. I am not a computer security researcher, but I'm a software professional and the co-author of a series of books about system administration, and most of this article reads as gobbledygook to me. It's hard to avoid the impression that Wu set up this page in a bid for academic credentialling. NillaGoon (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NillaGoon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is word salad. While it's just barely possible the Chinese language references do support notability, I'd want to see that explicitly confirmed by someone who can read them - there's nothing I can find in ENGLISH that supports it. Wu's book (which is available online) is ALSO word salad - I'm puzzled as to how it's on Springer. PianoDan (talk) 21:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ketu (mythology)[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary sources to show that this subject meets our notability criteria. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He is a significant Hindu Navagraha deity. [8], [9], [10], [11] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as above, and as any sort of WP:BEFORE would have made clear. In any case, no valid deletion reason given - notability is independent of the temporary state of an article (WP:NEXIST). I'm assuming good faith here, but it's noticeable that there is a current wave of deletions targetting various aspects of Hindu and Vedic astrology which seem to have more to do with personal beliefs than with Wikipedia. Ingratis (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above is a significant Hindu Navagraha deity.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as they are clearly a significant deity.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:31, 30 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. Agreeing with the nominator and the one participant.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ardra (nakshatra)[edit]

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

An inappropriately cited article that fails to show that this subject has significant notability within the field of astrology. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFRINGE. WP:TNT applies as it is filled with poorly sourced misinformation and pseudoscience sourced to unreliable WP:FRINGE sources and written in an inappropriate tone. Venkat TL (talk) 06:10, 30 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. I concur regarding failure to meet WP:NORG and WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project Exodus Relief[edit]

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

Organization does not appear to meet WP:NORG. There are a few interviews and mentions on Google News search but I was not able to find the independent, in depth coverage required for NORG. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the article's 10 references, 5 barely mention the subject, 4 are primary sources (a www.defenseone.com commentary written by the subject's founder and 3x the subject's own website), and 1 is a Ricochet podcast which may provide more in-depth coverage but Ricochet in general doesn't strike me as very reliable. Colonestarrice (talk) 16:06, 30 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. Per nom and participants: fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WarCities[edit]

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

Non notable company. Neither of the cited sources, nor any others I could find, provided significant coverage in independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~Waddles~~ Gobbles 🍂 🦃 22:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. IceWelder [✉] 08:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:13, 30 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. Concur that this event is not yet notable. WP:TOOSOON and maybe a dash of WP:CRYSTAL.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council election[edit]

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

Non-notable future event, does not meet WP:NEVENT yet. The only independent coverage I found is https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/all-out-election-called-wigan-16909874 (t · c) buidhe 21:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable, may well become so in future but the article is a stub so I see no point in draftifying it. Vanteloop (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some local elections are notable six months or so in advance, but this would not seem to be the case here. It will likely warrant an article in the future -either once campaigning starts or after the results are known, but at the moment it is not needed. I suppose an argument could be made for a redirect to 2022 United Kingdom local elections for now, but I do not have strong view on this. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 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 The Prince of Egypt (soundtrack). Per comments - merge away anything of value and redirect.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deliver Us (The Prince of Egypt song)[edit]

Deliver Us (The Prince of Egypt song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
All I Ever Wanted (The Prince of Egypt song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Through Heaven's Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Redirect these three songs to The Prince of Egypt (soundtrack), and merge text as appropriate. These three songs fail WP:NSONGS because they are all mentioned in the context of the album. None of them have gained significant in-depth coverage on their own. The album article has very little prose; it should be fleshed out with text merged from the song articles. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Could be a subsection in the article about the soundtrack itself, the song alone isn't notable; you put the three of them mentioned above in sections in the soundtrack article, I think you'd have a rather good collection of information.Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to The Prince of Egypt (soundtrack). All fail WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:31, 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. Convinced that this team isn't eligible for an article at this time.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilambil Jets[edit]

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

Amateur Rugby team in the village of Bilambil, New South Wales (Population 500). Given that about 12% of Australians are males aged 12-35%, they would have about 50 available players to staff their teams to play against the other villages/small towns in the region. No notable achievements or indept sources Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. A very small local sports club. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is some sustained long term coverage of the subject. I have not checked these but there are potentially over 700 references available here. The significant majority of these will be routine and-or minor and some not relevant, but even if only 1% are good references, there may be sufficient to support GNG. Looks like insufficient BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 16 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)} 20:08, 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 keep. Convinced by the arguments presented below - film is in progress and coverage is flowing.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December (2021 film)[edit]

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, the film has not even been confirmed its release date, just saying 2022.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient verification that principal photography commenced (Dec 2020) and theatrical release is scheduled for March 5, 2022. Wait for the release. WP:CRYSTAL definitely does not apply. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 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) 19:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR and WP:CREEP. I’m unable to see how the encyclopedia or reader experience is improved by following the destructive Afd and notability guidelines which indicate this and many other informative and factually accurate articles about topics with verifiable existence need to be deleted. The guidelines need to be revamped to remove their destructive effects, but in the meantime we must simply ignore them per IAR, a pillar policy. —В²C ☎ 16:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is enough information for an article, albeit barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:29, 30 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. Consensus established that GNG is not met and it also seems that any claim to passing NFOOTY is also rebutted, whilst the player may have made preliminary squad, the is no evidence that they featured in a full international match. Fenix down (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Léa Abadou[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as France doesn't have any women's professional leagues. The only article I can find on her is this, which is hidden behind a paywall. I don't think it's enough to pass WP:GNG. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree player fails NFOOTBALL, but as an FYI there is a top flight women's league in France' Division 1 Féminine. --dashiellx (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dashiellx: Top flight does not mean professional. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: have added the profile linked above, which looks substantial even outside the paywall. It is asserted that she plays in her national team. PamD 12:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Where does it say that she played for her NT? Also, WP:GNG says that multiple sources are generally expected. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Algeria women's national football team#Recent call-ups, she was called up to the national team on 6 October (though this isn't sourced). And Algeria haven't played a match since then, as their fixture against Sudan was postponed due to the October 2021 Sudanese coup d'état, [12]. Also, we don't seem to have squad lists for most Algeria women's national team fixtures (and even Soccerway lists scores but no lineups e.g. [13]). So it's entirely possible she has made a national team appearance, but the sources are completely unclear. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: She was called up to a preliminary squad in September; however, this doesn't indicate that she played a full senior international game. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming she hasn't played an international match, I think draftspace is fine. She seems close to meeting WP:NFOOTY (as she's been called up to international squads), seems reasonably likely she will debut soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: Where? In the article: AGF. PamD 15:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: WP:NOTSOURCE. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: I said "it is asserted". PamD 15:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: An assertion isn't enough to keep an article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the article creator on their user talkpage whether they have a source for actual appearance(s). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - due to the player's Algerian heritage, has anyone done a check for Arabic-language sources? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for ليا أبادو only yields one result about her: this blog that listed the aforementioned Algeria preliminary squad callups (the article seems to have been deleted, though. I could only see the Google preview showing her name). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one semi-decent source and WP:GNG expects multiple sources. Lack of coverage in Arabic as well as in French sources means that I would prefer deleting the article for now. No prejudice against creating this again should she become notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 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 no consensus. After three relistings and extensive discussion, no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manon van Raay[edit]

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

Kept on WP:TRAINWRECK grounds previously without prejudice against being nominated again on its own. In my view, Van Raay and Louise van Oosten (already up for AfD) were the only players from that previous discussion that do not demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG. I believe that this article should be deleted because it's based on a teenager with no claim to significance who is not in the public eye at all. A Google News search yields only passing mentions in match reports, most of which are from ADO Den Haag's own website, an unacceptable source when it comes to establishing notability. A Dutch source search similarly comes up with very little. AD has one article which looks like it's more than a passing mention but, when you look at it closely, it's almost entirely just a long direct quote from her and contains very little input from a third party. GNG requires multiple sources.

Please can anyone arguing for 'keep' please provide WP:THREE sources addressing Van Raay directly and in depth? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the always diligent nominator Spiderone. Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.[14][15][16] gidonb (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to exclude the 2nd source as it's sourced directly to ADO Den Haag so not really an independent source. I suppose the question is whether 1 and 3 are enough for GNG unless there are better sources out there. Source 1 has the sort of depth that is often considered to be 'routine' at AfD and not an indication of notability but, of course, many would argue the other way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All three look fine to me. In-depth, independent, and not routine. Written in fine, independent media. Two out of three also have their authors listed. One of these two is the article you wanted to exclude. There are additional sources that are great for referencing. The three above confirm notability. gidonb (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG>--Ortizesp (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it passes GNG with the sourcesJackattack1597 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly some degree of coverage. Editors are reminded that articles produced on a player by the player's employer, I.e. their club are not considered to be independent but are essentially WP:PRIMARY. This currently leaves us with two sources of reasonable length. Close but probably not close enough yet to say keep votes have presented strong enough arguments to create a valid consensus. Definitely scope for further discussion though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With regret I have to say that the relister, with whom I have otherwise a good experience, clearly mischaraterizes source 2 and makes improper use of the relisting to drop a contentious opinion. Said message is not the purpose of relist messages and not supported by the references or policies. gidonb (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Current sources provided not enough to suggest passing GNG in my book. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources above establish notability. GNG asks for multiple sources, which we have. She plays professionally in the top women's league in the Netherlands. NemesisAT (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There appears to be just enough online Dutch-language coverage of Van Raay to satisfy WP:GNG. In addition to the in-depth Algemeen Dagblad article cited above, ~~this goes into some detail and notes she is the first product of ADO's U16 side to play for the club in the Eredivisie.~~ There is plenty of routine coverage as well, and some non-routine but not quite in-depth coverage like this as well. Jogurney (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second site you reference is a press release from ADO (at the bottom it says source: ADO Den Haag Women), so on top of being a trivial mention it is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. I should have reviewed that one more carefully. While I still believe the AD article counts toward the GNG (it is more than just an interview with the subject of this biography), none of the other online coverage appears to count, so we have a GNG failure. Thus, I'm changing my !vote to delete. Jogurney (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Dougal18 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This source consists almost entirely of quotes from her seemingly scraped from the ADO website. This blurb is routine signing coverage and comprises at most 5 short sentences on where she played previously, followed by a paragraph of quotes from her and her coach. This article is more comprehensive, but again relies on the same formula of the author summarizing quotes from her rather than giving independent analysis; this is barely a step above a pure interview and I would certainly not call it encyclopedic SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with this. Put it better than I was able to myself. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established with substantial and independent coverage. Avilich (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep scrapes through WP:GNG subject is 18 years with an ongoing career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you think have significant coverage, and how would you respond to JoelleJay's well reasoned vote above? Btw, "subject is 18 years with an ongoing career" is basically an admission that there is none. Avilich (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG met on the strength of the sources presented by gidonb and Jogurney. A couple of other points: We see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Lorsheijd (2nd nomination) that there's often a tendency to hold female footballer articles to different (much higher) standards - sometimes to the point of absurdity. If we took van Raay's sort of male analogs (Xander Severina, Yahya Boussakou for example) you could expect to see typically much poorer sources than the ones being demanded here. Nonetheless if any of them ended up at AfD, a phalanx of football editors would be along to save them - all dogmatically, robotically, lazily and (in some cases) brainlessly citing WP:NFOOTBALL. I also agree that Fenix down used his relisting comment as a delete !vote, as has become usual in these cases. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFF and RGW are not valid AfD arguments. That said, I agree there is a group of 3-5 problematic editors who !vote keep for most NSPORT-meeting athletes (male and female) regardless of actual coverage; thankfully I think it's becoming more and more clear to closers that those !votes are worthless and should be disregarded. The best way to discourage mindless NSPORT !votes is to bring the guidelines closer to GNG; the only way to do that is to demonstrate GNG is not currently met for a substantial proportion of athletes meeting the guidelines. And the only way to do that is to hold athletes to the same SIGCOV standards as other biographies and not accept routine signing/match coverage or interviews as evidence of notability. But if editors continue insisting sports news "profiles" that are 70% quotes from the subject and three-paragraph injury reports contribute to notability then of course these "barely scraping by NSPORT" athletes will be kept and will be used as evidence that a guideline accurately predicts GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re: interviews: our guideline on notability for people states A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Interviews are primary sources according to policy (which is reinforced at WP:PRIMARYNEWS), although historically if the interviewer provides significant analysis or background on the subject using info not derived from the interview, such a source may contribute to notability. In this case that's irrelevant since none of the refs contain such secondary commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully I don't think we can take from one word buried deep in the footnotes of the WP:NOR policy (pretty irrelevant here since there are no stated OR concerns) and say it renders all interview sources inadmissible in all AfD discussions. I mean, we are making good faith attempts to assess WP:N. Why deny ourselves some of the sources on this bizarre (and contentious) technicality? I've seen one or two others brandishing this supposed 'trump card' in deletion discussions for female athletes, so I know its not something you've just dreamed up yourself. But it's still in my opinion tenuous and kinda weird "wikilawyering" – trying to have perfectly good sources excluded instead of weighing them on their merits. It's really not even that deep. Any notable footballer will throw off coverage, yes some of it pretty WP:ROUTINE and some of it interviews in WP:RSs, as has happened here. A few of us obviously feel WP:GNG is met in this case. You're right about the 3-5 problematic editors, but if you want wider currency for this novel idea that interview sources shouldn't count then you should probably try taking that to a wider forum. Likewise if you want to RGW about the laughably low inclusion criteria for male footballers. However in the individual AfD discussions it's probably better for us to make our own assessments using the full picture of sources. That's what I did when arriving at my decision. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a novel interpretation of what sources are considered "primary" or "not independent" (I linked to the WP:NOR footnotes only because they demonstrate this topic has been discussed and researched extensively in the context of our PAGs). That interviews are not considered for notability purposes because they're primary and not independent is also not a technicality only invoked in female athlete discussions. This has been a pretty standard interpretation for a while now, and it makes sense: we can't claim biographical material directly provided by the subject themselves is independent, secondary coverage, and if that's the only way a particular source contains enough info to be significant then that source can't count towards GNG. This reasoning is pretty regularly and uncontroversially applied by admins and highly experienced editors in biography AfDs, e.g.,

Examples

Some examples from 2017-18:

this close from Spartaz
this nom from Magnolia677
comments by Sergecross73 here
this nom from Bearcat
this vote from Biruitorul
a comment from K.e.coffman here
this nom from Huon

Examples from the last few months:

this nom statement from Fences&Windows
this nom from Star Mississippi
this !vote from Hobit
this nom from Extraordinary Writ
this !vote from Isabelle Belato
this nom from Modussiccandi
the comments by Winged Blades of Godric here
the comments by Cassiopeia and Papaursa (and me) here
Zxcvbnm's !vote here
this nom and a comment by Robert McClenon

JoelleJay (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a novel interpretation because using it in this broad-brush way could render virtually all media coverage inadmissible for notability purposes. After all, any written or radio/TV coverage about someone will carry quotes from that person. As every journalist worth her salt knows: "If you haven't got quotes, you haven't got a story!" I appreciate this is obviously your hobby horse, but none of these examples are directly applicable here because they're not footballers or even sportspeople. I could find twice as many examples of cases where footballers have been kept, on the strength of the most pitifully execrable sources. Even some I've AfD'd myself: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geir Hasund. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a few quotes doesn't make coverage an interview. It's when the majority of the article is quotes, and/or when the only biographical information that isn't quotes is insignificant, that a source should be considered an interview.

I specifically used mostly examples outside of sports (although Antonio McKee is in MMA) to demonstrate this isn't an interpretation restricted to athlete bios, which shouldn't matter anyway since they are all ultimately subject to GNG.

Yes there are footballer articles kept based on garbage reasoning like "subject is young, they'll get capped and receive coverage soon enough", or "subject is in another country, we should wait until a future editor can confirm no coverage exists in local offline sources", or whatever. In the linked AfD no one offered any rebuttal to the provided sources, so it's not surprising it was kept... I only looked at the first two, and on the surface those articles look lengthy and direct, however no one bothered to translate Norwegian to see if they were truly independent SIGCOV. If they had, they'd have noticed that they're actually interviews, just in a non-English format (using dashes and guillemets), and therefore closer inspection of the authors' commentary would've been necessary to determine whether the articles could count towards GNG. FWIW, I would've !voted delete if I'd seen this AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do these sources satisfy GNG when it's been established that those are press releases, run-of-the-mill, not independent, etc? Avilich (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus. Not sure if we will achieve one here this time but no harm in extending for a final week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and in particular per all of JoelleJay's comments, including the enlightening exchange with Jogurney above. Yes, there is coverage. But no, it is not in-depth, and not sufficiently independent. I dispute the keep !votes with rationales such as "...GNG asks for multiple sources", "... subject is 18 years with an ongoing career." — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having read through the discussion above, assessed the sources presented, and taking into account this footballer's young age and the inherent under-coverage of female footballers on WP and in media more broadly, I am inclined to side with Daz here and conclude that the subject passes WP:GNG. I'm perfectly fine also acknowledging that I come from an WP:Inclusionist perspective, especially on subjects that are structurally under-covered. Seany91 (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:09, 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 redirect to Option Canada (political party). Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Gogan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as a former leader of a fringe political party with no legislative representation during his leadership (or at any other time in Canadian history). To be fair, the article was first created at a time when that was accepted as an "inherent" notability claim that guaranteed inclusion in Wikipedia -- but our inclusion criteria have long since been tightened up, and no longer confer an automatic notability freebie on fringe political party leaders in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of media coverage. But apart from three primary source footnotes that aren't support for notability at all (a YouTube video, his own LinkedIn and the self-published org chart of his own post-political employer), this is otherwise "referenced" to citations of the "name of newspaper and date but no title of any actual piece of content in said newspaper on said date, parenthetically inserted directly into body text rather than being embedded inside reference tags" variety -- and after doing a ProQuest search to investigate what those sources were, I only found glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things and a small smattering of purely run of the mill campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election always gets, with absolutely no evidence of coverage that was substantively about him for the purposes of building notability. So again, this was fine by the standards of the time when it was created -- but by the standards of 2021, he doesn't have any notability claim strong enough to exempt him from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Option Canada (political party), the party he founded. Whpq (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Option Canada (political party) - I can find significant coverage of Gogan, but only terms of Option Canada. Nfitz (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Option Canada (political party) per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:15, 30 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. Fails WP:GNG WP:ACTOR, etc, at this time.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes De La Cruz[edit]

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

This article is about an actress that lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Perhaps a case of too soon for an article on Wikipedia. The article has been partially hidden as a potential copyright violation as the text is a rewording, at leat in parts, of the IMDB biography submitted by the actor herself, under the name Mercedes Gendron. My search for reliable sourcing under "Mercedes Gendron" turned up little. Searching under "Mercedes De La Cruz" turns up much more resultsm], but they are interviews, announcements, and insubstantial coverage. The sourcing in the article is the same sort of stuff. At the time of nomination, there are 6 sources.

Bello magazine is an interview and does not contribute to notability. The preamble to the interview is just a copy of the PR bio that is alo posted to IMDB. As a side note, the only reader comment is from a "Starr Gendron" who is Merced's mother.
This is announcement that she won a best actress award at the World Film Carnival Singapore. That is not a significant award, and the film canrnival is a monthly event.
Another interview. Note that the preamble to the interview is just a copy of the PR profile posted to IMDB.
Another interview
Reporting on casting and not substantial coverage
Insubstantial coverage from a source that is unclear on reliablity. Most of the profile information has been just copied from a model mayhem profile.

She has had some roles in made for TV movies. But these are note really notable films. Other roles mentioned seemed to be worded to appear more substantial than they really are. For example, She had a role in "The WB's Supernatural opposite Jared Padalecki". A check with IMDB credits shows that she has been on two episodes. Once as "Porn Star 6", and another time as "Rabid #1". Whpq (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nothing to see here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:57, 30 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. Subject fails WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Vass[edit]

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

Fails notability guideline WP:N Victmich (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. KidAd • SPEAK 22:41, 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 delete. Fails WP:GNG

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harold H. Thompson (medal recipient)[edit]

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

The same day that the subject received a heroism medal, so did "schoolboy Richard W. Holmes ... for swimming thru Warren river flood waters at the height of the New England storm to save two women" and "Elinor Imogene Randolph ... for saving a nine-year-old girl from drowning" ProQuest 2003022916. The Carnegie hero fund rewards good societal behavior but it doesn't confer notability, as the 26 acts of valor recognized that day each did not receive enduring coverage, if even recognized in their local papers. No such sourcing exists for this subject, nor do any suitable redirect targets. WP:BLP1E. czar 16:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 16:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. czar 16:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - commendable, but does not meet the inclusion criteria. Whpq (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly a WP:BLP1E. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:58, 29 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. Fails WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chilakamarthi Prabhakar Chakravarthy Sharma[edit]

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

Tenuous notability at best. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. The coverage is not up to the mark that is required. Awards received are not notable awards. Venkat TL (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:46, 30 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. Fails WP:GNG

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aashutosh Srivastava[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run of the mill lawyer. fails WP:ANYBIO. Lack of detailed coverage in reliable media and major awards. Venkat TL (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have SNG for lawyers so we check at GNG and BASIC - both of which are failed here. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG per all above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:17, 30 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.

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Inf-in MD (talk · contribs · block log)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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. Going with the keeps here - appears to be getting lasting, international coverage. If you wish to propose merges, please do so at the appropriate article talk pages.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS,WP:ROUTINE,WP:NOTMEMORIAL , not WP:PERSISTENT, not WP:DIVERSE, one of many violent incidents of the conflict. Despite the place name in the title it is about the stabbing of a not WP:NOTABLE person. Coverage mainly on the day. Include in an appropriate list. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily satisfies WP:GNG, per the numerous reliable sources in the article. As far as lasting impact, it is catalogued in Terrorism, 2013-2015: A Worldwide Chronology, and described as the impetus for the creation of an Israeli settlement Evyatar, in news coverage from just 2 weeks ago [17], [18], 8 years after the event. The OP's rationale is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Naming an illegal Israeli outpost, dismantled shortly thereafter, by the first name of the victim, 9 years later, is not enduring coverage. The google book is just a potboiler, a list of events over a two year period by an ex CIA analyst. Compare with Murder of Rina Shnerb or Murder of Ari Fuld, there is just no comparison. Most of the sources are from Israeli newsorgs, as I said, no lasting coverage, routine, notnews, memorial, not notable (place or person).Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was covered by multiple international media (UK, France, US, Israel) as recently as two weeks ago, 8 years after the event. You either do not understand WP:NEWS and WP:ROUTINE, or are willingly ignoring it. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was covered by various international sources it more then enough per our polices and mentioned even today [19] Shrike (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of an illegal outpost being vacated yet again and the other current goings on there do not constitute coverage of Tapua Junction or the victim.Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage that describes the event as the reason this outpost exists. That is evidence of both lasting impact (and event with international repercussions 8 years later) and ongoing coverage (press mentioning it 8 years later). I don't think you are competent to edit here, as you clearly don't understand the policies you are quoting. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The outpost does not exist and only existed briefly after the event. There are no international repercussions and no continuing coverage. If you are alleging WP:CIR issues on my part please take that to the appropriate forum along with diffs and evidence and refrain from unsubstantiated personal attacks.Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply false: [20],[https://www.radioj.fr/2021/06/30/en-samarie-evyatar-nouveau-test-pour-bennett/ Inf-in MD (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Speedy Keep WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as it meets WP:EVENT specifically WP:DIVERSE [21],[22] also mentioned at Google Books [23] meets WP:LASTING as the outpost Evyatar was named after the victim and still mentioned even in 2021[24] so meets WP:PERSISTENCE.Mentioned in scholarly WP:RS https://www.academia.edu/7812490/Protracted_Social_Conflict_A_Fresh_Look_at_the_Theoretical_Approach_to_the_Study_of_Enduring_Social_Conflict] --Shrike (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as it meets WP:EVENT specifically WP:DIVERSE, indeed. Good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious fail of WP:NOTNEWS, brief flurry of reports at the time and then no enduring coverage showing any sustained impact. nableezy - 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The attack got global coverage. Leaders of both Israel and Palestine made statements about it. It triggered multiple followup actions. Keep per WP:EVENT and WP:DIVERSE -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edit warring, or close to it, is currently going on on this page in regards to whether or not it should be called a "terror attack". This AFD seems to have been born out of that conversation[25], but oddly doesn't refer to it. Instead in my opinion, this AFD gives the impression of throwing the kitchen sink at this article in the hopes that something sticks. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a classic case of forum shopping - they didn't get their way in the talk page discussion, so took it to AfD on spurious grounds. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt spurious, this article fails NOTNEWS. That a set of users are dedicated to in addition to violating our NOT policy also insist on violating our NPOV policy is not relevant to the AFD. Please dont disrupt the AFD further. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 21:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's spurious, and you don't understand WP:NEWS, either. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if editors would address the reasons for deletion, not kitchen sinks, allegations of edit warring, forum shopping and other irrelevancies.Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The spurious reasons were addressed - there is ongoing coverage, 8 years on, from multiple international outlets, and a clear indication of lasting impact. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it spawned a series of retaliatory attacks and that an illegal settlement was named after the victim blows any WP:NOTNEWS argument to shreds. This very clearly meets WP:NEVENT. Mlb96 (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Evyatar. It is being claimed here that the naming of Evyatar after the victim supports the notability of the topic. That is already at Evyatar, but what is there could be expanded by another one or two sentences and that would be more than sufficient coverage of this everyday event. Zero^talk 01:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zero. Haaretz reported the other day 18 cases of Palestinians going about their business, smoking a cigarette, talking to a friend, etc. in no hostile context, who have been picked off by Israeli snipers just this year, with no explanation forthcoming. These killings are routine on the West Bank, but a number of editors leap to memorialize the (comparatively) rare cases where an Israeli is the victim.(WP:Systemic bias) One could, on the strength of this precedent, make an article on each Palestinian case as well, (adding as here how acquaintances thought the killed person was a nice guy etc) because they are widely reported. What was done was to note each incident in two lines in the relative village articles (see the entry for 7 murdered by Israeli snipers at Beita, Nablus over recent months, for example), as should be done here. Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:DIVERSE coverage for those events. Shrike (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. This article was created by an IP edit warrior on the same day as the incident itself, (just as I, were I to mimic this lamentable memorialization of victims on one side of the ethnic divide, could have done with the 18 Palestinian murders) and reportage since then has been almost zero, except as an occasional allusion, as editors noted above. The rules are being once more violated in favour of a Palestinians =terrorism promo game. Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. Example, killing of Mohammed Daadas on 5 November, which according to all the above should automatically have an article and has way more diverse international coverage than this article ever had:

A Rock Hit an Israeli Soldier. He Responded by Shooting at the Palestinian Protesters, Killing a Boy

Palestinians: 13-year-old dies by Israeli fire in West Bank

Israel troops kill teen in West Bank: Palestinian ministry

EU calls for investigation into murder of Palestinian teen

UNRWA is gravely concerned by the killing of a Palestine refugee child by Israeli live fire and plenty more besides these. In general, I have tended not to concern myself with these sort of events on the same grounds I argue for deletion here but since they are becoming more and more common (In 2021, the ISF killed 69 Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, including 27 refugees and 16 children by live ammunition) and noting the kind of argumentation being put forward here (and in other deletion discussions of similar material), I think I may well start putting up such articles.Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as ironical? There may indeed be a case for a general article on the regular IDF practice of killing unarmed Palestinian civilians pour encourager les autres, but we should rule out any 'retaliatory' mimicry of what policy decries, however much it is abused by articles like this one. I did it once, alerting beforehand an excellent admin, stating that my purpose was to write an article on one such IDF murder that would be immediately put up for deletion, in response to an article describing a parallel i ncident in which an Israeli was killed (which was under AfD discussion), stating that I wanted to verify how many 'voters' for 'keep' for the Israeli victim article would vote for 'delete' for the Palestinian victim article. H e thought this dishonest. I thought it was the only scientific way to show how bias exists in the group of editors who always show up with a lockstep 'keep' argument in this victim memorialization genre. I never repeated the experiment, having made my point.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In part, some of these killings are a bit beyond, so maybe some retaliatory mimicry is in order. The 69 is already up to 76 per https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties Also see 2021 Jerusalem shooting where the term "mass shooting" is being abused.Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One leads by example, not by mimicking practices we, in conformity with Wikipedia's rules on NOTNEWS and Memorial stubs, deplore. The only reason such articles exist is that the AfD usually has the same people voting for their retention. The 2021 Jerusalem shooting article should be up for deletion as well. Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Create that article if you think it meets notability requirements. Mlb96 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obvious notablity. Lasting coverage and lasting effects such as outpost founded on site. Free1Soul (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shrike's points in particular. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is lasting coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dániel Totka[edit]

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

According to the reliable HLSZ, none of his Hungarian games were at the professional level. Similarly, according to World Football, the 2 Swiss games were also below professional level. This leaves us with one game in Cyprus listed on Soccerway as the sole weak claim to notability. A Hungarian search failed to yield any non-database coverage and the best source found in Google searches was Sport Net, which is not even close to enough coverage for WP:GNG. Clear consensus that GNG takes priority over any SNG in marginal cases. There is also no evidence of an ongoing career as even MLSZ has nothing for him after 2012. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He must have been on a full professional contract in Switzerland per the regulation, however it's suggested the league operates semi-professional. Even still, I just can't see anywhere near enough sources for GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, regardless of whether or not he made a couple of appearances in an FPL. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 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 speedy delete. Deleted by User:Bbb23 using WP:G5 (editor was a sockpuppet of User:Mr Deactler). (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kangjam Jibai Singh[edit]

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

Disclosed paid editing (after some encouragement). There are claims to notability present so, upon reflection, WP:A7 was probably inappropriate and was likely not actioned for that reason. The claim to notability here is that he has completed some major projects for the Government of Manipur but the sources do not support this. Searching "Kangjam Jibai Singh" brings back absolutely nothing. I also fail to see how Crediwatch is a valid source. I am willing to play with the idea maybe some sources exist in another language but my concern is that the creator, who has a disclosed close connection with the subject, has been unable to offer any. Currently, there are no reliable sources to support WP:BIO and this is currently a violation of WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spiderone. The page has been deleted. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:50, 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 Sammarinese Communist Party. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Youth Federation of San Marino[edit]

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

The only substantial edit in the history of this unsourced stub was the 2004 one that created it. It is briefly mentioned on Sammarinese Communist Party (where it does have one source). No merge required; there's nothing to add from this article to that one.

This article and the three that redirect to it should simply be turned into redirects to Sammarinese Communist Party. asilvering (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, the article was clearly written as a part of completionist work, but there is nothing that indicates a communist youth league in one of the world's tiniest countries is notable on its own. Geschichte (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sammarinese Communist Party. There is no indication that I can find from RS that the two organizations are separately notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:39, 29 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right Livelihood Award[edit]

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

This organization's notability seems to rest on some very brief mentions in a few news sources (e.g. BBC, Deutche World). I note that none of these articles have bylines, and they all seem to read like press-releases. There's no evidence that anybody other than the organisation themselves considers the Right Livelihood award to be an "Alternative Nobel Prize". The vast majority of sources on this article are inappropriate (e.g. YT, primary sources) which do little to establish any notability for this subject. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable mainstream sources like SVT (the Swedish national televisin broadcasting corporation) also refers to it as the "alternative Nobel Prize". As does national radio. The award ceremony had been in the parliament for thirty years, and it is known well enough that it was news when it had to move, and big, national organisations were involved in the debate. SVT and SR, linked above, are perhaps the two most important and respected news organisations in Sweden, and go beyond just press releases. A search in w:sv:Mediearkivet gives plenty of results from all sorts of major Swedish newspapers, over a longer period of time. I'm sure there's a lot that could be done with the article, but the award itself is easily notable. /Julle (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BBC and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung are pretty good sources. And what is YT? Rathfelder (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(YT is short for YouTube.) Remagoxer ^(talk) 14:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as per above. SL93 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good sourcing. Award is per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:33, 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 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 12:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adhikārivāda[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG the word only has passing mentions in books related to Swami Vivekananda where he criticized this Hindu doctrine Explained at Wikisource. The creator is blocked for multiple copyright violations. Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The book cited only has a single page that mentions this topic, and as such could not possibly count as "significant coverage". Some of this content could possibly be merged into an article about the author of that book, but tbh I'm skeptical that there is anything worth preserving here. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:21, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fushitsusha[edit]

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Japanese experimental rock band with questionable notability, in my opinion. The cited sources include many dead links and unreliable looking sites. While there is a biography page on Allmusic, it is a general consensus that AM does not necessarily establish notability. During a google search I couldn't find anything better either except a concert review in NYT which I find surprising. But even if Allmusic is considered to be a reliable source, we have two reliable sources but that's not much, and like I said I couldn't find anything else other than the usual stuff (databases, youtube, fansites, trivial mentions...) They don't have an article on the Japanese Wikipedia either. Offline sources might be available but I can't access them. Thoughts? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep More coverage here and an album review here, on top of the concert review the nominator posted. Mlb96 (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Reader is great. I have talked about Allmusic in my nomination, I don't know any more if it is reliable or not. On huwiki it counts as a reliable source, but only if there is a biography or, in the case of albums, a staff-written review. There is one, I know, but I don't really know about Allmusic any more around here... GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:25, 12 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) 06:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has also been review coverage in The Wire (magazine) by David Keenan and Biba Kopf among others. (Unfortunately, my back issues are trapped in the attic so I am not directly referencing them at the moment.) There is also a recent interview with Keenan in The Quietus where he discusses the band ("one of the greatest rock bands of all time" in his opinion) as well as the circumstances of their abandoned concert in Stirling some years back: [26]. AllyD (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of mentions in The Wire, one of the top publications covering this niche of music, through the years search in back issues, Keiji Haino is notable as a musician on his own with a lot more coverage, but this band is long running and does have a decent amount of print coverage not freely available online. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources provided above appear to be enough for the subject to meet WP:NBAND criterion 1. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:15, 1 December 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. czar 16:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMG4[edit]

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

Cannot find enough evidence of notability. Written from fan’s POV, almost entirely consisting of references to YouTube videos. Part of a sequence of articles written with COI editors, all promoting Glitch Productions and their Youtube channel. Equine-man (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is OverDriver05, one of the main contributors to the SMG4 Wikipedia article, and i would like to appeal for the survivability of the page.

First off, SMG4 has been around since 2011, and its success leads to the creation of Glitch Productions, of which the series' creator, Luke Lerdwichagul, founded alongside his brother Kevin Lerdwichagul.

Second, Glitch Production currently produced SMG4, as well as the independent animation studios' other projects such as Meta Runner and Sunset Paradise, the latter being a direct spin-off to SMG4 as a whole. Also, those two shows are important as it includes characters that appeared in SMG4, either as a mainstay in the main cast (Meggy Spletzer and Tari) or a recurring character (Belle Fontiere).

Lastly, should the deletion of SMG4 became inevitable, you would have done yourself a complete disservice to its fanbase by removing the very page that connects Meta Runner and Sunset Paradise. After all, these three series are connected to one another in more ways than one!

I hope this would appeal to you and prevent this page from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverDriver05 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has two non-YouTube sources, both to Kotaku Australia. One of them is just a passing mention, but the other is lengthy and detailed. While it does seem to have been adapted from an interview, the author includes some of their own analysis as well. Is this enough to pass WP:GNG? I don't know. If the article is kept, though, nearly everything except for the lead needs to be deleted, as the rest of it is pure fancruft. Mlb96 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken it upon myself to delete most of the fancruft from the article. This meant deleting the description of every story arc and also deleting the absurdly large list of characters which took up well over half the article. Mlb96 (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've done some more digging and couldn't find any sources except for that single Kotaku Australia article. Given that that article was based on an interview, there is no other coverage of this series, and there has been some recent discussion about whether Kotaku should continue to be considered reliable, I'm going to vote delete. Mlb96 (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears to fail the WP:GNG, and nothing in the article creator's defense of the article is remotely tied to a valid keep response in the terms of Wikipedia policy or guideline. Sergecross73 msg me 02:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that from the original creator's response, they were arguing something along the lines of a WP:SPLIT. What they failed to realize though is that it generally only applies to articles which are of a large size because of its notability through multiple reliable sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single reasonable source (Kotaku) isn't sufficient to establish general notability. The rest of the sources are primary or only mention it in passing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:14, 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 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Kamagaju[edit]

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

This article is about a Rwandan banker who dos not seem to meet WP:BIO. None of the six sources mentioned contribute towards notability: the first is the website of a board she is serving on; the remaining sources simply mention the subject without discussing her in detail. I failed to find significant coverage in my search for sources on Google, which turned up only a few sources all mentioning her name. The subject thus fails WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage. Java Hurricane 07:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like nominator.Leomk0403 (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fails WP:BIO. Coverage merely confirms she held positions rather than being indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Chabaida[edit]

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

Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his entire career being limited to 2 football games. Geschichte (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of note found when searching in Ukrainian. When even players in the modern era who played 2 games then disappeared generally fail GNG, I can't think of a good reason to assume that Chabaida would pass with his 2 games in the 60s. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article references only present statistical data, therefore, it does not pass in GNG and SNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, which is unsurprising as he only ever played 2 matches. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 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. Per the due diligence of the participants.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skanda Hora[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS. None of the claims in the article can be verified. Doing WP:BEFORE, did not find any source that passes WP:GNG. Only passing mention in couple of astrology book that are WP:FRINGE theory and hence unreliable for assessing notability. The creator is blocked for multiple copyright violations. Venkat TL (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Adding to the nominator's BEFORE, I found not a single hit for "Skanda Hora" in my university library, ProQuest newspapers, Oxford Reference, or Google Scholar. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NBOOKS and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:20, 30 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. Keeping based on the cases presented below - sources appear to help the subject pass WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar State Institute of Medical Sciences[edit]

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

A newly opened college wants a promotion. Does not pass WP:NORG / WP:GNG, lacks reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Based on No original research. DMySon (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From the sheer depth of reliable News coverage provided, it is clear that the subject of the article passes WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 05:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A government run medical college and this is also a functional Hospital with patients. Passes Notability of schools based on the available coverage. It is also known as Mohali Medical College Venkat TL (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete From what I can tell all the references are either primary and (or) extremely trivial. I was thinking the article by The Tribune might be usable, but it's an interview. So it's not usable for notability. Also the article is clearly a PR puff piece and I don't see that changing with the references we currently have access to. Really, this article should have created after the university was around for a while. Most universities that just opened aren't going to have sufficient coverage to be notable. So it's no surprise that this one doesn't. Maybe create a draft for it in 6 months and send it through AfC just to be on the safe side. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, if you want Draftify, why then are you voting for delete? see WP:ATD Venkat TL (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to draft it. I was just suggesting it as an ATD for the article creator incase they do. I assume they are watching this. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources provided satisfy WP:GNG for this medical college and hospital. Polyamorph (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You're right that it's a newly opened school that probably really wants this article, but they still clearly pass WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Cycling this through AfC would be completely and utterly useless; I'm an AfC reviewer and this would probably be an accept based on the sources currently present. We don't need to clog up the backlog even more by draftifying. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm content with the sources currently in the article: [27], [28], and [29] are reliable Indian sources that discuss the college/hospital in depth, and that's sufficient to establish notability, particularly since additional sources likely exist in foreign languages. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 30 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Energy[edit]

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

Non-notable energy drink brand, unsourced. It gets a few passing mentions in New Zealand news, but no significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Devon Energy as {{R from misspelling}}. feminist (+) 16:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)~~ Changed to keep.[reply]
- Why? There is no relation between the soft drink and Devon Energy on any level NealeWellington (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see this as a logical outcome either; it's not a likely typo, and would mostly just confuse readers who are looking for the energy drink (the article does get a handful of views every day) and now end up at a completely unrelated article. Lennart97 (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep per the coverage of the drink in the Polish market. The Telegraph and Natemat sources added by NemesisAT, ~~plus an opinion piece in The Spectator,~~ push this beyond WP:GNG. feminist (+) 03:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the Spectator article again, it doesn't really provide much analysis so it should probably be discounted. However, the NZ Herald sources added to the article are reliable and significant, so this remains a "keep" for me. feminist (+) 15:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some sources to the article, including an article from The Daily Telegraph. The brand has attracted attention in Poland and I feel WP:SIGCOV is met. NemesisAT (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV unless advertising counts. NealeWellington (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles like this are clearly not advertising. NemesisAT (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NemesisAT, first of all, thank you for adding these sources! I agree the Telegraph article counts as significant coverage. The FoodBev piece does not, and Blabbermouth is borderline. That leaves the two Polish articles which are hard to tell for me; what kind of websites are these? Apart from that, I wonder if we can base an article about the energy drink completely on sources reporting on one particular controversy, as the controversy itself would not be notable per WP:NOTNEWS. Lennart97 (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first of the Polish sources is from hurtidetal.pl, which appears to be a trade magazine ("Hurt i Detal" translates to "Wholesale and Retail") and you can read about the second at natemat.pl. At first glance these seem to be borderline as far as reliability goes - the first because trade magazines tend to be dominated by their advertisers and Na Temat publishes both editorial content and blogs. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, on analysis of the natemat.pl article, it appears to be an article not a blog, as it isn't within the "Blogs" section. Though this could be wrong, I'm relying on machine translation. I think the sources can still be used to establish an article as WP:NOTNEWS seems to be more about events whereas this article is about the drink itself and not an event. NemesisAT (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that if an event (the Poland controversy) is not notable per NOTNEWS, then neither is a company/product whose sole claim to notability is said event. The natemat.pl goes a bit beyond the controversy, but altogether there's still a lack of reliably sourced basic information on the company itself. I did find this from the NZ Herald, by the way, but it also doesn't quite amount to significant coverage, as it's just about another not particularly notable controversy that the company found itself involved in. Lennart97 (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple more references from the paper you shared, thanks for that. I think we now have enough sources without relying on the controversy in Poland? NemesisAT (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This might be enough altogether, I'd be alright with keeping at this point. Quite the controversial company, that's for sure :) Thanks again for your efforts! Lennart97 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a couple of minor events, albeit in a reliable source some almost 10 years ago, give this article enough credibility to be retained. I suggest that the article fails on the grounds that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There has been no further interest in the product since then. NealeWellington (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once notable, always notable. Notability doesn't go away with time. NemesisAT (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true this article fails to meet notability on the basis of WP:INDISCRIMINATE NealeWellington (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE do you feel this article falls under? NemesisAT (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added more material from NZ media about its advertising and food safety record. This combined with the existing material is enough to meet GNG. --IdiotSavant (talk) 02:34, 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. Subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources therefore fails WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bali MMA[edit]

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

Subject fail WP:NCORP and GNG for all the sources in the article are either no independent or reliable (not indepdent as interivew articles, passing mentioned as the sources main forcal either in the other promotions or fighters and not the subject or the sources are not reliable) except one source by CNN - see here but the source only mentioned about the subject in one sentence.

To meet the notability guidelines the we need significant coverage by independent, reliable source whereby the sources need to talk about the subject in length and inadept and not passing mentioned. Cassiopeia talk 02:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cassiopeia, the CNN link has 2 sentences but the whole news in the video is about Bali MMA. Please verify. Berantral (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 02:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 02:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject has significant coverage here and this is not an interview or passing mention. Berantral (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article is an interview piece so it is considered not independent and thus fails the notability guidelines as stated above. Cassiopeia talk 00:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you concluded that ONE Championship reference is an interview because there is no mention of interviewer or whom it is interviewing. The Bali MMA is not a person and from the article's title it doesn't look like an interview. If you are referring to the few quotes by the athletes then this is an standard journalism approach when you are reporting on an organization. I also noticed this link has been used for significant coverage in other pages on MMA facilities so can you please tell me why exactly you think this is an interview and cannot be accepted? Thank you. Berantral (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berantral The article from ONE is an interview piece and also the lots of the info are from the founder of the gym (Bali MMA) that make the source not independent and pls do note this is Wikipedia and not not a newspaper and Wikipedia has its own way of defining notability. Significant coverage means we need "many (5-7) independent, reliable sources ((IRS) " where by the sources talk about the subject (Bali MMA itself) inadept and in length. Bali MMA is considered an company in Wikipedia and WP:NCORP notability is particularly strict. Since the gym is in Bali and you know Bahasa Malaysia/Indonesia, and if you can find at least 5 (IRS) such as from major newspapers then pls add the sources in (inline citations) as sources can be in any languages as long as they are IRS and talk about the subject directly (not the owners of the gym but the gym itself) in depth and in length and not only merely passing mentioned . Cassiopeia talk 21:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will look for local newspaper mentions which are significant and in-depth but are you sure about the numbers? I never came across any Wikipedia policy where 5 to 7 IRS are needed? Berantral (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berantral There is no exact number for sourcing but Wikipedia indicate "significant coverage" which means it is not 1 or 2 or a few (3). 5-7 would be suffice as "significant coverage". Cassiopeia talk 22:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Most of the references are passing mentions in articles about fighters who happen to train there, but notability is not inherited. The article discussed above is mainly an interview with the owner and was generated by the organization where its fighters compete. To me, that fails the independence test twice over. As for how many sources are required, I tend to agree with WP:THREE, which is only an essay but makes good sense to me. Papaursa (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a lot of significant coverage. Mathieu Vouillamoz (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page in its current state with its current references doesn't meet the independent coverage requirement. I'm ok to changing my vote but there needs to be improvements made first. -Imcdc (talk) 16:54, 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. ✗plicit 08:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Boyer[edit]

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

Non notable former porn performer. 3 sentences in a rolling stone article about something else does not count towards notability and the rest of the coverage is LOCAL ONEEVENT stuff around her tragic death in a hit an run. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. The article tells us she was born, she had a family, she died. The career section is a vague overview with only one source. — Maile (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage per WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

152 (film)[edit]

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

Last Afd was 13 years ago. Fails WP:NFILM. Note that it featured at the Kansai International Film Festival which is up for deletion. The film maker actually is the founder of this film festival. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are sources, even if only in web archives. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 16 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) 06:06, 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 merge to Colchester#Culture. I like the merge option for this one - the sourcing didn't quite lead me to believe this subject is independently notable outside the region in which it serves.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester Film Festival[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Gnews comes up with hits merely confirming films that have featured. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added independent reliable sources to the article. It passes WP:GNG. Don't rely just on Gnews! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 16 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) 06:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added by Richard Nevell establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't really, though, do they?—S Marshall T/C 03:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colchester#Culture. There's not enough reliably sourced material for a separate article.—S Marshall T/C 03:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) and redirect to Colchester#Culture as suggested by S Marshall. For me, the sourcing is a bit borderline though not conclusively sufficient enough to assert notability without question, so i'd err with a (weak) merge/redirect (if that's even a thing). Some content is useful so i'd suggest merging the lead paragraph and redirecting to that. There may be scope to reopening the article in future. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:57, 30 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 08:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Building, Johannesburg[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 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 keep. WP:AFD is rarely used for clean up - please discuss on talk page, reach out to Russian speakers or Cyrillic readers, and improve!

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing houses in the Soviet Union[edit]

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

The article is largely written in Cyrillic with interspersed translation for maybe half the text. It has been in that state for 15+ years. I would be happy if someone where willing (and better able than me) to make this a useful overview of the topic. But, failing that, it is simply not adequate for public consumption. K. Oblique 04:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K. Oblique 04:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K. Oblique 04:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. K. Oblique 04:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It might be worthwhile to add Roman transliterations for the names of individual publishers, but this is a notable topic and the article includes references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is in a poor state, but someone who can read Russian could probably improve it substantially. The subject is almost certainly notable. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article has solid scholarly sourcs cited. Unfortunately this is one of the notable topics wikipedians dont give a shit. - Altenmann >talk 20:20, 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 delete. ✗plicit 08:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by total wealth[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. It essentially reproduces a list created by a consulting firm, that no one has really written about or noticed. JBchrch talk 04:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 04:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 04:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 04:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty meaningless statistic that nobody else pays any attention to. If Jeff Bezos or one of his uber-rich peers moves, the rankings change. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unclear what constitutes wealth, redundant, and fails WP:NOTSTATS. Geschichte (talk) 10:55, 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 delete. ✗plicit 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of electric motorcycles and scooters[edit]

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

This is one of those "List of X of Y" lists for which we have no notability criteria. My arguments for deletion are the following: 1. this is functionally a category, not a list suited for the mainspace; 2. there is no possible way this list will ever be exhaustive at any point in the future; 3. imagine if we had a List of motorcycles and scooters with an internal combustion engine: this would not make sense, would it? JBchrch talk 04:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 04:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 04:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 04:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 04:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The world is moving more and more to electric vehicles. This page has limited use now and will become worse. I think list of motorcycles and scooters with an internal combustion engine is a solid analogy. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The items that have links just link to the company's article, or link to the name of the vehicle which then redirects to the company article. So the article now has no purpose. If enough electric motorcycles and scooters had their own Wikipedia articles, then the list would be valid. Dream Focus 17:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for this nom. I'm the originator of this page and actually in favour of the deletion. Some context: This is an on-going topic of discussion throughout BEV articles on Wikipedia. Most were created a decade ago when BEVs were less common, and are sorely outdated. This page itself, was actually migrated from just one of the sections on the monolithic List_of_production_battery_electric_vehicles as a stopgap while other lists were integrated and pared down. You can see previous discussions at: [30] and [31], including some counter-arguments. One notable counter-argument would be that List of human-powered aircraft exists, as does List of aircraft. Tagging User:N2e here as well, as they've been pretty vocal throughout this process. No coffee, please. (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- support this deletion. The electric vehicle pages, in general, were a big mess. Have been getting better with work. This one should go to the reasons given by non, and by No coffee, please. N2e (talk) 03:04, 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. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AgainstTheWest (hacking group)[edit]

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

All sources in article are of dubious reliability, and a brief WP:BEFORE search did not find any better sources to establish verifiability or notability. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mann Mann (talk) 16:21, 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 delete. Despite the good faith efforts presented here, I'm not convinced this artist meets our inclusion guidelines at this time. Perhaps in the future.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lilla von Puttkamer[edit]

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

This article do not contain any citations and I can find no reliable sources online. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article has been tagged for attention since 2015 with no improvements WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed some exhibitions in public galleries, like the Kunstverein Bochum, and Museum Kunstpalast (a very large group show), but there appears to be no discussion of her work anywhere. There is a book by Martin Leyer-Pritzkow, [32], but I can't find any libraries that have it. Some coverage in local news papers too, but nothing substantial. Vexations (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Should I have listed this article under Proposed deletion (PROD) instead of AFD? Looking at the article again, I think maybe that is where is should have been listed. I have read through the guidance and am still unsure how confident one should be to PROD an article. If there is no further discussion on this article will it become a soft delete? Advice welcome. Thanks WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PROD is for uncontroversial deletion if you can be reasonably certain that nobody is going to object to deletion. BLPPROD wouldn't apply in this case, because even though nothing is listed under a References heading, there is a link to LadaProject which has biographical information on her at http://www.ladaproject.com/artists/lillavonputtkamer/ So it is not an unreferenced biography. AfD, unfortunately, has too few participants. It is easy to overwhelm it with too many nominations, but I think you were right in bringing it here. Vexations (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, book mentioned above only held by a couple of libraries, may be an exhibition catalogue for this show at a gallery called Yellow Korner Berlin? doesnt seem wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, German WP article on von Puttkamer (here) has more (created by a SPA in 2015, may have been copied from artist's website?, unfortunately not much in the way of wikiusable references/linkes), anyway she is in collection of Berlinische Galerie (press release of exhibition of works from their collection including von Puttkamer here), and here are a couple of exhibitions that may(?) contributed to wikinotability - Ernst Museum (The Mechanics of the Canvas - group exhibition here), and Collegium Hungaricum Berlin a couple of times also here, National Art Gallery of Namibia (It’s Raining Cats and Dogs Group Exhibition here), curated by Martin Leyer-Pritzkow (here) but reckon more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The English version was created on the same date as the completely unsourced German version of the article. I moved the CV laundry list of exhibitions off the main space of the English version and on to the talk page. The link given by Coolabahapple to "It’s Raining Cats and Dogs Group Exhibition" shows that she wasn't in that show, but is part of the Stamp Alive Project. I don't see any of this elevating her to notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:41, 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 keep. After extended time for discussion, recent participation is trending increasingly towards keeping the article as substantially improved over the course of the discussion. BD2412 T 07:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mudiwa Hood[edit]

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

Fancruft. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:BIO. This has been draftified before so my doing that again would be move warring.

References are both WP:BOMBARD and contain many primary sources. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order, despite what the person who moved the article out of draft space said, I did not put this up for AfC. That said, while there's a strong WP:STARTOVER argument to be made about this article, it seems Hood does meet WP:NMUSICIAN (criteria 1, multiple non-trivial articles in RS media; criteria 11, rotation by major station; and possibly criteria 7, for gospel hip hop in Zimbabwe). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcr25 I'm afraid there is no undoing the other editor's inexplicable move from Draft space without move warring, so, as nominator, I have taken the article as I found it. I think you have just cause for legitimate annoyance with the mover, except that they had every right to make they move despite it being a strange act. WP:TNT is required here if notability can be discerned and verified. Wikipedia is improved in any case whatever the outcome of this deletion discussion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article does not establish musical notability. It cites two musical awards, the Zimbabwe Achievers Awards and the Zim Hip Hop Awards, both of which are questionable. The Zim Hip Hop Award article was created by one of the authors of this article and appears to be part of a developing walled garden. The Zimbabwe Achievers Award was created by sockpuppets and is tagged as the work of conflict of interest editors. This article does not otherwise establish musical notability.

This article has been moved from article space to draft space twice, by User:Celestina007 and User:Tcr25, and moved back into article space, so that User:Timtrent was right in nominating it for deletion rather than draftifying again.

This article has been reference-bombed with sources, most of which are visibly of little or no quality. No attempt has been made, and no attempt should be expected, to review the sources. If the authors actually expect a real review of the sources, they should designate no less than three but no more than five sources as critical. They should also declare any conflict of interest.

To follow up on the comment of Tcr25, this may be a case where the subject of the article actually satisfies notability but will never get a Wikipedia article as long as their flacks continue to try to game the system. This appears to be a case where the subject's flacks are their own worst enemy. However, this article should be deleted.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your point about flacks being the problem is the correct one, Robert McClenon. There are enough RS sources that turn up in a quick search to show that Hood meets WP:GNG and at least C1 and C11 of WP:NMUSIC. I don't think we can legitimately say he doesn't meet notability requirements. That said, the article needs work, including improving and pruning sources. I've tried to start cleaning it up, mostly through copyediting and some source vetting, but there's only so much time in the day and this isn't an area of particular interest or expertise for me. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per Robert McClenon they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Carter indicated, i also think from a neutral point of view, this page can be worked on, i am from Zimbabwe and Mudiwa is a prominent figure no doubt, he is the most successful hip hop artist in the country in terms of awards and recognition.

Let me say something about the music industry here in Zimbabwe, there are 4 biggest awards which are (in no particular order) 1. National Arts Merit Awards (NAMA) by the National Arts Council, 2. Zimbabwe Music Awards (ZIMA), 3. Zimdancehall Awards (For dancehall artists in Zimbabwe) and Zim Hip Hop Awards (For Zimbabwean hip hop artists), these are the key and most significant gongs that every artist here wishes for. Which is why when nominations for these awards are released, every media house talks about these awards, there is media noise and when they happen there is serious coverage even on national TV, so they are no joke here in Zimbabwe. If you just make more research you will see what i mean.

The Zim Hip Hop Awards themselves are the biggest awards for hip hop in Zimbabwe, if you talk about recognizing Zimbabwean hip hop industry then Zim Hip Hop Awards are the key mention. Of cause some of the articles are primary sources which i think can be removed making the page clean than disregarding the whole subject. I have seen weaker articles here in Wikipedia of artists who are not even close to prominence e.g L kat, Tehn Diamond, Ninja Lipsy, Siyaya.

So yes they are primary sources with a pompous tone which can be annoying also which can be removed but i dont think it can take away the fact that the subject has significance in the music industry in Zimbabwe maybe consider that he has had several hit songs that dominated radio stations, has the most awards in the hip hop industry in Zimbabwe.Gwatakwata (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwatakwata Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. You arę welcome to send the articles you mention for AfD.

The English Language Wikipedia cannot have different rules for different nations. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a question of different standards for different nations. Looking at the sources, about half are associated with the awards or releases, not the bio. For the awards, the draft policy Wikipedia:Awards and accolades requires independent sourcing, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades seems to have more leeway in accepting primary sources for award nominations and wins. For the discography section, it's not clear to me if MOS:DISCOGRAPHY requires sourcing for each release or if pointing to a primary source or press release to document the release is acceptable. The bulk of the rest of the sources are to Zimbabwean newspapers, some of which are questionably WP:RS for political stories, but should be reliable for things like entertainment and sports. Hood has been the focus of an academic paper and more-than-trivial-mention stories in multiple Zimbabwean newspapers. I'm not comfortable saying delete due to lack of notability because the preponderance of the evidence is that Hood meets both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. I'll admit that I'm not a fan of WP:TNT as a way to handle things, but do think it would be reasonable to pare the article down to a stub. Having more in the English language Wikipedia about non-U.S./U.K./Australian subjects is positive for the project. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and tried to trim/consolidate things and check sources. In a few cases, I deleted substandard sources and couldn't find a replacement so a "citation needed" was added. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this statement: "[Mudiwa is] the most successful hip hop artist in the country in terms of awards and recognition." -- Gwatakwata. If this is true, then I think that statement would on its own meet the criteria for WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:BIO. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Caleb Stanford Such a statement may only be taken as correct with an independent citation in a reliable source to show it. We may not take statements like that at face value Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we need independent citations here, but I don't see anyone here contesting the claim itself. On the contrary, User:Tcr25 and others appear to be agreeing that the subject is notable and attributing the problem to other means. I suspect that, if this claim is true, there should be reliable citations that could be dug up to substantiate. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest reviewing the current status of the page. I've done a bit of work trying to address the concerns about the article. The sources included are mostly Zimbabwean newspapers that may some some reliability issues when reporting on the government, but should suffice as WP:RS for reporting on entertainers. There's also, as I noted above, an academic article that looks at Hood and his music as an expression of prosperity gospel. These are all now in the article to establish WP:NMUSICIAN. If there are still concerns about WP:BOMBARD and primary sources, I believe things have been reduced to the point where the normal editing process can clean up things without deletion. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia probably doesn't have Zimbabwean reliable sources figured out, leading to a form of systematic WP:BIAS, that lead to this AfD. The young man meets GNG, and a profile piece in RollingStone shouldn't be necessary to establish it. LondonIP (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per LondonIP. I support everything they said verbatim. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Panama City. ✗plicit 13:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean One (Panama City)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced. I could not find anything in gnews for either name. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of tallest buildings in Panama City as it seems to have no other noteworthiness. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agroindustrial Casa Grande[edit]

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. We have standard financial reporting and a snippet of a recommendation to initiate legal action but which fails WP:CORPDEPTH and probably WP:ILLCON as well. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This new AfD was created the day after the previous one was closed, bringing a whole new meaning to WP:TOOSOON. Here is an additional English-language source that talks a lot about Casa Grande in the broader context of the sugar industry: https://www.profundo.nl/download/cnvi-2106 If you can't access the Gale OneFile references, you may be able to access them through your library. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AfD was withdrawn by the nominator so not sure what your point is but your reference to TOOSOON isn't relevant in that context, it applies to topics that are considered to be too early for an article (did you even read TOOSOON?). The source you linked to is the best of the bunch so far though - but saying that, it doesn't mean it meets NCORP criteria and describing your source as one that "talks a lot about Casa Grande" is misleading at best. In fact, it doesn't really talk about the topic company at all or provide a profile. The context of this topic company in that reference is that the reference does include trading figures (which were reported by the company itself) into various tables. But there's no "Independent Content", it is just dry reporting without any analysis/opinion/etc, so still fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Also, the parent company, Glupo Gloria, doesn't have its own article and is only mentioned in the Peru Brand article, otherwise a redirect would be the best option. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:20, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese On Bread[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The references in the article do not meet the threshold for WP:GNG since there aren't multiple examples of signifiant coverage in reliabel third-party sources. (My BEFORE search didn't unearth anything of that variety either.) I don't see how any of the criteria at WP:BAND apply to them. The subject seems to be non-notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: one of their former band members has an unsourced article which is also currently at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dibson T. Hoffweiler). Modussiccandi (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence it meets WP:BAND. Chelokabob (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Far from notable Salimfadhley (talk) 22:34, 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Azim[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Of the five cited sources, two are brief mentions in versions of a list, two are about a politician who Azim may have treated (the articles don't mention him), and one is a newspaper article written by him. Searches of the usual types found pages published by him and his employers,[33][34] but no significant coverage in independent sources.

Turning to the criteria of WP:PROF, his selected articles are in obscure journals with little impact. I can find no citations of his work. He is a fellow of the Bangladesh College of Physicians and Surgeons, but in contrast to the IEEE (the example used in criterion #3), where fellows must be nominated by others and no more than one in one thousand may be selected per year, one obtains fellowship in the BCPS not by election, but by passing an exam, and about two-thirds of the total membership are fellows.[35] Fellowship in BCPS is not reserved as a highly selective honor. Worldbruce (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 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) 23:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as per nom, subject fails WP:NPROF. But they might still be notable as army colonel. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. No sign of WP:NPROF, and I'm not seeing signs of GNG. "Weak" because I could easily be missing sources in Bengali. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely unreferenced, with the references to things that are not notability-establishing. Academia-refs to non-independent sources only (i.e. staff listings). Based on the article, doesn't meet NPROF, has no indicia of notable military service and doesn't appear to meet GNG. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:10, 30 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. Ping me if you need salting.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossings TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA; written like an advertisement; some sources are press releases. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – only secondary article I could find was this passing mention, which is fairly trivial. As a note, should this page be deleted, salting may be needed, as the article has been converted to a redirect and converted back at least four times. The reverts back to article status came from Crossings TV (a clear COI), Schoewiki (who was tagged for COI), and Pchoiwiki (who has only edited this article and may have a COI). RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:18, 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 delete. Trusting the good faith work of our astronomy Wikipedians! Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 1002[edit]

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

Honestly, the article should be rid of. It’s just an ordinary red dwarf that’s close to Earth. Fails WP:NASTRO due to its faintness, and lack of unique properties. 400Weir (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only possible claim to notability is its closeness at about 16 light years, but it still fails WP:NASTRO. It is included in a lot of near-space surveys, but I can't find anything published specifically about this star or about it and a small number of others. There is this, where it is one of 12 stars selected from a sample of 58 for a survey for companions. None found. Lithopsian (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "GJ 1002" or "LHS 2" is mentioned in a surprising number of astronomy papers, no doubt because it is close and serves as a useful reference for a non-active red dwarf. I did find a ~~couple of~~ dedicated ~~studies~~ study,[36] so I'm on the fence with this one. Praemonitus (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't one of those about a different star? Lithopsian (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Fixed above. Sorry. Praemonitus (talk) 19:50, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green steel in Ukraine[edit]

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

I think it is effectively a whitepaper and it is entirely unencyclopeadic. Unless whitepapers are acceptable articles. It takes a position, then tries to prove it. For example The European Green Deal is a plan so it's set in the future, again similar to a white paper, setting out a position. As it doesn't read correctly, it would need a fairly drastic rewrite, if it was acceptable. The only section that is in the present, is the History of adoption, but even that strays. scope_creep^Talk 12:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recently wondered aloud if we had an article on green steel. Reducing the emissions of the steel industry is one of the most difficult issues in climate change mitigation, both for technical reasons and because writing good policy is hard: Jurisdictions often don't want to apply carbon taxes to the steel industry because it would make their domestic steel production less competitive internationally. This article is about how an industry is changing, mostly in response to a policy initiative. Whether this policy initiative is a "plan" is irrelevant - the policy is already having an effect by sending signals to markets. We need a hell of a lot more articles that illuminate how climate policy works, not fewer articles. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article on green steel, it is the production and financialisation of green steel in Ukraine. Have you read it? There is barely any mention of it. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you mind laying off comments like "Have you read it?". This kind of comment comes across as snarky and doesn't help anyone better-understand your argument for deletion. You seem to think that that the focus on the EU Green Deal causes the article to be set in the future. I provided background on what green steel is in order to explain why this is not the case. BTW I'm also not understanding why "only one section is set in the present" is a policy-based argument for deletion so if you can elaborate on how that comment relates to policies and guidelines that would be great. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clayoquot: you yourself wrote it, that makes a lot of sense. Here is some examples of how badly it reads:

Accordingly, it is the only mechanism available today for modernizing steel production to meet environmental goals.
The European Green Deal is a plan to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions
Germany is already introducing a green steel financing program
This law contains a number of norms that introduce
The establishment of the tariff for green steel enterprises program has been sanctioned by the Ministry of Economic Development
Theoretically
Not a single metal plant has yet received the status of "green steel,

That seems to be a call to action, that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. They're is no theory on here and there is no planning being done. It has no place on Wikipedia. Words or phrases like norms, sanctioned, plan to achieve are indicative of somebody who writes whitepapers. They are not wikipedia language. I used to write whitepapers, so I recognised it immediately. I would suggest rewriting it, so it meet the Heymann standard. scope_creep^Talk 18:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Yeah, it comes across as a position paper, not something descriptive. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unencyclopedic in its current form. I will admit I didn't know what a whitepaper was, but through checking it sounds like it definitely fits this article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:31, 29 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. Going with the keeps here - clean up clean up clean up

We're happy to welcome the article back to AfD if these newly found citations and cleanup efforts don't pan out.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WebMethods[edit]

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

10+ years of being tagged with notability and advertising issues; no evidence it meets WP:NCOMPANY. BEFORE fails to find anything other than press releases and business-as-usual entries. Acquired a while ago by Software AG which makes for a valid redirect target. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the claims are true they may be significant, if the claims are hyped, and they may be, the case for keep is far less. The name triggers a bell but it may be a different entity that is ringing it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Software AG. This was a big deal in the Internet bubble, although some readers of Wikipedia might not be old enough to remember, some of us do! There were records of "largest IPO to date" every couple weeks, but it is a bit of history. We can probably save the article, but do not want to put in the time if you are going to delete it. Product name seems to still be around. Also of course related are webMethods Integration Server and webMethods Flow and webMethods Developer and SAP Business Connector which need to be either deleted or merged. A combined article on the company, its record-setting (for a brief time) IPO, and its products in neutral tone would be better in my opinion, than just deleting this one. W Nowicki (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you can improve it, go ahead. We can always merge any useful parts before deleting if the end vote shapes into a delete. The thing is, in the current form, it is not ready for the mainspace (we could also draftify it in your userspace, that's another option). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It was a big deal in it's time and I think clearly meets WP:NCOMPANY. The notability notice should also be removed. The WP:PROMO issues, IMO can be fixed with a quick rewrite. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this page survives, can someone please specify exactly what the issues are with WP:PROMO. Other than a few issues with tone, I don't see any real problems. The huge changes in it's stock price and the acquisitions it made are a large part of what makes it notable, not promo. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -easily meets WP:NCOMPANY -there are more than a dozen references in the article from independent reliable source such as eWeek and The Wall Street Journal that discuss the company, its products and its acquisitions Inf-in MD (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the tags were added in 2010, and quite a bit of improvement has been done since then. I am biased, since as noted above, spent several recent days working on replacing the promos with neutral language paraphrased from more reliable and independent sources. It still could use more work, but any deletion-worthy issues should be taken care of, unless someone points out specifics that remain. My propose is to delete or merge the four product articles I mentioned above into this one, since those are more clearly just product guides, with no independent sources at all. W Nowicki (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the product articles into this one makes sense to me. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I just removed the promo banner from the article because I couldn't see them, and you claim that they did exist at one point and you fixed it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:21, 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 Lock Haven Bald Eagles football. Going with the redirect as an WP:ATD. I am not convinced the the subject meets WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lock Haven Bald Eagles football team[edit]

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

This article is not notable enough for a standalone article, per WP:NSEASONS: "A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable.". Lock Haven finished the season 1-9 in a Division II conference, with no postseason appearance, in a non-division I conference, so it doesn't meet criteria for it's own article space. Spf121188 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do understand the viewpoint that this could meet WP:GNG, but the references in the article are in large part reports on individual games, which you could find for any team in any Division/Conference in the publications that cover them, and doesn't speak to widespread notability. I also understand the impulse to want to keep these individual season pages for Division II or III teams, but this article clearly and indisputably fails NSEASONS. Spf121188 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spf121188: There's no need to have a separate !vote, the fact that you nominated it for deletion serves as your !vote. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it fails NSEASONS, I believe it meets the general notability criteria with coverage from The Daily Item, the Williamsport Sun-Gazette, and The Record (see the refs in the article). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found coverage from The Slate and The Reading Eagle. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's worth nothing that The Slate article is covering Shippensburg University, as it appears it's a school newspaper for them, and it's also only covering an individual game report, for when they played Lock Haven, so this can't be considered independent.Spf121188 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment this might be a case where a merge decision would be proper--to send the information to a combined article such as the year in the conference, to the team artile, or maybe to a block of years. I believe an argument can be made that the subject matter surpasses WP:GNG, but I would instead propose a different solution that would keep the information and find hte best way to retain it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a Division II team with a 1-9 record. In other words, a less than run-of-the-mill season for a fourth-tier team, i.e., Tier 1 Power 5 > Tier 2 Group of 5 > Tier 3 FCS > Tier 4 Division II). In the internet era, many (maybe most) "high school" teams get the type of coverage that we see presented in this article, and we aren't creating or endorsing articles on those. I believe that season articles for these fourth, fifth- and sixth-tier programs should be restricted to cases where there is an extraordinary achievement (i.e., national champion or perhaps a runner up) or where the SIGCOV showing is particularly strong and clearly independent. Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Lock Haven Bald Eagles football team is just as bad (or worse) and should also be deleted IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lock Haven Bald Eagles football since redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:00, 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 delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcellus, Washington[edit]

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

A grain elevator sitting by itself with a faint line running diagonally across the fields: yes, it's another Milwaukee Road station, the end of the same branch line that served Packard, in fact. You can even see the traces of the turning wye just southeast of the elevator. What you won't see is any traces of a town. Mangoe (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It certainly existed as a rural community in the way many early 20th American farming communities used to exist, but whether its notable I haven't dug any.[37][38]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No in-depth RS coverage that would meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 04:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above sources, I can confirm that it was a small community, sometimes called Marcellus Grange: [39] [40] [41] [42]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the Grange is a national farmers' association that also sponsors social events; apparently there was a chapter at Marcellus. Do you feel that these passing mentions are sufficient to meet GNG, which requires direct in-depth coverage of the topic, or are you saying that simply confirming the existence of a community is enough? –dlthewave ☎ 03:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from what I saw, the grange in this case was a farm supply place a la Southern States. Mangoe (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The simple existence of a community is not enough for it to be kept. WP:GEOLAND#1 requires "legal recognition", but there is no evidence of that in this case (it would require e.g., incorporation, or some other process of law). A post office does not confer legal recognition - these were (and are) often just co-located with stations and stores, and may be mobile. WP:GNG requires at least two instances of WP:SIGCOV which there just aren't in this case - a story that says nothing about the place except that it is so small it barely exists is not significant coverage. Community announcements, where the people being talked about were the source of the information being provided, and the community is just mentioned in passing, are also not significant coverage.

We do not have articles about places that no encyclopaedia article can be written about. This is exactly such a place. FOARP (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:GEOLAND, for reasons explained above. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nearest populated place appears to be Tokio, Washington. I suppose it could be mentioned in that article as a nearby former railroad stop. BD2412 T 07:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Numerically, it's 11 to 7 in favor of a redirect, a clear majority but not on its face clear consensus. In terms of arguments, the question is whether this has enough sustained, substantial coverage to escape the one-event clause. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, which means I can't discount either side's views, and so we have no consensus at this time. Sandstein 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Ashli Babbitt[edit]

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

Content fork duplicating the text of Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Shooting of Ashli Babbitt, but divorced from due context. Feoffer (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy restore redirect - This has already been discussed over and over and over again (there are more discussions, if you care to search). The original article also already failed one AfD. No further information is available about her or the event now than there was then, so the original consensus should stand. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the event of Ashli's death is certainly notable according to the many sources available. The discussions you are referring to are not focusing on the notability of the subject given the recent reliable sources. You must be unaware of Donald Trump's recent tribute to Ashli Babbitt in his video message. This made more news like this. Also, findings are released by the Police on 10 November 2021. There is still more. Are you sure that "No further information is available about her or the event now"? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see in those sources, no. Trump name dropping to drum up support from his followers is nothing notable (no different than the Proud Boys trying to make a martyr of her). The WaPo and Salon articles are mere mentions using her as one of several examples (no additional content). As for the "findings released by police" that you claim, a couple newly released cell phone videos from January 6th is not additional information, only additional copies of the same information. A separate article is still WP:UNDUE, and fails WP:BIO1E and WP:10YEARTEST. From those sources, the most we could add to the content we already have on Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack is a sentence about Trump mentioning her. - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the very fact that the news is getting updated by various aspects of the event from time to time. What you just called "Trump name dropping to drum up support from his followers", may be important for others but this is not even the core part of our decision making, since Trump's action, for instance, has been covered by sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing discussion doesn't imply a fork is merited. Feoffer (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reminder of what the guideline actually says: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. We seem to all agree that coverage of the shooting is warranted; it's a question of where in the family of articles related to the capitol attack this material should occur. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While according to WP:SPLITTING, the target article that this came off of is not too long that a split is desirable, the place where this originally was is certainly large enough to warrant this split, so at least from a technical standpoint it is within reason. Furthermore, the previous deletion discussions that Adolphus79 references all occurred soon after the event. This one even says clearly that if new sources emerge, the article's importance can then be revisited. Well, there has been continuing coverage of this event in RS, which negates the idea that this was an isolated BIO1E, such as in May when the family opened a lawsuit,[43] in July when the killing was analyzed as being center-stage in Trump's rhetoric,[44] in August when officer Byrd was exonerated and broke his silence,[45] [46] and when international media did a biographical sketch,[47] in October when Trump started to use Babbitt and the riot as a rallying point in earnest,[48] and new information about the shooting keeps coming out,[49] so that this story is far from being over, and that the target articles may not be suitable anymore to contain all of this information. StonyBrook (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The shooting has had enough press coverage to merit a spin-off article. Dimadick (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The News coverage of this event is large and prominent enough to merit its own article. Dunutubble (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In line with what other people said. One of the two deaths notable enough for a separate article. --Killuminator (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are four. - StonyBrook (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect as a contentious split, this should have been discussed first. I think it's better covered at 2021 United States Capitol attack than as a stand-alone article. As I note above, this isn't a notability issue. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, notability is not your concern here. Then, what do you mean by "it's better covered at 2021 United States Capitol attack"? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says: "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Which of "adequate sourcing", "significant coverage" or 'suitability for the encyclopedia' is an issue here? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Content forking is the issue. We already have an article on this topic -- a new subarticle should be created only once consensus for a split has been generated at Talk:Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. Feoffer (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: you beg the question by assuming one of those three must apply, when that's not what the guideline says. But as it happens, the third. Even though there's plenty of sourcing to meet the GNG, we're better off covering it in an article that also covers the other events of that day. VQuakr (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you'all think the GNG is met here, then you need to have a strong argument explaining it is not suitable to have it alone. @Feoffer: No forking has happened here. It is a common practice, supported by the guidelines, to create pages for notable events. You can find dozens 'killing of ... ', 'Death of ... ', 'Killing of ... ' and etc. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"No forking?" You literally copied the pre-existing article's text. Feoffer (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect. There is already another daughter article where this is covered in the same amount of detail as here -- Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Shooting of Ashli Babbitt. Thinking how this could be separated is very novel and a good argument would need to be offered, but no one has advanced a serious argument how the longstanding organization of this topic where this was not a separate article was lacking in any way. This obviously isn't about notability. Per WP:N, [a topic being notable] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. This is inherently grouped together by being a single brief episode in a mass violence event. Imagine a medieval battle in which a ruler was killed. How incredibly notable, right? But we don't have a Killing of Murad I article or a Killing of Richard III of England article. WP:10YEARTEST. It's true that Death of Brian Sicknick is a separate article, but that happened on a different day, and has a convoluted media aftermath that can't fit anywhere else but in a separate page. There's no such thing here, and this event-within-an-event is best covered in appropriate context. I tried editing this article to improve it but see no point after a while. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that while Richard III of England and Murad I also have their own articles, where you can find historical info not related to their manner of death in battle, no such article exists for Babbitt. And since the background info on her, which sheds light on her later actions, is not appropriate for the Law enforcement response article, forking her shooting article makes sense, if only for that reason alone. StonyBrook (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that Ashli Babbitt is somehow notable enough for her own article outside of the event? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. Babbitt is not notable outside of the shooting. However, her background information is valuable to understand what led to the shooting, and it doesn't fit anywhere except in a standalone article. StonyBrook (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point. But a minor point. Not important enough a thing to warrant a separate article. First of all although this information is okay, we can live without it. It's only... somewhat valuable. And if we deem it valuable enough despite not fitting in with the surrounding prose, we can still include it as a note ref. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of room to incorporate additional biographical details in the existing article if they're relevant. Feoffer (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not a WP:BLP1E because, y'know, but certainly a just a Wp:ONEEVENT. Does not justify a separate article. Zaathras (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect A small event among many that happened that day, WP:ONEVENT. Nate • (chatter) 03:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your contention that this was a small event. It was a large event within a larger event. No one suffered a shooting death in and around the Capitol building that day except Ashli Babbitt. How often does a shooting death occur within the U.S. Capitol building? To quote from the above guideline: The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Now, no one is arguing here to create an Ashli Babbitt; the argument being made here is WP:WEIGHT: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. I contend that this event-within-an-event was a significant one, and, just to rehash what I said above, it is doing a good job right now being a repository for all the added information. StonyBrook (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using my vote! to soapbox is something that should be discouraged. I'm not going to say anything else besides the keeps are being argued for some kind of bizarre memorial rather than on the topic's merits. Nate • (chatter) 22:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A rebuttal in a policy discussion, while quoting different policies, is not soapboxing; and this is no less WP:MEMORIAL than any other notable shooting article. - StonyBrook (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You used my short vote! to write something you knew would not change my vote! in any real manner. It's soapboxing, and it's against basic AfD guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 23:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above could only be a possibility if you were the only one reading this thread. And even if you were, no one is coercing you to change your opinion. But I am generally curious as to the rule you are referring to because I could not find it, so a link to where it says debating policy is disallowed in the Afd guideline would be helpful to myself and possibly others as well. StonyBrook (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies here because the article isn't a biography, it's about an event. The event (the shooting) appears to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage, so I feel this subject meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ONEEVENT does not apply here because the article isn't a biography, it's about an event. Further it has WP:LASTING coverage and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is a certain kind of magnet (see history on Nov. 26) and keeping it is more harm then good, seeing how almost everything contained therein is already contained in another relevant place, and that which isn't can also be added, if deemed needed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. To do NPOV coverage of the Babbit shooting, you have to discuss both the breach and the backpack bomber. That article already exists, we shouldn't recreate it here. Feoffer (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context always matters, but sometimes it really really matters. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Nov 26 edits, the sockpuppet also vandalized the main Capitol attack article on the same day, so should we now submit that one to Afd as well? StonyBrook (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should not, but at least by doing away with this unnecessary article that does not contribute to the purpose of Wikipedia because it doesn't help readers learn more about the topic (since it's already covered better in-context elsewhere in essentially the same amount of detail -- WP:CFORK), we are doing a good weighing of pros and cons -- one problem less for free. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect - This topic appears to be almost like some sort of "trophy" for the right, which is extremely bizarre/disturbing (given that this confused young lady lost her life over "election fraud" garbage/nonsense). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, we should delete any article topic that bothers people, but WP:NOTCENSORED. Right or left wing talk is not pertinent to a discussion about a notable shooting death. StonyBrook (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Somedifferentstuff: I think, neutrally written, it is a monument to the incredible severity of the situation that took place that day. It does need to be cleaned up significantly though. ––FormalDude

^talk 01:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Shooting of Ashli Babbitt per WP:CFORK and WP:1E. Miniapolis 23:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, this is in no way a separate event that needs its own article. --Khajidha (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the reliable sources dedicated to 'Shooting of Ashli Babbitt', it really needs a stand alone page.--Mhhossein ^talk 05:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect Sure it got a lot of coverage, it was not really a major event, and is so small a merge is more than possible. IN fact that alone should show this was not really all that significant. It was the worst event of the day, but that means it was part of the larger event, not a standalone event.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally, I would prefer the title to be just "Ashli Babbit", but I definitely disagree with restoring the redirect. Looking at the sources, several of them, such as the ones from USA Today and NBC News, deal exclusively with her, so clearly she meets the criteria of substantial coverage. If Horst Wessel can have an article, why can't she? IvoryTower123 (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For one, we have in-depth sourcing on Wessel that Babbit lacks; Horst was born on Oct 9, what day was Ashli born? Nobody knows or cares. Horst obviously passes ten year test, Babbit does not. Additionally, Babbit has living family, so there's BLP implications that Wessel lacks. This has already been discussed over and over and over again (there are more discussions, if you care to search). Feoffer (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. Miniapolis 23:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect this event is not an independently notable subset of the events of 2021 United States Capitol attack. It should be covered in that article. We don't need this content fork. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer !votes that only address notability should be disregarded since they do not address the actual rationale in the nomination. Notability was never contested, nor is it a reason to have a stand-alone article (as opposed to keeping the status quo of covering this within the article about the shooting) in this case. This is effectively a misplaced split discussion. VQuakr (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the above comment. It must be taken into account that throughout the discussion, from nomination until the (ostensibly approaching) end, the redirect side had consistently not based their arguments on notability, instead basing them on other very relevant policy considerations, while the keep side mostly tried to bypass these arguments stressing notability. This being a strawman, I'm of a view that under WP:DISCARD the closer could discard some !votes (The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: ... those that are logically fallacious ...). Hypothetically it could have been that there was substantive contention around what the controlling policy was, but majorly, the keep side's argument did not reflect on WP:N itself saying: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Indeed, the redirect side itself cited this guideline. So this is not really a split in the community about what the controlling policy should be (it's just a classic strawman...). In the past discussions cited above by Adolphus79, this was generally seen as a content organization problem resolved through merger/redirect, reinforcing that the community at large has recognized that this is how this content should be treated, and which considerations are the most important. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:32, 1 December 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 08:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell & Diehl[edit]

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

Unremarkable local tobacco company, appears to fail WP:CORP/WP:GNG. The closest thing to significant coverage that I can find is this article (archive), but it's local, short, and reads very much like routine coverage. Apart from some reviews and mentions in tobacco-specific media, there doesn't seem to be anything else. Lennart97 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think that local source is routine coverage, but it alone can't do anything for the article, and the fact that it's the only coverage outside of new product announcements in trade publications since 2013 doesn't bode well for the notability. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Not sure what you mean by “local” - their blends are found in the USA, UK, and even China. - Size is relative here. Pipe tobacco is a very niche product, with a handful of companies left. Dunhill got out of the business recently and Peterson is now carrying their classic blends. Sutiliff and MacBaren are still around. McClelland went out of business 3 years ago or so. - In https://www.tobaccoreviews.com/brand/15/cornell-diehl, you can see over 300 blends they produce, compared to Peterson’s 80 (https://www.tobaccoreviews.com/brand/45/peterson), for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfernand (talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC) (copied/pasted from the article's talk page by Lennart97 (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Rfernand: The size of the company or the number of blends they produce don't really matter one way or another as long as there is a lack of significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems your mind is made and there’s nothing new to add then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfernand (talk • contribs) 16:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not up to me whether the article is kept or deleted, but up to the community. Lennart97 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable company lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:23, 30 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. Multiple reviews of the work were found during the discussion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Case That Shook India[edit]

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

I have not managed to find a single substantial review, and so it likely fails WP:NBOOK. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a line into The Emergency (India)#Literature. Not independently notable. BD2412 T 17:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a section in the author's page. Neither source in the article mentions the book at all, but there is some coverage (ProBono India, dubious looking journal, The Quint, India Today, Lawmatics, etc). If not notable enough for its own article, it seems like there's enough coverage to have more than a line in the general page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs) 22:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qualifies WP:NBOOK with at least two in-depth articles on the book. [50], [51]. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NB this is actually a 1978 text, the 2017/18 edition contains a new preface; review of the original 1978 publication.^[1] Passes NBOOK.

References

^ Saidullah, Saad A. (1978). "Review of The Case That Shook India". The Indian Journal of Political Science. 39 (1): 130–131. ISSN 0019-5510.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:02, 29 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) 18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CWRU Film Society Science Fiction Marathon[edit]

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

Not a notable event. Unable to find more than routine coverage, doesn't meet the standard of the notability guideline or GNG. Bestagon ⬡ 19:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bestagon ⬡ 19:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of adding sources. Many of the earlier articles that provide the history and background are on print due to the age of the event. It was covered by sources ranging from the campus newspaper to sources such as The Plain Dealer, Cleveland.com, the Youngstown Vindicator, and in several college books as a feature of the university. Unfortuantely, several of the print sources there are physical copies of on display are in access-limited archives that require local library access (in progress). Mjc243 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Case Western Reserve University. No standalone article required, WP:N. 162 etc. (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does not seem to fit into the Case Western Reserve University page with the level of detail that is available. Other traditions without pages are mentioned in merely a passing sentence whereas this event has happened independent from any interaction with the University administration and is student-run with the support of a community of longtime attendees. More sources have been added and even more are turning up so the sourcing is available. There are no related topics within the university itself so adding the required detail to explain and document the event would cause an imbalance in the page for CWRU however creating a separate page makes more sense to give it a link for people who want to learn more. Reading the guidelines for whether to create a standalone page at WP:PAGEDECIDE and the fact that several other comparable events have pages including Boston Science Fiction Film Festival and Maelstrom International Fantastic Film Festival among others, it seems that an article for CWRU Film Society Science Fiction Marathon would make sense as opposed to a section on the CWRU page or any other page that currently exists. It could be said that this page should be edited to be about both the organization that holds the event and the event itself, The CWRU Film Society. If that is the case, the article can be changed and sources can be added to reflect that. Mjc243 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this doesn't seem to fit into the Case Western Reserve University page and should have its own article; as noted the Boston Science Fiction Film Festival gets its own page, as do several other Film Festivals that provide less citations and haven't been around as long as this one. The category for Science Fiction Film Festivals ^[1] show a good amount of Film Festivals, and and a lack of digital sources shouldn't be a reason to say it isn't significant. LeelooMultipass (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science_fiction_film_festivals

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment the marathon claim, if it can be backed up by more than a single link, seems like it would be a pretty good reason for a distinct page? Artw (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voting keep after the recent work on the article. Artw (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more than ample secondary sources to meet WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 22:31, 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 Withdrawn. AmbergGuy (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of spiritual entities in Islam[edit]

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

"This article is basically entailed by Outline of Islam and List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran#Supernatural. Since Islam has no official categorizition of super natural creatures, this article is always a sort of original research and depends on the opinnion of the editors (for example the exact nature of jinn). Sources given here, usually do not support the idea of the article, rather they are copied including the sentences they are citing from other articles. The jinn, angels and so on, are all copied from their corresponding main-article's lead section." AmbergGuy (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who are you quoting? Mlb96 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlb96: I presume they're quoting VenusFeuerFalle--VFF had been flailing in trying to nominate this article for deletion by various methods (see article talk page for discussion); as per the edit summary of AmbergGuy's re-tagging of the article, their submission of a completed nomination was done as a courtesy to VFF. --Finngall ^talk 18:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to WP:LISTN, lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. This is one of those lists that, despite the fact their subject may not (often) be discussed as a group by reliable sources, just is of a sufficiently high informational value to be worth keeping. The most important criterion for lists like this, in my view, is that there should be selection criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Given the fact that spiritual entities such as jinn and angels are already explicitly classified in the Quran, starting a long tradition that has at least to some extent been documented by modern scholars, it seems to me that it should be possible to objectively decide on the basis of reliable sources what are and what are not spiritual entities in Islam. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is superior to the other two as it list information about each entry. Also it has their English names, which are the names used for their articles, while List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran list them with different spellings. Dream Focus 06:30, 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 speedy keep. "Withdrawn by nominator" (non-admin closure) BilCat (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benchball[edit]

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

Single source appears to be self-published, no evidence of notability. BilCat (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fair comment that the one source was poor, so I have added some better ones. Please let me know if you are still concerned about notability, BilCat. Moonraker (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing improved significantly since nomination, I now think there are sufficient sources to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 14:42, 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 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 08:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Packard, Washington[edit]

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

Another Milwaukee Road station featuring a grain elevator which still exists in a much mutated form, operated by HighLine Grain Growers Inc. and standing in grand isolation because the tracks have been gone for decades. No evidence I could find of any adjacent town. Mangoe (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable former rail stop mislabeled as a community. –dlthewave ☎ 04:51, 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 Henri Betti#Works as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give me More[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NSONG. Give me more sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In an Internet search and Google Books search, brief listings of the song can be found in publications that cover the songwriters and a few musicians who performed it, but I can find nothing in which the song was discussed as a matter of interest in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Henri Betti#Works. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:20, 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.

[1] Saidullah, Saad A. (1978). "Review of The Case That Shook India". The Indian Journal of Political Science. 39 (1): 130–131. ISSN 0019-5510.

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science_fiction_film_festivals

[1]

[1]