Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 23 November 25 >

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. Fails WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Chapman (journalist)[edit]

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

This article appears to be full of PR and contains nothing (arguably perhaps one thing) notable. There is a very full explanation of the reasons for the deletion proposal at the Talk page of the article. There has been an attempt to edit all the errors but these keep being put back immediately, including broken links and without references. It may be that an admin will feel the page should be put up for improvement instead of deletion, but it certainly seems to need an admin to take a view through their more experienced perspective. Emmentalist (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled 'journalist' but the subject is no longer a journalist, according to the article itself. It is not clear that he a PR person either (as the article says he is); the article in fact refers only to a period of a few weeks in 2017 when the subject worked at a PR company. The article includes broken links, primary sources, material put there by the subject (see edit history) and PR puff. The appointments referred to almost all lasted only a few months (government, Bell Pottinger). Some never took place at all (Guardian). There is even a reference to two tweets proposing a new political party which apparently never went any further. There is no notability at all.

At the edit history it's clear that much of the article does indeed appear to have been written by the subject of the article (jameschapman1). The subject seems to have been correcting and adding to edits made by someone else on his behalf (see the previous edits which leave gaps to be filled in). Emmentalist (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the edits by the subject of the article took place in July 2017, during the few months the article says he worked in PR. The wikipedia article on the relevant company, Bell Pottinger, notes that it went bankrupt a few weeks later owing to a controversy about its clients and work. One things the company is criticised for is making conflict-of-interest edits on Wikipedia. The Jameschapman1 edits seem to show a to and fro between Chapman and another member of staff at Bell Pottinger.

For interest, too, a simple search on the author of the GQ article which praised Chapman's PR status shows that he seems to have worked with Chapman until shortly beforehand, was sacked by GQ for well-publicised reasons immediately afterwards and is no longer a journalist either. As said above, while some GQ article may be acceptable as sources, many are not. This seems to belong to the latter category. Emmentalist (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll make this my last comment, unless someone else comes in. I've noticed that the creator of this page @dinosaursloveexistence created another page 39 minutes earlier with all the same PR puff shortcomings: Tom Alexander. A couple of days later, there's another: Lynn Barton. I might be wrong here, but I've not exactly looked hard (just a few edits either side of one (in 2016) out of many thousands over the years. They look to me like they've been produced professionally, but to minimum spec, for otherwise unknown clients. I know there's a mechanism for enabling people to be paid for putting up Wikipedia content, but I imagine there has to be fun acknowledgement (very much in learning mode, here). So I'm suspecting COI at this point. I've flagged the other two pages for speedy delete. Again, I might be wrong, but maybe I don't wanna be right.

Finally, finally, there seems to be an odd pattern of editing with this article. @PhillipCross may be a COI editor, @brownhairedgirl makes 1000 edits per day and never takes a break according to her user contribution history. I'm not suggesting she'd doing something wrong, but it seems pretty notable. The address doesn't look like a bot. I feel like I've stumbled across a series of interlinking PR puff articles which extend from the same people and phenomenon. Again, all said with respect and I accept I may be wrong. Any corrections or advice most welcome. Emmentalist (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @力 The article you flag is a good example of why I put the wiki article up for deletion. The Independent is an online newspaper now which contains many articles of PR puffery. As a source, Wikipedia editors have to be discriminating. The story you flag, for example, has the appearance of a person moving from one important job to another. You'll see, however, that it says the first job came 'at the height of' a campaign. That's because the subject was only in the job for a couple of months, according to the WP article's own timeline. Moreover, you'll see it refers to an appointment which is upcoming, not yet extant. In fact, the subject was only in that second job for a couple of months too. In the article, the subject is referred to as a PR professional, but again according to the article, he was at this third job, Bell Pottinger PR agency, for only a couple of months too. And that was in 2017. What you have there is a series of entirely non-notable appointments presented through the lens of the PR agency where the subject worked (very briefly) at the point the substantive content of article was inserted mainly by the subject himself. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:16, 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. Fails WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too Young to Be a Dad[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is very little in the article other than a long synopsis of this TV movie and a list of the cast and characters. The only source cited is the Internet Movie Database. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find anything that would push this towards inclusion for an article. The most substantial thing I could find was this which is not even close to the type of coverage that would be needed. -- Whpq (talk) 03:21, 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 closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burundi–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to these relations: no embassies, agreements or state visits. Seems largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Article even states "Burundi is not a priority country of Spanish cooperation, so there is no bilateral cooperation". Annual trade is tiny at less than 1 million Euros. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 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. Keeping per the case presented by User:Mhawk10.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opher Aviran[edit]

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

BLP tagged for notability since July. Opinions vary on the notability of ambassadors and this subject seems fairly weak to me, so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per WP:NPOL, Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This appears to be a political appointment made at the national level, so this would be a national office. There is some English-language coverage of Aviran (such as the Atlanta Jewish Times, Chatanooga Times-Free Press, and Advance Media's Alabama affiliate) and he's apparently won state-level awards from both Georgia Holocaust Commission and South Carolina's legislature. I think there's enough to write an article on him from these and other sources, so I don't see a reason to delete if he meets WP:NPOL. I have not checked Hebrew-language sources because I have no Hebrew language skills. However, I'd suspect that there is probably additional coverage in Hebrew-language sources that would help expand the article further beyond what we have in English. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 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. WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG.

If someone wants a redirect I'm happy to help, but for now we delete.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TA-DAA! HD[edit]

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

Not a notable channel, can't find in-depth sources, wp:toosoon. Behind the moors (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Maybe one day it will be well written and sourced and it will show notability. Until then delete it.Topjur01 (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a list as I suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astro Aura HD. A redirect to Astro (television) would match the title at TA-DAA!. Readers would be served by a list of channels that Astro runs but not by individual articles on channels whose primary purpose is to be middlemen for other countries' and companies' output, and Astro has a ton of them. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:50, 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 12:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Savino[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over a decade; most of the references don't mention Savino at all let alone show the significant coverage that we require (the bar for notability has progressed a lot since this article was made). The best that I can find in searches are an empty profile page and this Waikato Times piece. In my view, this falls short on WP:GNG, WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:BIO on all points. Happy to be proved wrong. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A BEFORE search reveals nothing to establish the notability of this paintball player. The short piece in the Waikato Times linked in the nom is not enough to pass [{WP:GNG]]. Netherzone (talk) 03:18, 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 redirect to Alchemy. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemical literature[edit]

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

Summary:

This is a redundant content fork of alchemy, copied together from different articles, extremely selective and incomplete, and adding nothing of value over and above the existing article. The topic as given by the title has no potential for a stand-alone article.

Fuller explanation:

I'm rather familiar with the history of alchemy, and I don't think "alchemical literature" has any more specific meaning than 'literature/works on the topic of alchemy'. This would seem to be confirmed by Google Scholar. As such, 'alchemical literature' refers to a huge and extremely diverse corpus of texts, going from the Greek pseudo-Democritus texts, over the Arabic texts attributed to Jabir ibn Hayyan, to the late medieval Latin works by the likes of pseudo-Geber or John of Rupescissa, and onward to the Golden Age of the 16th-17th century, with Paracelsus, Jan Baptist van Helmont, George Starkey, etc., but also the completely different tradition marked by such esoteric writers as Michael Maier or Jakob Böhme (for a fuller list, see Template:Alchemy).

To describe this huge literature would be nothing more or less than to describe the history of alchemy. There's nothing linking all the different forms of alchemical literature throughout history except that it's all about alchemy. As such, there would be no added value of having an 'alchemical literature' article over and above a 'history of alchemy' article, or indeed just an 'alchemy' article (history of alchemy currently redirects to the large history section in our alchemy article, and probably has not potential for a separate article itself, since alchemy as an encyclopedic topic is almost exclusively of historical interest).

The article as it currently stands illustrates this well: in fact, it is nothing more than a chronological list of famous alchemists, organized in historical sections. It was recently copied together from a bunch of different articles and is completely lacking in encyclopedic style. Our alchemy article is in a rather bad state, but this wholly redundant content fork is a lot worse. It's all copy-paste work with some unsourced POV inserted (a form of scripture, not something one would find in a reliable source), and should just be deleted. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Avilich (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Is a potentially reasonable topic on its own right. I'm not convinced there's any content fork or agenda going on here. If it isn't kept, redirection to allow the good content to be eventually salvaged also seems reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So much of this is copied from articles that already exist. It's unnecessary for that reason, but also as per nom this topic is not much narrower than "alchemy" or "history of alchemy". A redirect would work too. Merging looks like it will just be redundant. -- asilvering (talk) 09:01, 2 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. Does not pass WP:GNG at this time.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association[edit]

Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable organization with very little information from any web page, article, etc... that could be found mentioning this organization. And if it does, it's done in passing. The last Afd from thirteen years ago still presents the same issues that was found back in 2008 just as much now in 2021. The article fails GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now this article has many references from:

I tried to improve this article today. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet they either mention the organization once or in passing. Nothing about the organization itself. Still doesn't pass notability. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – the sources in the article do not provide significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:NORG, and my searches are coming up empty. If additional foreign-language coverage is identified I'm glad to reevaluate, but until then I'm thinking that the organization isn't notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:37, 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. Not convinced by the efforts by my fellow editors that this subject meets WP:ARTIST at this time.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktor Kociuban[edit]

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

Non-notable to meet WP:NARTIST. Does not pass WP:ANYBIO, either. Htanaungg (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not delete In my humble opinion the article should not be removed. The artist has collaborated with many legendary names, but what is more important, he has a significant contribution in performing the new music, he made many world prapremiers. I will add more sources and some content to prove it. Atomksk (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My search only yielded passing mentions and this interview in a Polish art magazine. We're very far from WP:SIGCOV, WP:NARTIST and WP:ANYBIO. Pilaz (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The articles is improved, corrected and cmopleted with the sources, a lot of references, before sharing your opinion, please review the new currect, new version. Atomksk (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Atomksk: The sources you added only give passing mentions to the author and don't talk about him, so they don't contribute to WP:GNG. In our jargon, they may even constitute a WP:REFBOMB. The subject should be covered in-depth, independently, by reliable secondary sources. Also, you can't vote twice, so please replace your "Not delete" with "Comment". Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Pilaz: Thank you, I have changed to "Comment". But still I need a help how to improve it, since the sources I have added are independent and reliableAtomksk (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the subject complies with WP:BASIC. Has been ref. within polish cultural magazines and polish radio with widespread audience. Louie (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rrts: Which articles suggest significant coverage as mentioned in WP:BASIC? All I see are catalog entries, passing mentions and an interview. Pilaz (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: There is some further material at the Polish version of the page, including claiming he won "first place or special prizes" (per google translate) at several international competitions. Not sure how prominent these competitions are. Rusalkii (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusalkii: I've taken a look at the sources in the Polish version and all I could find online (via Google translate) are passing mentions. To me, the subject of the article fails WP:BASIC even after the Polish version. Maybe I've missed multiple articles giving significant coverage to the artist, in which case I'd be interested in reading them. As to the awards of WP:ANYBIO: he won 2nd place at the December 2008 Penderecki Cello Competition, he was the co-awardee of a 2005 award in a "musical high school" category ("second-level music school"), and his 2004 award was also won while in high school at the age of 16 in a similar high school category. To me, neither the youth competitions nor the 2008 competition seem to fulfill the requirements of WP:ANYBIO for a "major award", but I'm open to changing my mind. Pilaz (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amending to weak delete due to Pilaz's analysis of the awards; the 2008 competition seems borderline to me.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round to reflect changes to the article, and User:Rusalkii and User:Pilazs comments. Thoughts? Thanks for assuming good faith on this relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:02, 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 keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing animated films of the 1980s[edit]

List of highest-grossing animated films of the 1980s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of highest-grossing animated films of the 1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highest-grossing animated films of the 2000s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of highest-grossing animated films of the 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a box office database. We have way too many box office lists (see Template:Film box office), and we are unable to maintain them to an acceptable standard. This is the result of editors coming up with new ways of slicing the data more or less arbitrarily, creating new lists for each. Here we have what I think is a clear example of when new lists should not have been created, since they blatantly and unnecessarily WP:CFORK List of highest-grossing animated films by covering a temporally restricted subset thereof. For this reason, I WP:BOLDLY performed a WP:Blank and redirect to List of highest-grossing animated films. That was however reverted by an editor who thought this should be discussed first, so here we are. Deleting and redirecting both seem like valid outcomes to me, but there's nothing worth merging and I don't think the titles are plausible search terms, so my first choice would be deletion. TompaDompa (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm skeptical of the accuracy of some of these box office figures. For example, An American Tail is the 3rd highest gross of the 1980s with a worldwide gross of $84,542,002, while Oliver & Company is listed as 2nd highest with a worldwide gross of $100,000,000. It's too bad I didn't go see the latter film in its theatrical release; then it would have had a worldwide gross of $100,000,005. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information is not found at List of highest-grossing animated films. Click the column to sort by year. That list won't hold everything, so it only shows those films that made at least half a billion dollars at the theaters. Any information that seems outdated you can click on it, look at the infobox on the main article for the film, and then update it. All information is referenced. Dream Focus 17:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also like to remind people that WP:LISTN is two paragraphs long, please read the second paragraph and not just quote the first. The first paragraph has in it: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if. One reason, but not the only acceptable reason. This is a list that fulfills recognized informational and navigation purposes. Dream Focus 13:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator argument rings hollow. These are not lists that need to be actively maintained. 1980s films aren't going to magically grow higher box office sales. I don't see this as a specifically disallowed WP:CFORK situation either. AlexEng(TALK) 06:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well obviously not magically, but movies do get re-releases occasionally. TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator I think the editors arguing in favour of keeping these lists are kind of missing the point. It's obviously possible for us to mine sources for this data and construct lists—and that would be equally true for List of highest-grossing animated films of 1983–1987, List of highest-grossing animated films of 1985–1994, List of highest-grossing animated films of 1987–1993, and List of highest-grossing animated films of 1989–2001—but why should we? Wikipedia is not a box office database, and even actual box office databases such as Box Office Mojo and The Numbers don't keep lists like these. What justification is there for Wikipedia to have these lists of pure statistics about arbitrarily chosen cross-categorizations? TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dividing things by decade is not arbitrary. We have whole articles that characterize decades, e.g. 1980s. If you want to have an RfC about how such lists should be subdivided, I would encourage that, but I think the decade option would be overwhelmingly favored. The list is also not "pure statistics". There is value added by showing the animated films that were most successful and thereby most era-defining for the decades in question. AlexEng(TALK) 18:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the following observations:
    1. The lists appear to fail WP:LISTN. Unless I am overlooking something, the articles do not have sources establishing the notability of these groupings. The sources are generally for individual film grosses.
    2. The lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because a list of the highest-grossing animated films may be notable, and a list of highest-grossing 80s films may be notable, that does not necessarily make a list of 1980s animated films notable.
Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This information is encyclopedic and adequately sourced (though the sourcing could perhaps use some improvement), and per Dream Focus I think the article is more specific and less arbitrary than the nom suggests. I also disagree with the suggestion by the nom that these lists will become problematic due to a last of maintenance; these lists may change a bit, but not very much, and certainly not to the point where maintenance will become a logistical problem. (And even if it did, that wouldn't be a reason to delete). — Hunter Kahn 20:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is useful and ecyclopedic informationJackattack1597 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice a few of the comments above favor retention on the grounds that the information is "encyclopedic". By this I presume they mean that the information is informative and sourceable, as opposed to being trivia. I don't thing anyone would dispute that this information is encyclopedic: many of these films and their grosses appear on other notable lists on Wikipedia, and there lies the rub: the applicable criteria here is notability, not how "encyclopedic" something is. If merely being encyclopedic satisfied the requirements for inclusion there would be no need for policies such as WP:LISTN; that is the relevant policy here and nobody in favor of inclusion has so far has explained how these lists satisfy notability. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Betty Logan. I could not find any subgroup/set of films in reliable sources to pass WP:LISTN. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I cannot see how these lists meet WP:LISTN; the groupings are not themselves notable. Optionally redirect to List of highest-grossing animated films. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as I believe WP:LISTN is beimg misinterpreted here. No one disputes that the parent article passes the WP:LISTN guideline and these decade lists are more realistically classified as sub pages of that page rather than a new topic. For example they would be a relevant inclusion to that main page on all animated films but page split would be necessary so we get the status quo. So as splits from the main article Im not seeing a valid reason for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think it is correct to describe these articles as sub-lists of List of highest-grossing animated films. These decade lists are not an "expansion" of the information at the parent article, they are literally new information formulated by applying extra criteria that does not exist in the main article. For example, while you can source the grosses for each of the films on the list the actual chart itself is unsourced. The ordering of the chart is created via WP:Original research, namely because these charts don't exist off Wikipedia. How do I know The Black Cauldron is really ranked at #12 without a source to tell me the film is ranked #12? In reality it probably isn't ranked #12 because if you look closely at many of these grosses they only represent the US-Canada box-office and completely omit the overseas gross. These lists are telling readers made-up information that almost certainly is not correct, and the reason this is occurring is because WP:LISTN is not been applied. Betty Logan (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not original research to list things by the amount of money they make and number them in that order. And whatever referenced information is used in the main article, should be used here. I just checked the reference in the infobox at The Little Mermaid article and found it had a different number than what the infobox has had for months now and made a correction there. The number listed in this article was correct, while the main article had an error in that case. [3] Update: The information in the infobox of the film articles and the references given don't line up. I have brought the issue Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#conflicting_information_for_box_office_gross. Dream Focus 14:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that box office mojo works fine for total profits for the newer films, but the films from the 80's it only list domestic. When a proper reliable source is found for the main film articles, then that reference and information should be copied over to the list entries that don't have one. Dream Focus 14:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not original research for a Wikipedia list to not be replicated 1 to 1 somewhere else, otherwise many lists on Wkipedia should be deleted. I think that's just completeness. Dege31 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is original research to say that something is the 10th highest-grossing film based on your own, flawed, data collation. There are no sources for any of the rankings here. They are editorially assigned ranks based on incomplete grosses. The list is a work of fiction. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you feel that way about List of highest-grossing animated films, List of highest-grossing films, or any of the many other such list in Category:Lists of highest-grossing films? There are 70 lists in that category and its subcategory of regions. If the ranking column wasn't there, would you object to these lists? Dream Focus 21:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am commenting on this specific article because this list is a candidate for deletion. If any of the other lists in that category are brought to AfD I will give them due consideration. I also don't fully understand the point you are making by comparing this list to a meticulously sourced featured list such as List of highest-grossing films which clearly satisfies WP:LISTN. I would not vote to delete that list. This list does not come out of such a comparison very well. List of highest-grossing animated films is on shakier ground because some of the tables appear synthesized, but overall at first glance appears to satisfy LISTN. I would not vote to delete it but I might be in favor of removing some of the tables. The thing that troubles me most here is that anyone visiting this page simply isn't going to leave it with the information they came for. The grosses are incomplete, the ranks are inaccurate, it is misinformation. As for your question, if it were possible to properly source the positions in the chart then there is a strong possibility it would satisfy LISTN. They are not tautological, but you can usually make a case for notability for information that is comprehensively sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion. The encyclopedia is much better for them as historical articles of cultural trends, interests, and completeness of factual information. Nothing broken here, and maintenance of decade pages consists mainly of keeping vandalism checked. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per accomplishing informational purpose as listed in WP:LISTN. List of X by decade is a common format and not arbitrary. I am personally unconvinced that the parent article should be kept but these singled out for deletion. Dege31 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTCRIT. That page specifically states that lists do not have to pass notability standards to be encyclopedic, because they fulfill a role that creating smaller articles would not do. In this case, having lists of older years is good, because not all films will be on the main list, nor should they. That doesn't mean that it isn't worthy to be added, as these lists are important to show the history of animation. Swordman97 talk to me 07:44, 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. Now that we're almost a month into the time period since this crash happened, it's not been expanded and nothing presented here in the keeps or weak keeps convinces me that this specific crash is notable enough to merit it's own article. Happy if someone wants a redirect to the An-26 page, however. But, at this point, delete.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Optimum Aviation Antonov An-26 crash[edit]

2021 Optimum Aviation Antonov An-26 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cargo plane crashes are very common and rarely notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is no relevant notability guideline for aircrashes as a stand alone article, WP:AIRCRASH suggests using WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not convinced this is a notable incident but there are many similar articles on aircrashes on wikipedia. I don't think this is an easy one to call either way, it has received significant coverage in the specialised aviation press but not in maintstream media. WCMemail 10:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Agree with NemesisAT. It's too rush to say delete.Tupolev154Crash (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Striking !vote by blocked sock. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - if it's WP:TOOSOON to say whether or not there will be sustained coverage, then it's also TOOSOON to retain in mainspace. Draftify while we see if coverage emerges. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The An-26 aircraft enough huge, and similar type accidents already have some pages on Wikipedia. To be honest, I don't know why some people like delete other people's article so quickly? I remember before 2020, there's not a lot admin delete other users article so quick? Why admin or some people like delete other people article so quickly recent times? I think the WIKI:NOT NEWS is an abuse reason for some guys101.10.2.232 (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)— 101.10.2.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak keep Pages for AN-26 aircraft accidents exist. I think it may qualify as airline aircraft accident under WP:AIRCRASH, but also the airline isn't significant enough to be notable on Wikipedia. But other AN-26 aircraft accident articles are also operated by airlines that don't have a page on Wikipedia. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 00:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as with most non-passenger cargo flights they are very rarely of note and I dont see anything here that makes it notable enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While editors may cite an essay as to why they believe what they do, the presence of an essay on notability does not, on its own, justify keeping an article. Sufficient sources must be found to demonstrate notability under community accepted guidelines and policies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: There are like 100 incidents of this type of aircraft listed on the Antonov_An-26 page. Many are crashes, with many deaths. It seems very unlikely that this particular crash will have any detailed investigation or lasting impact. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:AIRCRASH mentions commercial flights, but in terms of Wikipedia notability, does a flight operated by an airline company that isn't notable on Wikipedia qualify as a commercial flight? If no, I would change my stance to delete. I don't think much noteworthy investigation will be done on this accident. I would also question the notability of the other AN-26 accident articles like others have mentioned. ==𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 22:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per MilborneOne. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep An 26 enough huge plane 223.136.230.84 (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh 223.136.229.251 (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - What coverage has this crash received in South Sudan or other parts of East Africa? It's a linguistically diverse region so it's possible that significant coverage given may not be in a language familiar to most editors. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:12, 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 23:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan ROCSAUT[edit]

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

Highly doubt this passes WP:NORG. Non-notable student club at U of T, can't find any references. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:29, 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riskskill[edit]

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

The only sources with significant coverage are not independent (i.e. press releases). Fails WP:NCORP (t · c) buidhe 18:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article creator created a previous article instance under the title RiskSkill, which was speedy-deleted and the article title was protected against re-creation: [4]. Concerning this instance, the text is promotionally-worded, setting out and praising the company's wares. Although the article claims the company was established in 2006, this press release indicates that it was set up in 2012 as a division of a firm called UKFraud (no article). The article creator removed a PROD which had been placed, but while searches find occasional announcement-based coverage (which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH), there is not evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: wholly promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:43, 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Angbulu[edit]

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

Non notable strategic WP:ADMASQ article on a non notable Journalist who meets no criterion from WP:NJOURNALIST and fails to meet our general notability criteria for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Bae[edit]

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

Biography for a porn performer supported only by junk sources like adultdvdtalk.com, adultfilmdatabase.com and a press release in a porn trade mag. PROD contested on assertion that the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Claims of notability can't be substantiated without WP:RS coverage. An independent search only got an ask-a-pornstar quote in Mashable, neither independent nor substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete recent source reworking by the article creator ([5]) did not at all address issue of notability. What remains are 4 links to AVN and dvd databases. Zaathras (talk) 13:53, 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. Per nom and community comments. Thanks for merging anything relevant!

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Montreal Royals accomplishments[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory or a sports almanac. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Other than Jackie Robinson playing there, it's mostly just another minor league team. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keep per prior related discussions.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarendon Football Club[edit]

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

Football club in the village of Clarendon, South Australia (Population ~ 600) in the Adelaide Hills. Plays in a local league against other villages in the Adelaide Hills. No notable achievements. Sources are to self-published books by Peter Lines Given that around 12% of people in Australia are males aged 12-35, they have around 80 prime-aged people to choose from, so less people available than an average high school ~ 1000 students. So not notable since we don't have articles for high school sports teams. Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:48, 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. Feel free to move the page to a new title if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macclesfield Football Club[edit]

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

Football club in the village of Macclesfield, South Australia (Population ~ 700) in the Adelaide Hills. Plays in a local league against other villages in the Adelaide Hills. No notable achievements. Sources are to self-published books by Peter Lines Given that around 12% of people in Australia are males aged 12-35, they have around 80 prime-aged people to choose from, so less people available than an average high school ~ 1000 students. So not notable since we don't have articles for high school sports teams. Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a football club that has existed over 100 years and is far from just a village team. It has a team that plays A-Grade football and the club draws players from much further than just the township of Macclesfield. Notability should not be based on the size of the host town (Collingwood for example is only a small suburb of Melbourne). There are citations in the article from the Adelaide Advertiser and regional newspapers, and the only fault may be that it is a stub and that it needs further references. It is notable based on nearly all senior clubs in the country being considered notable, receives regular media content (including scores). If this is deemed to fail notability, there are 1000s of similar articles. The High School reference is not relevant in this case as football is not the primary business of a school, it is not a senior team, and most high schools have an article.Screech1616 (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It plays in a local amateur league covering only a small geographical district within a state, and far below the state league. I don't see any established practice in other sport where all "senior clubs" are deemed notable. Simply entering an amateur team in a some amateur competition doesn't make it notable just because it is a bunch of random adults playing on the weekend. I checked some other sports categories in Australia and it was only AFL that there is widespread creations of just local suburban teams. In the other sports, apart from teams in the state league, there are basically no articles. Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an Amateur club/league, it plays under a salary cap. This is where Australian Football differs from other organised sport in Australia, almost all senior (first-team) football in the big traditional states (Victoria, SA & WA) is semi-professional. It could be argued that this club (along with a number of other articles you have nominated) is more notable than a number of Soccer teams around the world (e.g. Amersham Town or Langford F.C. that play in the 10th tier of the English Pyramid. Macclesfield is a semi-professional club that plays in the Hills FL Division 2 competition, only 3 steps away from the AFL (HFL D2 -> HFL D1 -> SANFL -> AFL). Screech1616 (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because paying people is allowed, doesn't mean that it is of a reasonable, let alone high/meritable standard and we would need to know the median salary as many/most would not be paid and competitive football would not be a main part of the players' lives/goals. People in Australia will be aware that many die-hard AFL supporters claim that all the best athletes in Australia play AFL and if they decided to play other sports then Australia would win suddenly win the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics etc etc. It's quite normal to see plenty of these suburban/village teams be staffed by old/obese fellows (keep clicking for many examples). If it was close to 'first-class standard' then there is no way that obese or old guys who are 35+ would be able to compete with people in their early 20s in a sport that has a heavy emphasis on sprinting/jumping/collisions. I also checked that in the leagues in the navigation templates on WP, there would be about 300 clubs in South Australia, a state of 1.5 million. There is no way there would be enough depth that any club in an organised competition will be "senior level". I don't think people would accept the equivalent of 300*40 = the 12,000th ranked soccer team in a large European country of 60m people being put on WP either Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is sustained long term coverage of the subject. I have not checked these but there are potentially over 6,000 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 will be more than sufficient to support GNG. Looks like insufficient BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 10:41, 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) 06:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least redirect to Hills Football League as an alternative to deletion. Open to a full keep if better sources are found. Frankly, when the nominator is using population sizes, salaries and even players' obesity as measures of notability I am skeptical this AfD has been properly thought through. The available sources should define whether this club is notable. – Teratix ₵ 11:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing discussion above: Notability is not a measured on population size, or your opinion of the standard of competition. Australian Football has a very flat structure where there are really only three tiers of senior football, AFL, State League (SANFL, WAFL, etc) and Country/Community level. Nobody is arguing anything below that has notability, but the third tier is genuinely Senior football. The pictures you are referring to look to me that they are likely B-Grade (Reserves) level games, which is only a supporting component of the overall club. Agree that better references can be added, but they are clearly available for someone to put in the effort. In its current form it is clearly a stub-class article at the moment, but that is not a reason to delete.Screech1616 (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep...redirect....delete? Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:45, 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 Mazuca. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mila_(moth)[edit]

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

Mila is a synonym of Mazuca. On GBIF, it lists Mila as a synonym for Mazuca. It also says on the Global Lepidoptera Names Index that the current name for the genus Mila is Mazuca. In addition, the only resource on the page is a search result from the Natural History Museum websites that lists different genuses in the family Noctuidae, and if you click on Mila, it will say on the page that it is a synonym for Mazuca. Turning this page into a redirect isn't necessary because if you search up "Mila (moth)" using the Wikipedia search box, the first two results, other than the page "Mila (moth)", will be the disambiguation page for Mila, as well as the page for Mazuca. FozzieH (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Redirect as Mazuca isn't Mila(moth), the search engine will not list it as Mazuca. ALso, Mazuca is like, the 8th article listed in the search.Leomk0403 (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although Mazuca might not be the first thing that appears when you search up "Mila moth" in a regular search engine, other genuses of moths don't have similar redirects. For example, Angas is a synonym for the genus of moth Actias, yet there is no page named "Angas (moth)", nor is there any redirect page for when you search up "Angas moth". FozzieH (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mila is a synonym of Mazuca. On GBIF, it lists Mila as a synonym for Mazuca. It also says on the Global Lepidoptera Names Index that the current name for the genus Mila is Mazuca. In addition, the only resource on the page is a search result from the Natural History Museum websites that lists different genuses in the family Noctuidae, and if you click on Mila, it will say on the page that it is a synonym for Mazuca. Turning this page into a redirect isn't necessary because if you search up "Mila (moth)" using the Wikipedia search box, the first two results, other than the page "Mila (moth)", will be the disambiguation page for Mila, as well as the page for Mazuca. Not FozzieH (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry, but what is happening? FozzieH (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah! where did that impersonator came from?Leomk0403 (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mazuca - this is why we have {{R from alternative scientific name}}. This should be a merge discussion and not a deletion discussion. Folks coming across the synonym in an old book will want to know what it is called now. It’s listed as a synonym, and not referred to obliquely as that-which-must-not-be-named. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - synonym redirects are standard and wanted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm really sorry, but I'm really confused. If you look for Angas, it doesn't redirect to Actias but a disambiguation page, along with other synonyms, such as Hera for Hemileuca or Theophila for Bombyx. All those either send you to a disambiguation page, or an article with a disambiguation page in the header. Shouldn't Mila follow suit and also lead to a disambiguation page, like it already does, or should the other ones be edited? I'm really really sorry if I'm not getting my point across or if I'm coming off as aggressive or arrogant; I'm really new to this process, but I really need help understanding. FozzieH (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's something of a corner case and I can't claim to know The Answer, but I'd say that this situation (genus name has multiple other meanings, and is a synonym), a) if the genus use can be distinguished from the other uses by a parenthetical clarification (as here) that's good and should be done; and b) being a synonym does not mean that it's not a valid search term - we want redirects for those, and their inclusion in a disambiguation does not mean that there should not be a separate redirect. E.g. for genus Angas, we are just plain missing a redirect Angas (moth) - I'd establish that and then add it to the disambiguation at Angas. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I've added a redirect for the Angas example above to show how situations like this should be handled. Ideally, genus synonyms (or synonyms for species, or family, etc. in those type of taxon articles) should be included in the article taxobox (appropriately referenced), and redirects made for each synonym; this isn't done most of the time, and I can see how it caused confusion for the OP. Esculenta (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:44, 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. Keeping per community conversation about expansion of the article and historic parish notability. If you want merges, please discuss that on the talk page.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Southwark St Margaret[edit]

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

GnG fail, one source, stub, no good sources online. Hyperwave11 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:43, 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. Disregarding AriaTess, who has been blocked for socking. Sandstein 14:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shindenkai[edit]

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

This article ostensibly concerns a branch of the martial arts. However, despite multiple attempts at searching, I have been unable to find reliable sources that could be used to support the article and demonstrate notability. The only source that I have found that has anything beyond a passing reference is this one which is an interview with the creator of the alleged martial arts style and offers only some high level details. But aside from that, it is very difficult to even confirm that this martial arts style even actually exists beyond the say-so of one or two individuals. And I certainly have not been able to find significant coverage that could demonstrate that WP:GNG is met.

I originally PROD'd this article as part of NPP but the PROD was contested. So I am now bringing this to AFD. If there are sufficient reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, I will happily withdraw this nomination. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Included WP:NWSRC as Iribnews.com, Mehr News Agency, ILNA and Fars News Agency.
  2. Passed by Wikiproject martial arts guidelines.
  3. Created and approved by Persian Wikipedia

Regards. AriaTess (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #1, which articles on those websites demonstrates significant coverage in your opinion? I raised this on your talk page but we couldn't seem to understand each other there.
Regarding #2, how does this pass the martial arts guidelines? You linked to this before and it is not at all clear to me what you're referring to or how it meets some criteria.
Regarding #3, the article on Persian Wikipedia was created by the same person that created the article here and at roughly the same time. The creator of both articles was also later banned as an SPA. So I am not sure what weight, if any, we should accord the fact that Persian Wikipedia also has an article about this. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to other editors, AriaTess was apparently just blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of the creator of this article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete None of the reasons given by AriaTess actually show WP notability. Significant coverage by major media would show notability but not passing mentions, the karate task force doesn't have notability criteria listed, and whether or not there's an article in another language's WP is irrelevant. I looked at the article's references and was surprised to see how many of them don't even mention Shindenkai. Others are passing mentions in articles or in lists of organizations. None of this is sufficient to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough actual sources about it to support notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lean towards delete and probably relegate it to a minor style mention somewhere, rather than its own page. Kinda like how Ademir da Costa's Seiwakai is in his entry, or how Northern Praying Mantis lists the Seven Star Praying Mantis Boxing style as a sub-type of aforementioned art. It is more of less a Kyokushin derivative by sorta respected Iranian FC Karateka. Though lot of the edits surrounding this appear to be vanity edits. TrickShotFinn (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughs about merge and delete as presented by User:TrickShotFinn?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, as the nominator, my concern with merging is that we really don't have any reliable sources to back up the content that would be merged. It's all fine and well to say "Ah, let's merge as an alternative to deletion." But here, what verifiable content would be merged? DocFreeman24 (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry. I failed read your arguments through. This page is quite messy and failed to process what was what. While Hamid Soltani seems relatively respected Kyokushin coach, I profess that this is not really "notable-notable" enough for Wikipedia. Also - like DocFreeman said - lot of this stuff seem to be a vanity edits from a single editor; User:MMA Kid - which turns out to be a sock-puppet of User:JRM2018. Unless somebody else can prove anything tangle, I then I'm afraid that Shindekai will get the nuke without mention of it being a Kyokushin sub-type anywhere and live as a small organization mention somewhere. Shindekai has yet to prove it's mettle to justify a wikipedia entry. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the references are reliable if the coverage is not significant. Passing mentions and lists are not considered significant coverage. Can you point out which reliable references you consider to have significant coverage? Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:News_sources/Asia#Iran: Mehr News Agency [1], Iribnews.com [2]. Afsane1369 (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a list of government approved martial arts styles, which is not significant coverage of any of them. The second is an interview with the style's founder. Interviews are not considered significant independent coverage. In addition, the style is only mentioned in passing: "Soltani, founder of ...", so that's another indication of it not being significant coverage. So you have given zero examples of this article meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - discussion has not demonstrated any substantial coverage, and there's a likelihood the article was created promotionally. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks depth of coverage. Nothing to be missed. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:32, 3 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 to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete this subject, and no reasonable expectation that further time to discuss will yeild any different outcome. The case for keeping this as a standalone article is fairly thin, but is not utterly implausible. I would suggest further exploration of a potential way to merge this somewhere without losing the information that exists here. BD2412 T 07:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lailah[edit]

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

I have serious concerns about this article. First, the quality of sources and OR issues with the article are a problem, and while AFDNOTCLEANUP, there is TNT to consider. Second and more germane is the simple issue of WP:GNG. The best source I see is a short entry, paragraph in the work of amateur scholar Gustav Davidson, whose A Dictionary of Angels, Including the Fallen Angels was published by a reliable publisher (Simon and Schuster; but the author was a poet and writer, not a scholar, and his work didn't generate any academic reviews). And after that we have worse sources - books published by some NewAge-era publishes like Llewellyn Worldwide and worse. There are few passing mentions in GScholar, but there is little to show this topic meets WP:SIGCOV and warrants a stand-alone article. That said, in the spirit of PRESERE, I'd prefer to redirect this somewhere, but where? (Note: due to the low quality of sources present in the current article, which are mostly unreliable or PRIMARY, merge is not optimal, at least, without verification with reliable sources, and as I noted, my BEFORE didn't really find much here). Thoughts Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Warshy: I've glanced over those sources but I can't tell which ones you think might be useful. Could you be more specific? Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really wanted to vote keep, but I've spent some time looking for sources and I just can't find the significant coverage required by GNG. Even the primary sources (eg. Sanhedrin 96a; Niddah 16b; Midrash Tanchuma, Pekudei 3) only mention Lailah briefy. The vast majority of secondary sources which turn up in a Google Books/Scholar search only repeat what those Talmudic texts say, without any additional analysis (eg. Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews, Vol 1 p. 56, p. 232).
    The only exception I can find is in the works of Howard Schwartz (cited several times in the article; Myths of Heaven, Gabriel's Place, JBooks article). I don't think these can be considered reliable scholarly works. The idea that Lailah is a female angel is Schwartz's own original concept, which he "wasn’t able to prove". He also puts his own spin on the primary sources by claiming that Lailah watches over the child in the womb and throughout its life; whereas according to Midrash Tanchuma, which he cites as his source, this is the job of the "angel in charge of souls", who is nowhere identified with Lailah. If the article were kept, this dubious information would have to be removed, which would reduce the article to a stub.
    Like the OP, I'd like to retain a mention of Lailah somewhere on Wikipedia, but I can't see any suitable redirect targets. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopaedia Judaica article I pointed to above also says that the names Lailah and Lilith may be from the same root, and are related. If this article is to be deleted, that is where the mention should be kept. warshy (¥¥) 15:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing that. It says Lilith is based on similar Babylonian spirits, whose names are "etymologically unrelated to the Hebrew word laylah ('night')." The Lailah article says the two are connected, but this is another item sourced only to the personal speculation of Howard Schwartz. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this page is deleted then Laylah, which redirects to it now, should redirect to Leila Waddell as primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading of the sources is much more thorough that mine, of course. The relationship between the Hebrew words Lailah and Lilith seems pretty clear to me, even though the EJ does say they are "etymologically unrelated" as you say (Because Oriental linguists found some Akkadian similar words). About Schwartz, the only thing I can say is that Gabriel's Palace was published by the Oxford UP, and should be considered a reliable source. Maybe his ideas should just be attributed. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As a person discussed in Talmudic material (though not in the Bible) we ought to have a page on the subject, even if modern sources on him/her are not good. Amalgamation with Lilith does not seem a good idea. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the modern sources are not good, then the topic belongs on Wikisource, not Wikipedia... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note that according to WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author ... are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". So even if Howard Schwartz's books are considered reliable, keep !voters still need to demonstrate the existence of additional sources which provide significant coverage of the topic. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A case can be made for cutting out or qualifying content, but surely not for deleting the page altogether. This figure is mentioned repeatedly in religious texts - albeit briefly - with more contemporary discussion than a lot of articles on historical people. It doesn't merge well with other articles and it would be a loss to encyclopedia project to delete it on account of relative obscurity. Lailah is of interest to those investigating ancient religion, particularly owed to the uniquely (but ambiguously) feminine connotions, and this article makes it accessible to the public. Vaurnheart (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm just not seeing sources for WP:GNG. The Encyclopedia Judiaca entry is about Lilith, not Layla, and I'm ok to merge this article into that one. Simply pointing to a google books search shows that sources mention the subject, not that sources give WP:SIGCOV to it. If someone finds sources that meet GNG, ping me and I'll change my vote.VR talk 04:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it is possible that some content would require removal or improvement, I don't see it would be sensible to delete the article as there is enough coverage to retain it. desmay (talk) 14:51, 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 13:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martine Nezerwa[edit]

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

Not close to being notable, in charge of IT for agriculture. Mvqr (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:42, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TSA Jeddah[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate notability. If there is something worth keeping, it can be merged with the key people involved in the company (note that the company isn't even mentioned on the Wiki bios of the key people who run the company). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there really does not seem to be anything that indicates notability. It's been somewhat hard to find references due to the TSA popping up quite often in false positives, but on the whole I can't find anything that has this pass WP:NCORP. Being owned by the state doesn't make it notable per WP:INHERIT. I don't really think there's a whole lot of info in the article that would be worthwhile keeping for a merge to be honest as the people who are most important to the company largely seem to own it due to their position in the state with regards to petrochemicals and it being a petrochemical company. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 20:44, 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus to delete, and a clear consensus among participants in the discussion that the "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" is met by the films identified as those in which the article subject served an important role. BD2412 T 07:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Forbes (cinematographer)[edit]

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

Cites 1 and 2 are mere listings in the credits of insignificant films, and cite 3 is a routine obituary listing where services will be held, nothing biographical. Don't see how this passes WP:FILMMAKER or GNG. Reywas92Talk 14:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 14:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets WP:FILMMAKER, which states, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". With being cinematographer of over 30 films, spanning both the silent and sound eras, many of which are the subject of multiple reviews, that would appear to meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which of these films are "significant"? Which are "well-known"? To what extent were these "major roles" in "creation"? The four films linked here are all stubs with a single source each, so there is no basis whatsoever to suggest that any people who worked on them inherit their notability without substantive sources about themselves. He was part of the crew, but without any significant coverage attesting to his importance to them, FILMMAKER does not apply. I'm not sure where "over 30 films" comes from, this is not in the article or any of the sources. Even with a better filmography, there should be something attesting to his role beyond mere credits. Not sure why working at the point of time when silent gave way to sound makes a difference. Reywas92Talk 20:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Onel5969, seems notable to me as he was a cinematographer to notable films, which meets WP:FILMMAKER criteria #3, "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". Also meets WP:GNG with a Los Angeles Times obituary found in Newspapers.com, in which I count as significant coverage. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "cinematographer to notable films" Nonsense, there is NOT a consensus that any cinematographer for any movie with an article is automatically notable. Utter, complete bollocks. This section applies moreso to directors, not the cameramen. Calling this significant coverage is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen; is "retired business manager of a medical clinic" Frank Rudrow, whose obituary is right above that, notable too now? Generic, two-sentence funeral notices do not count. Reywas92Talk 21:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That snippet from Los Angeles Times appears on the obituaries page and is a total of two sentences. It's not bylined, and my suspicion is that it was a paid announcement made by his estate or his family. MoviesandTelevisionFan, why do you think that the snippet you're citing is compliant with the sourcing requirements of WP:BASIC?
Additionally, Onel5969, which films are you describing? The article has a rather small number listed. I'm curious to hear what his roles were in the films that you're saying help him to meet WP:FILMMAKER. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mikehawk10 - notable films, as per WP:NFILM, would include, but are not limited to, The Little Terror. Morgan's Raiders, and Together which starred Violet Mersereau, (who was a major star during the silent era, particularly for Universal); Stolen Honor, shot for Fox; and Riley of the Rainbow Division. In the 1930s he went to work on Poverty Row, particularly for Tower Productions, where he was the cinematographer for Shirley Temple's first feature film, The Red-Haired Alibi. His role in all these films, and others, was the equivalent of today's "cinemetographer". Onel5969 TT me 12:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes WP:FILMMAKER by Onel5969's reasoning, three wikinotable films listed in the article. NemesisAT (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although the subject was cinematographer for over 50 films, none of those films are famous enough that I would consider them to qualify as "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." The fact that a few of the films he worked on have cleared the bar to have Wikipedia articles doesn't mean that he inherits all of the notability of those films. Furthermore, pursuant to WP:BASIC, we don't have significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources about him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found Forbes' obituary in Variety on the Internet Archive. It read as follows: "Harry Forbes, 52, film cameraman, died in Los Angeles Thursday (17)." [6] That's the entire text of his obituary in the weekly publication that most closely covered the film industry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - According the American Film Institute Harry Forbes was a camera man and director of photography on 30 films (1917-1938), many during the silent era and the early years of sound films. For that era, I would discount the above criteria that "none of those films are famous enough". Photographers like Harry Forbes laid the groundwork for sound films, and were essential to the industry. — Maile (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have expected that the sound recordists and other personnel in the sound department were much more involved in laying the groundwork for sound films. While the function of cinematographer has always been essential to the film industry, it does not follow that every cinematographer is notable enough for listing in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:31, 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. Sadly not a good quality version of what this subject could be on Wikipedia. While I'm not a fan of using AfD for rewrites, this is an exception. If anyone needs any content from this, let me know and I can userfy. Sounds like the opportunity for a good project this winter.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of modern literature[edit]

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

This article is almost entirely a list of books and their years of publication. Not only is this not terribly useful, it looks to me like all the material on this page is covered already by some other article. Someone could write an interesting synthesis article on the history of modern literature. But judging by the other posts on this talk page, no one has come forward to do so in more than fourteen years. I think it is reasonable to conclude at this point that no one ever will. Posting on the relevant WikiProjects didn't turn up any would-be-saviours. asilvering (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid topic, content is mostly list-like of notable works. Article could be improved, but deletion is not the answer.--Mvqr (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic is of course notable/valid, but as I said on the talk there "Yes, at the moment it's too crap to keep. Also, it mostly covers literature in English, with the odd burst of other stuff." And it has barely been improved over the years. It is VERY low quality, and complely erratic in its coverage, even of literature in English. Much of the first section, on the 18th century, is flat untrue. The only other possibility I can see is to cut most of it to leave a Timeline of 19th-century English literature (or "Literature in English") which is what it mainly covers. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And with List of years in literature already out there, I think that second possibility is already covered. -- asilvering (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - abortive effort, which does not match its title, has no substantive (non-list) content, lots of odd selection biases (linguistic and otherwise), and a bizarre notion of what constitutes "modern". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starting "modern literature" at 1700 is just about defensible; cutting the short and atrocious C18th section to start at 1800 even more so, but that won't save this mess. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some other action besides keep. I'm reluctant to support outright deletion of what ought to be a vitally important topic, but the current article is of both low and inconsistent quality. If anyone wants to take a new approach to this article, I would support moving it to draftspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy any useful bits over to other articles on this subject and delete the remainder. When the first versions of this page were written Wikipedia was a very different place and needed lots of pages, stubs etc to be started or at least attempted in the hope that they would be later improved. If I remember correctly from all those years ago this article was a fork from the main History of Literature page. Since then it has been superseded by other pages and by additions to the main page. I'm often slightly embarrassed by things I wrote 17 years ago when I saw Wikipedia as an egalitarian fun social activity to which everybody could equally contribute. The place has changed a lot since then and these old pages definitely need to be, at the very least, consolidated. wayland (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: an uncontroversially notable topic, and the present poor state of an article on a notable topic is very rarely a good argument for deletion. And the article's not that bad—a bit slapdash and very poorly sourced, but probably of interest to at least some readers, and there's not much in the unsourced material that would be too difficult to find sources for (it's mostly just dates of birth and publication). If we want to get rid of some of the literature articles that lack sourced prose and have basically been grandfathered in, I'd suggest starting with all the YYYY in literature articles, very few of which are likely to be notable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC) Delete per the below. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable subject. Article needs work but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Short version: although the topic seems "clearly notable," it only seems that way because the history of literature, broadly, is notable; the specific topic being questioned here, "modern literature" defined as "literature everywhere for the last 300 years" is one for which no sourcing actually exists: it is substantially broader than any actual field of study. Because the article cannot be written without substantial WP:SYNTHESIS, this material should be covered at the more-appropriately scoped articles which already exist.
Long version: The intended topic of this article-- the history of all literature everywhere since the seventeenth century-- is an umbrella concept containing many extremely notable sub-topics, but it is itself, in my view as a literary scholar, not an topic that can be meaningfully written from the sources. Literary study is subdivided into regions and places at the scale of usually a hundred years at most. Look at how the Oxford University Press breaks down their reference works, for example: the category "modern & contemporary" follows 19th century literature. (In other words, it is synonymous with the existing article on 20th century literature). Or consider the Cambridge University Press's offerings in the Cambridge Histories series-- nothing called anything nearly as broad as "modern literature." (The closest is the Cambridge History of Modern Arabic Literature, which does run from the 18thC to the present as this article attempts to, but of course only for Arabic literature). Even the Norton Anthology of World Literature (one of VERY few works which addresses works over a large timespan without a regional focus) does not contain a grouping for "modern literature" as defined by this article: Volume E covers 18thC-19thC lit in the subcategories "An age of revolution in Europe and the Americas," "At the crossroads of empire," and "Realism across the world," while Volume F is organized into "Modernism and modernity, 1900-1945," "Postwar and postcolonial literature, 1945-1968," and "Contemporary world literature."
Wikipedia's coverage of the history of literature should follow the reference texts by which the history of literature is recorded. In other words, it should be covered by century (18th century literature, 19th century literature, 20th century literature), by region/language (British literature, Italian literature, Arabic literature), and by period/genre (Romanticism, Victorian literature, Modernism). All of those topics are the explicit subject-- named that way in the title-- of many, many books providing the source for thorough articles to be written about them. These plentiful articles also make any narrowing or revision of the article here redundant.
(As a side note, YYYY in literature articles accomplish something very different from the topic-based synthesis articles, and are instead like the Days of the year articles, or the articles we have for each year: it makes no sense to ask whether February 19 is more or less notable than February 18, just as it makes no sense to ask whether 1727 in literature is more notable than 1968 in literature.)
For this article to be kept, I think it is necessary to identify at least 2-3 reputable books which explicitly cover the topic of modern literature, in the sense used here of world literature from the 18thC to the present. I certainly do not know of any. Providing sources is the normal way of demonstrating that a topic is, in fact, notable. If such sources cannot be found, the appropriate actions are either a narrowing of the article's scope to match the sources, or deletion-- and suitable articles already exist for all of the plausible narrowings. Accordingly, I strongly advise deletion.~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LEvalyn: This is hard to argue with—I'd definitely assumed that at least a few "Introduction to Modern Literature"-type books would exist, but you're right that they really don't seem to. It would perhaps be feasible to use books like Franco Moretti's The Modern Epic, which self-consciously rejects traditional periodisations in order to bring together 19th- and 20th-century texts under the banner of the "modern" (Moretti may make a similar argument here), but any article constructed on that sort of basis would probably be a bit jarring for the average reader, and a single author wouldn't be sufficient to indicate notability anyway. I'll give this another couple of days unless anyone does turn up any sources, but will probably change my !vote after that. (For what it's worth I'm perfectly happy to delete all the days of the year articles too, and the year articles too, for the same reason, but perhaps that's neither here nor there.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Arms & Hearts: Yes, it definitely feels like this sort of reference work should exist, but it really doesn't! (I personally find this a thrilling problem in the field.) I agree Moretti is the best starting point, and Moretti has had a few followers in what has been termed distant reading, but no one else really attempts "world literature" AFAIK; Ted Underwood's Distant Horizons, for example, makes some claims about British prose from 1800 to the present, but that is narrowed both by location and by genre. As much as I love their research, I cannot say it represents a current scholarly consensus the way that, say, the Norton does, as the anthology from which most high school classes are taught. (Also, I am happy to agree to disagree about the year articles, etc, so long as they all get treated the same way :) )~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Arms & Hearts: @LEvalyn: I'd venture that it doesn't exist because "literature from anywhere in the world from the 1500s onwards (i.e., the modern period)" as a massive umbrella category of literature specialties would describe the research interests of most academics working on literature. Who would teach this subject? What could we possibly hope to say about it? What department would even host it? With all those questions basically unanswerable, who would write the book? (Cutting the first part of the Early Modern Period out, as this article does for no apparent reason, helps some, but not enough.) The topic exists inasmuch as we can describe its boundaries, but we can describe all kinds of bizarre and unhelpful boundaries - that doesn't make them encyclopedic, or useful subjects of a Wikipedia article. Someone (not me) might consider writing up an article on Moretti's book, though. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LEvalyn. WP:TNT is our friend here. I do think this article is notable, but it needs to be rewritten from the ground up in prose in order to be useful to the website. Swordman97 talk to me 07:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A WP:TNT delete. There is certainly a better article on this topic elsewhere on the project. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:13, 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 keep. ✗plicit 13:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shashank Udapurkar[edit]

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

WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, Probably WP:TOOSOON. No awards, no independent, reliable coverage. thanks QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 16:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per WP:CREATIVE. He got two project Anna and Prawas in which he is writer & director. Both films seem to be notable. Have got at least two reviews each Anna has TOI [7] and Firstpost [8]. Prawas has Maharashtra Times [9] and Pune Mirror [10]. This suffices for WP:CREATIVE that needs projects that are covered in reliable independent sources. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:24, 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. Kudos to User:Cunard for all their work at improving the article.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An Awfully Beastly Business[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a book series, with no discernible notability claim per our inclusion criteria for books. The only notability claim on offer here is that it exists, the closest thing to a "reference" is the authors' own self-published promotional website about their own work rather than any evidence of independent attention from the media, and the article claims absolutely nothing "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced much, much better than this. The only reason I'm not just speedying this outright is that the article is twelve years old, and I don't feel comfortable speedying an article that old without discussion. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "'Beastly' children's books launched". Kent and Sussex Courier. 2008-07-11. Archived from the original on 2021-11-14. Retrieved 2021-11-14.

      The article notes: "An Awfully Beastly Business is the name of a new children's book series launched this week by three former pupils of a Tonbridge school. The Beastly Boys, aka Dave Sinden, 35, Guy Macdonald and Matt Morgan, both 36, met at the Judd School and have written the series together, with the first two books, Werewolf versus Dragon and Sea Monsters and Other Delicacies, published on Monday."

    2. "'Beastly Business' in Persian". Financial Tribune. 2017-04-02. Archived from the original on 2021-11-14. Retrieved 2021-11-14.

      The article notes: "A‘n Awfully Beastly Business,’ a series of fantasy books for young adults, is now available in Persian. Of this adventure fantasy series, written collaboratively by three British friends, six volumes are translated by author and translator Abbas Zarei, 35, and released by Sayeh-Gostar Publication based in Qazvin, IBNA reported. ... The series, so far comprising 7 books, follows the adventures of a half boy, half werewolf named Ulf."

      Striking this source as it is an unreliable source because it continues verbatim quotes from the Wikipedia article. Cunard (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    3. "Top Three: Moravian Book Shop best-sellers". The Morning Call. 2010-01-24. Archived from the original on 2021-11-14. Retrieved 2021-11-14.

      The article notes: "'An Awfully Beastly Business' 4 books by David Sinden, Matthew  Morgan, Guy Macdonald (Aladdin)  Are you feeling brave? Then join Ulf the Werewolf as he is training to become an agent for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Beasts. He and his friends, Orson the giant, Tiana the fairy and Dr. Fielding the vet have many dangerous and risky adventures where they must save the beasts from the evil poachers. A fantastic series for children ages 8-12."

    4. The reviews of the individual books listed by Coolabahapple (talk · contribs).
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow An Awfully Beastly Business to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The nominator wrote, "The only reason I'm not just speedying this outright is that the article is twelve years old, and I don't feel comfortable speedying an article that old without discussion." The nominator did not specify the speedy criterion under which this article could have applied.

    If the nominator was considering speedying the article under WP:A7, the A7 criteria notes, "This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about ... books ..."

    Cunard (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion, would still apply here. Nobody said anything about A7 whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:G11 criteria notes:

This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.

This article is not "exclusively promotional". This article "would [not] need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as [an] encyclopedia articl[e], rather than [an] advertisemen[t]". After reviewing the article, I found it to be neutrally written. I do not find it promotional at all. G11 does not apply.

Cunard (talk) 09:15, 28 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) 21:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is entirely unsourced. If kept, it should be rewritten from scratch as the current version does not indicate notability. Dimadick (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review the sources presented by Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I expanded the article with sources from this AfD. The article is no longer unsourced. Cunard (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been greatly improved with secondary sources thanks to Cunard, making the deletion rationale of Dimadick no longer applicable. The individual books do not seem to have their own articles, so as subtopics coverage in secondary sources about them like those found by Coolabahapple belong here, too. So in total the sources found are find to fullfill WP:GNG in my book. Daranios (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to Cunard's excellent work, with several reviews and other coverage in the citations. Rusalkii (talk) 04:04, 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Sisters[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Unsourced, consists of nothing but a few lines of plot. I can't find any significant coverage of this novel, nor of the authors, who lack their own Wikipedia entries. Lennart97 (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form: Found a couple of (mixed) reviews, and it has been translated into German. Possibly better to have an article about the trilogy of which it forms vol 1, or the duo of authors (they seem to write inseparably). The Times review of the next book refers to this one as a "bestseller". PamD 09:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PamD: Thanks for finding these, I agree that an article on the authors or trilogy might be doable (preferably the authors, but I've had a hard time locating any significant biographical information on them so far). Do you have any advice on finding book reviews, by the way? I did try ProQuest on top of the customary Google searches, but came up empty handed. Lennart97 (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lennart97: I think I googled both "blood sisters" keating and langani keating, and scrolled on past a whole lot of bookshops to look for anything else. PamD 12:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, you're right; the RTE review is on results page 4 :) Lennart97 (talk) 12:08, 18 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) 19:05, 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. Keep per WP:HEY. Passes GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg Road[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Google Maps doesn’t establish notability only that the road exists Dan arndt (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, according to WP:GEOROAD, arterial roads, such as Heidelburg Road, are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. Dan arndt (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan arndt: It is an arterial road but it is signed as Victoria State Route 46. WP:GEOROAD states "International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable." Roads that require significant coverage are county highways, regional highways, local roads, and unsigned streets and arterials. See roads like Braddock Road (VA 620) and Sahara Avenue (NV 589), as well as other roads in the Melbourne Road navbox, which are arterial roads but are notable because they are state highways. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WaddlesJP13, Heidelberg Road is not a state highway.Dan arndt (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while it is a section of a declared Main Road (Main Heidelberg-Eltham Road), this road in itself is not part of a state highway and is otherwise un-noteworthy Lordstorm (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lordstorm: Heidelberg Road is entirely signed as a state highway (Victoria State Route 46). Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13: Er, just because it's signed with a route shield does not make it a state highway: there are dozens of roads across Melbourne signed with such routes that are not state highways, some are even allocated to undeclared roads: check VicRoads' databases. Just because it has a route shield allocated to it does not automatically make it notable either: the article has little else on it currently to make it so. Isn't this why we have a Drafting process? Lordstorm (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lordstorm: A state route designation doesn't make a road a state route? Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13: No, they don't: a road declaration by VicRoads does. State Route shields are for navigation only, and while providing a visual aid to navigate across Melbourne, do not confer any sort of status on the road they're allocated to. National Route shields and National Highway shields do, but Heidelberg Road is not signed by one of these. Lordstorm (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In depth material is available. Subject is also integral to the heritage value of many other sites. Subject is both historically and contemporaneously notable. Aoziwe (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, all that the first reference establishes is that Heidelberg is a notable place not that the road is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does contribute contextual content for a more in depth article. Aoziwe (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a stub and the refence is a mention in passing - it doesnt support the roads notability at all.Dan arndt (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it does, so we will just have to agree to disagree. Aoziwe (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
providing reliable in depth material. Looks to me that BEFORE was done rather poorly. Aoziwe (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Article is now no longer a micro stub. I suggest WP:HEY now applies. Aoziwe (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been substantially improved since AfD nomination. Marcnut1996 (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it seems the article has been improved and meets WP:GNG. MartinWilder (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input now that WP:HEY has taken place. Please review the article as it appears now and comment on what you think the future holds for this article. Thanks everyone for your contributions and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:43, 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 as renamed and improved. Further improvements to the article, removal of unsourced material, and a potential merge, are beyond the scope of this discussion. BD2412 T 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulucami[edit]

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

The Ulucami article is currently unsourced. The changes that I proposed to scope the article to ulucami = building style, and the sources that I provided were rejected by R Prazeres , See Talk:Congregational mosque#Merger proposal. R Prazeres reverted my edits to Ulucami. In looking for sources, I was unable to find support for the current scope of the article. What I did find I tried to summarize in those edits that appear here. I was unable to convince anyone at Talk:Congregational mosque#Merger proposal of this narrower scope. However, I do believe that it is proper to have a discussion about whether to delete this article with no redirect or to redirect it to Congregational mosque. My own view after having tried to source the article, is that the two terms are not identical, nor is the usage of "grand mosque" identical with "ulucami", although it is used as a translation of the term. The relative lack of sources would suggest to me deletion. The current article is basically a translation of the unsourced article in the Turkish Wikipedia. entitled "Ulu cami" here. If nothing else, the grand mosque of a city is distinguished from other congregational mosques. The articles that I found in Google Scholar were almost entirely in Turkish. One exception was P. Hasan's "Sultanate mosques and continuity in Bengal architecture", which I cited (see above) for the definition of building type. I should also note that ulucami is used as a neighbourhood term. In summary there are not enough reliable sources, much less ones providing in-depth discussion, to support this article. A redirect would be incorrectly conflating terms.  --Bejnar (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Update: I support keeping the page in its currently renamed form. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Withdrawing my support, see my response further below: if not merger, DAB is better than deletion.) R Prazeres (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I disagree with Bejnar's interpretation of the term (as per talk discussion already linked in nom), I support the deletion proposal, as it would solve the underlying problem either way. The whole motivation for merging this article is that it duplicates the scope of Congregational mosque (which is a scholarly term equivalent to "great mosque", "Friday mosque", etc; see sources on that page) by using a non-English term. Since we don't particularly need a redirect for every non-English name for a topic, deletion seems as valid a solution as merging. Even if something like "Ulucami" could be redefined as a new architectural topic with a very different scope (I disagree), it would require a different name anyways (preferably an English one) to distinguish it from being merely the Turkish translation of "great/grand mosque". Thanks Bejnar for proposing this alternate solution. If the deletion proceeds, the merger I proposed will be moot and that discussion can (I assume) be closed then. R Prazeres (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't think we should start another debate here parallel with the one that already took place in the merger discussion, but I'll make the additional note that multi-dome Ottoman mosques and other building types and sub-types are already discussed at Early Ottoman architecture (and in shortened form at Ottoman architecture), Seljuk-era mosque architecture is discussed at Seljuk architecture, and so on. In my view that's how it should be. There are many architectural subtypes of mosques in most regions and periods of the Islamic world, it would be impractical and messy to start splitting off new pages for each and every subtype, unless one of those types is sufficiently important and complex enough that it can't be covered adequately in the relevant overview article. As per WP:CONTENTSPLIT, this type of splitting should be considered carefully, rather than occurring by default. That's consistent with the way most architectural traditions are treated on Wikipedia so far and in other published encyclopedias. R Prazeres (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not simply delete. The term "Ulu Cami" or "Ulucami" is used frequently in reliable sources to refer to Grand Mosque of Bursa. There are some other mosques that are also called by this name (Ulu Cami, Adana, Ulu Cami (Birgi) etc). So even if we don't think ulucami is a notable topic, it should at least become a disambiguation page.VR talk 21:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea, I might withdraw my earlier support for that reason. There is already a list page where these mosques should be included (with a header link at Congregational mosque), but even a DAB can include a link to congregational mosque anyways, which is better than nothing and still resolves the original problem.
However, we now have three different proposals across two different discussions. It might be better to propose this back at the merger discussion and I'd be happy to maybe modify the original proposal text so that editors can choose to vote for either a merge or a DAB (which I think is ok procedurally..?). R Prazeres (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Instead of just deleting this article how about we merge it into a separate article like already suggested on the page. But I do see your point in sourcing. SoyokoAnis - talk 04:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a valid list of Turkish grand mosques, though it should be renamed as such. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sort of gone on ahead and made the page into the list-format article that it always should have been. Once this discussion is closed, the page for Ulucami (which is now a redirect) can be freely redirected to Congregational Mosque. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bejnar: Do you still object to this page as a list with the beginnings of some sourcing? Looking around Wikipedia on the paucity of data on grand mosques, it seems rather like this material needs expanding, not contracting. There is no reason why the goal for the likes of List of congregational mosques shouldn't be something more like the comprehensive Lists of cathedrals. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is this in AFD? shouldn't it be a RFC instead? MartinWilder (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly encyclopaedic list, especially as now renamed. Most of these buildings are notable in their own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion however, this might be better for a Request for Comment. AfD is not a place for reviewing sourcing problems. This is a place to delete or keep articles based on notability, etc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets notability criteria in renamed form, good list article. Massive thanks to whoever did the rename Eggventura (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my only objections are (1) to the lead in the new article which is not true, and is not supported, and (2) that some of the mosques listed are not neither ulu cami or "grand mosques", for example Zagan Pasha Mosque is an historic mosque, and the biggest mosque in Balıkesir. But the reference cited while it talks lots about the mosque, it does not call it in Turkish either "ulu cami" or "ulucami". But those questions belong on its talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any obvious problem with the lead for the page's current list form. The simpler, the better. As it is, the scope of the list currently includes all (major?) congregational mosques; certainly that is what is implied by citing this source in the lead, which explicitly equates "grand mosque" (ulucami) with "Friday mosque" (cuma camii), a.k.a. congregational mosque. That may still raise questions about the list being expanded (e.g. where are all the congregational mosques in Istanbul?) or about whether this scope is broader than what is desired. But I'd suggest that those issues should probably be discussed, if necessary, on the list's talk page, as this discussion should focus on whether to keep or delete the page. R Prazeres (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'll also note that the same cited source, after a description of the topic of "Ulucami", continues with a series of entries about Turkish mosques known as "Ulucami", and among these the Zagan Pasha Mosque is included, listed as "Balıkesir Ulucamii" which redirects to "Zağanos Paşa Külliyesi"; hence its inclusion is justified either way, along with others that may have different names but are considered grand mosques. R Prazeres (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are definitely some ambiguous entries that need to be clarified with further research. The Turkish framework for labelling a mosque an 'Ulucami" appears itself to be somewhat flexible and not entirely consistent. However, it is also clearly a title that is expressly used for not just major, but principle mosques, much like the word cathedral, which similarly has a different nuance to simply "large, congregational church". I am personally giving the entries that are unclear or are unsourced the benefit of the doubt, pending further work. Zagan Pasha Mosque in an interesting example in that it is clearly the largest and most prominent mosque in Balikesir, so prime "Ulucami" material, but does not appear to have been formally given the "Ulucami" title. There could be any number of reasons for this being case, including the simple fact that it was so obvious that nobody bothered with a formal renaming. As @R Prazeres notes, it is listed in Islam Ansiklopedisi (a rather invaluable tertiary source) under Ulucami [11], Iskandar323 (talk) 07:46, 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 23:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nunn[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E, only notable for harassment conviction relating to more notable people Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. It appears from the article history that this may originally been an autobiography, and had it been seen by any remotely-competent Wikipedia contributor, should surely have been deleted at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BLP1E conviction of a crime with barely any notability. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Waddles Gobbles 🍂 🦃 19:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, BLP1E, no indication of either an unusual amount of coverage or enduring notability. In view of the content at creation, highlighted by AndyTheGrump, I did a WP:BEFORE search for additional sources and found only a smidgen omore information about him on BuzzFeed. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - right now not enough notable coverage. Fails WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 14:37, 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 merge to House of Burke. Missvain (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De Burgh family[edit]

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

This is effectively a content fork with House of Burke, the latter claiming to portray the Irish branch of the de Burgh family, this page couched as focussing on the family as a whole yet providing no substantive information about any non-Irish-branch members. The only English member highlighted, Earl Hubert de Burgh, is described in the same minimal detail, simply naming him as brother of the Irish-branch founder, on both pages. Except for the family-specific heading, the De Burgh infobox was copied verbatim from House of Burke, as was the family tree. The only unique content on De Burgh are: a pair of unreferenced sentences of little encyclopedic value, one giving a highly-dubiously 'just-so story' of why the English family later dropped the 'de' to become simply Burgh (but this a reference to an Irish-branch), the other making vague mention of unnamed prominent members fighting in a list of wars; and an unreferenced 'Coat of arms' section giving some equally problematic legends and stories about the the origin of the coat of arms (attributed to a period before Europeans used coats of arms) and motto of the Irish branch. While the de Burgh page could be rewritten to focus exclusively on the non-Irish branch, that lasted for only two generations in the 13th century and could be covered in about 3 sentences, so this page would never have sufficient unique information to justify dealing with the branches separately. I propose a minimal Merge to House of Burke. Agricolae (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I've tried to add to both House of Burke and de Burgh family pages and ended-up duplicating the same info. I agree with a merge so long as no information is lost.
The dynasty/family was originally called de Burgh (descended from William de Burgh d.1204) then the Irish language version of the name became 'Burke' later so if there is a merger then we need to include everyone (English/Irish) on one page so should the single page really be called 'House of de Burgh' (original name and later Clanricarde name) rather than House of Burke (later Irish name)? WilldeBurgh (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (leaving redirect). We normally have an article on each noble title in GB and Ireland. In this case there are multiple titles, so that an article is appropriate, butwe have it already at House of Burke. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another editor has now copy/pasted the entire 'Coat of arms and motto' section from De Burgh family to House of Burke. There is no longer a single thing of value on De Burgh that isn't already on Burke. As such, the original proposal of a minimal merge really should now be a null merge (i.e. simple conversion to a Redirect, but described on the Talk pages as a merge to preserve the chain of authorship and history for the material already moved). Agricolae (talk) 16:02, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Koffi[edit]

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

Does not meet the football guideline, as he has not played in a match between teams from fully-professional leagues, and does not fulfil the general notability guideline either. I attempted to be kind and removed a PROD and moved the page to draft, but the article creator persisted in moving it back to the mainspace. While the alternative to deletion of incubation is nominally available, I am quite sure that it won't stop the creator from just moving it back to the mainspace.

Therefore, I recommend deleting the article (and using G4) until the football SNG is met. Recreation when the subject reaches notability will be easy, given that the contents are purely based on database listings. Another factor against draftifying is that the creator has never edited a talk page or attempted to communicate with another editor in any way, in a clear case of attempting to fly under the radar. Draftification would be the wrong way to go. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:03, 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 Edict of Milan#Peace of the Church. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peace of the Church[edit]

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

There is nothing in this article that may not be found in the Edict of Milan. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J'avance (song)[edit]

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

No sign of notability per WP:NSONG. An alternative can be to merge it with the singer’s article Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 16:29, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visicom Media[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Web search for this company produces only PR results and malware warnings. No actual evidence that any independent coverage for this company exists. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 17 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) 16:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - well enough known in the day. I added three references, to in-depth detailed about the company, and one about one of their products. Not sure what's become of them decades later. Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 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. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small Jam[edit]

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

This article subject doesn't appear to pass WP:NMUSIC, nor WP:GNG. The sources in the article are largely charts, and those that are not charts do not give in-depth coverage to the reggae duo itself (I did have to rely on a machine translator for the French source, but the remainder of the sources I am able to read). The only coverage of them seems to be around Iko Iko, which did make national charts. I feel like it's quite a bit of a stretch to say that their role in that particular cover recording is substantial enough to qualify for WP:NMUSIC#2, being that the duo is relegated to a "featuring" role.

I'm also not able to find WP:SIGCOV of the duo from multiple independent RS. As a result, I believe that this article subject is non-notable, and that the article should be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:24, 17 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) 16:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is this article which is more than nothing. Normally groups with songs that chart in multiple countries (even as a "featuring") are kept. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:40, 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 13:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here Come the Blobbies[edit]

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

This book/toy line combination appears to fail WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The toy line has won a few awards ([12],[13]), but none of them are particularly notable. Lennart97 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Here are quotes from the "Review" section of https://www.amazon.com/Here-Come-Blobbies-Jorge/dp/1932179321:
    1. "... moving story of travel beyond the bonds of restriction ... dazzles the reader with mind-bending illustrations." -- Writer’s Digest
    2. "5 STARS … An imaginative plot along with brilliantly colored characters … instantly lures the reader into the Blobbie Adventure." -- Foreword Magazine
    3. "5 STARS … fantastic … delightful story about the value of a wide range of skills and behavioral traits." -- Midwest Book Review
    4. "A cross between children's books and cool science fiction stories, this book will keep your child's imagination in full throttle." -- GetBookReviews.com
    5. "Children will be eager to share quality time with parents, and interacting with the comic book style story while learning." -- Lightword Publishing
    6. 5 STARS ... a fantastic children's picturebook ... delightful story about the value of a wide range of skills and behavioral traits. -- Midwest Book Review, November 2003
    7. An imaginative plot along with brilliantly colored characters ... instantly lures the reader into the Blobbie Adventure. -- ForeWord Reviews - November 2003
    Not all of these reviews are reliable sources. But the reviews from Writer's Digest and Midwest Book Review are enough to allow the book to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.

    Cunard (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for finding these. I wonder if we can be sure that NBOOKS is met without access to the entirety of these reviews. Although NBOOKS doesn't mention it explicitly, I feel like we do usually take into account whether a review is sufficiently in–depth, e.g. more than a few lines of prose and a rating, and that's hard to say here. I might be wrong, though, definitely interested to hear others' thoughts on this. Lennart97 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only know of Amazon as being a reliable source for product release dates. SL93 (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's another complication that I hadn't thought of: we can't actually be sure that all these reviews say what Amazon says they say. So it does seem then that we'd really need access to them in order to evaluate their contribution towards notability. Lennart97 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the quotes from the Amazon description are taken straight from a press release. Whpq (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - of the seven items listed above, items 6 and 7 are just duplicates of 1 and 2. I cannot figure out what Lightword Publishing is referring to so it's impossible to state it is a reliable source. As best as I can tell, "Foreward magazine" might be this site which states "You have an indie book. We have several dozen talented reviewers. Let's just make it happen. Foreword offers honest, credible reviews of indie books, and we've been doing it for over 20 years." That doesn't insp[ire confidence on it being a reliable independent source. Getbookreviews.com is dead but this archive states "We help authors and publishers find book reviewers interested in reviewing their book." Again, doesn't seem to be a site that is usable for notability. That leaves two sites with quotes which can only be sourced to Amazon. Without the actual reviews form which these are taken from, there's no way to judge the depth of coverage or even if these reviews are actually independent. -- Whpq (talk) 22:54, 16 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) 16:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The supposed reviews mentioned in the press release would need to be verified independently. Much less, Whpq above has shown the verifiability and reliability as questionable at best. It fails WP:GNG. – The Grid (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-promoting crap article. The book is over 15 yrs old and there's literally thing since it was published. OH it was drawn with a number 2 pencil! Useless fact. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 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. No valid arguments to keep the article. ✗plicit 12:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell, Moscow Gang[edit]

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

Russian film with no real coverage in reliable sources.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 20 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) 16:14, 24 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 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 ☎ 16:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage to show notability. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 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 no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egress Software[edit]

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

Promotional page mostly sourced to the organisation's website with little to no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 14:23, 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) 15:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Telegraph coverage might pass CORPDEPTH but fails ORGIND. The BCS prize is non-notable and the article announcing it fails CORPDEPTH. Neither of those references meet WP:NCORP which is the applicable guideline for companies/organizations. HighKing++ 13:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Respectfully, I disagree. While I don't think wp:3refs is nessesarily a good litmus test for notability I do think that there needs to be more than one piece of wp:sigcov. I've read the star piece and it mainly consists of direct quotes from the organisation itself with little or no independent analysis given. Therefore, I am struggling to see how the Star piece counts as independent, secondary or significant coverage. WP:NCORP does say that "any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)" is a dependent source even if it appears in an independent source. Which brings me on to the Telegraph piece, the piece seems quite short and seems to report on a single event - a relatively small funding round from a US investor. Again, I can't see any deeper analysis, there's a lot of direct quotes and I think it's likely that the piece is based on a press release. Finally, the award might meet the alternative notablity criteria for businesses if Wikipedia had an alternative criteria for businesses but currently it doesn't - "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." The only way an award would create notability for a company is if there was independent press coverage of the award which as far as I am aware there isn't. Therefore, I still think this article doesn't belong here.ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having a COI editor does not totally disqualify a subject from notability, just means we need to work on the article. There are several more sources one can find that are not press releases. Agree that the usual product guide is not enough and could even be reduced from what it is. The "award" is not something like a Nobel prize nor even a Turing Award, so not enough either, but should be kept as a mention in neutral tone. W Nowicki (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi W Nowicki, you say that there are "several more sources one can find" - can you link to any that meets NCORP please? HighKing++ 14:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is that there is enough totality of coverage for me to subjectively think the company should have an article. Do not feel strongly enough to spend more time, so consensus is fine. W Nowicki (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I've asked you to back up your assertion with a couple of links doesn't make me a deletionist and your should WP:AGF. Notable too that you didn't/couldn't link to anything. HighKing++ 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. The references in the article (excluding obvious primary sources, company listings and "search results) and the ones mentioned in this AfD fail NCORP as follows:
I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:50, 23 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) 16:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Really a company is more about product, and this is known for its product. While the nom. correctly idenitified a COI additions I've spent my time fixing, and quite frankly getting very worried about the nature of contributions of the nominator, and luckily an admin spotted it too. I've not any energy left and I'll probably get bludgeoned to death for this !vote. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability criteria requires references that meet NCORP. Getting rid of COI additions is great but can you point to any references that meet NCORP??? HighKing++ 13:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) in a guideline. This is as much about WP:PRODUCT as it is about the company, and the certifications of the security product are extremely relevant, let alone the product award. As such product certification is important from a technical perspective, as is Awards and stuff mentioned above. Which ae extremely significant, whihc is why stuff like this is important [14] and might be why the nom. targetted this article, before targetting an individual a few edits later and returning here to disrupt. So all the COREDEPTH arguments are all up the wrong street. In technical stuff this references that are expected to be seen to be significant. Plus the NSCS recertification: [15]. Stuart Summer interview here is alos significant. [16]. That's probably not the best three sources but I'm kind of tired and mentally done in the non-productive bludgeoning.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate you taking the time to respond but describing a single question/challenge as "non-productive bludgeoning" is stretching things don't you think? You've pointed to WP:PRODUCT but totally mangled the purpose of that section which is designed to determine whether a product meets the criteria for notability and not, as you appear to think, to infer notability of the company from coverage of a product. If the product is notable in its own right, then we can have an article on the product. The very first sentence of NCORP says the purpose is to check whether the topic is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. The section you reference, WP:PRODUCT, says If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, so we need to first of all determine the notability of the *company* (not the product). HighKing++ 11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search on Google Scholar and Books proves the company's product is notable. However, the company itself does not pass WP:NCORP. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Product=Brand=Company quite often, it tends to be the case for e.g. Oracle, and its the same for this. Someone isn't going to get hospital visit if I keep coming back here. And its why this should be a keep. You see the cases where notable product A and notable Product B are from the same compny, so its merged into the same article and then that's up for deletion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:56, 2 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 23:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richland Junction, Richland[edit]

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

Topos and aerials both show this to be a rail location gradually filled in around by creeping urbanization but originally standing in complete isolation. That's what the Ghits say too, and I find no references to it either as a settlement or as a neighborhood beyond the usual clickbait. What's particularly special about this one is the history section, which is entirely based on a careless reading of one source. All of the history given here is for Richland itself; the NP history passage is not that well-written but common sense leads to the correct reading that it is about Richland itself. Anyway, not a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Albanil[edit]

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

Fails notability. Neither Amateur or Professional career meets the guidelines for Boxing notability. Slywriter (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Kumar Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG tendentiously moved to main space by paid editor so bringing here for discussion. Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable as discussed above. But for films, I always feel that we had a guideline linking people involved in films and WP:CREATIVE. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThese are all Atul Kumar Sharma's Genuine works, also added Wikipedia links of the shows where you can find his name and streaming links to some tv shows in the ref section where you can find his name and books as the author is Atul Kumar Sharma's creation, it's all genuine works, not for publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqzswxdecfrvgtb (talk • contribs) 10:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of this addresses any of the 4 points at WP:CREATIVE Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mass message every single delete voter's talk page. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While the paid editor has self declared, their move to mainspace is deprecated. The draft would have been AFC declined for the reasons given by the nominator. I am not inclined to draftify. I opine for a policy based deletion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I look any this the more I see a very clumsy WP:ADMASQ. The alleged references include half a dozen to Wikipedia! I can't even see enough material to stubbily. Total WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR failure. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No WP:SIGCOV whatsoever to support any kind of WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO due to want of significant coverage in reliable sources, which I failed to find on Google. JavaHurricane 15:42, 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 redirect to Wikt:grandiloquence. No prejudice against content merge. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grandiloquence[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIC asilvering (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki the useful content from this article to Wiktionary, and then either delete or soft-redirect. jp×g 14:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Verbosity. Merge if warranted, but the content seems to be just two dictionary links and several examples, which may not be. Cnilep (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would also support soft-redirecting to wiktionary as an alternative, but not redirecting to Verbosity. Contrary to the text of that article's intro, the two terms are not synonyms. Colin M (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:35, 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 draftify to Draft:Muhammad Ali Iskandarov. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Iskandarov[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 01:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are sources. The films starring the actor are not bad, and although they are not world-class, they are among the most well-known films in Uzbekistan. As the author of this article, I recommend not deleting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (talk • contribs) 10:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Muhammad Ali Iskandariy, you are not the author of this article, according to the page history that is User:Anvar Mirhodiyev. Is this another account that you are using? Can you please clarify this? Also can you please clarify if you are the subject of this article? Spokoyni (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Spokoyni It's not as complicated as you put it on this page. Firstly, I have nothing to do with Muhammad Ali Iskandarov, but as for Anvar Mirhodiyev (talk · contribs) we are classmates, and I asked him for help, as it was difficult for me to understand Of English language. What's wrong with helping each other?

Also see Ali Iskandariy, which is an article about the same person. Johnj1995 (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBC reporters interview him, which means that he matters. [[17]]

  • - “Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources.“ - He is a very popular director in his country, I think the deletion of this page is not justified. There are many sources mentioning his work. [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added sources to the article. Popular enough in his country, he played a major role in several films. His directorial work in the film "I am not a terrorist" is mentioned in the world media. You need to leave. (UzUmUz (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • “Also see Ali Iskandariy, which is an article about the same person.” - Director Muhammad Ali Iskandarov under the pseudonym Ali Iskandari is known as a pop singer in Uzbekistan. Dear admins, I am ready to correct this article, with your permission. (Muhammad Ali Iskandariy (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Lots of citations (WP:REFBOMB), but none of them are reliable, independent, and have substantial coverage. Sockpuppetry and repeated vandalism of this AFD discussion isn't helping the case either. - MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC did not write an article about Muhammad Ali Iskandarov, who was known to the BBC about himself and his film. BBC article about Muhammad Ali Iskandarov[23] Muhammad Ali Iskandarov An article about the movie [24] Muhammad Ali Iskandarov is a well-known director in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by **Amirbek77 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an interview. To establish notability sources must be independent of the subject, and interviews are not. MrOllie (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Interview with Muhammad Ali Iskandarov[25] Daryo uz is one of the most influential sites in Uzbekistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirbek77 (talk • contribs)
  • The information about Muhammad Ali Iskandarov is divided into two because he was active under the pseudonym Ali Iskandari for some time [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirbek77 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi everyone do you have any suggestions on how to improve Wikipedia through video tutorials? Please help me. I wrote Muhammad Ali Iskandarov's wikipedia for 2 weeks with difficulty. I can save whatever I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirbek77 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the moment, this tends to a "delete" decision, but given that those arguing for "keep" are newbies (even though it isn't completely clear how many there are of them), I'm giving this another week to come up with significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello! Randykitty I want to express my gratitude to you for the fact that you treat our tips with respect. I want to say for the protection of this article. In Uzbekistan, there are no active participants in the space of the English Wikipedia, and this can be due to the fact that there is very little information about Uzbek artists and film photography, and opinions from wholesale participants. As for the filmmaker Muhammad Ali Iskandarov, he is very popular in his country. Especially when it hit the big screens in 2021, I’m not a terrorist has generated a lot of resonance as it depicts the fate of people in the Syrian war. It is important to clarify the fact that the new generation of Uzbekistan wants to read articles in English, since, for them, it is the second most important language after the native language. Yes, the Uzbek film motogrofist is not the level of Hollywood, but they are in demand and are more important than I am in Central Asian countries. I ask you very much to take this fact into account when making a decision. Thank you for your understanding, best regards. (UzUmUz (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources in this discussion and currently on the page mention Iskandarov's work, but do not pass WP:SIGCOV for Iskandarov himself. (The only source I was unable to translate was this one, but it appears to be about a film.) Although the BBC interview is from a reliable source, that alone is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV, and I could not find any additional sources to meet the guideline. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The film directed by Muhammad Ali Iskandarov will be shown in the framework of the Minsk International Festival "Listopad" and at a press conference it was announced about his new film "Kazbek"[1] [2] [3] (UzUmUz (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ "«Илхак», «Мерос», «Казбек»… Самой представительной на «Лiстападе» оказалась делегация из Узбекистана". minsknews.by. Retrieved 2021-11-21.
  2. ^ https://www.uzdaily.uz/ru/post/65406
  3. ^ https://minsknews.by/predstavyat-pochti-100-kartin-v-belarusi-s-20-po-26-noyabrya-projdet-mezhdunarodnyj-kinofestival-listapad/amp/%7Ctitle=В рамках Минского международного кинофестиваля «Листопад» в не конкурсной программе будет показан фильм «Я не террорист»
  • Move to draft for a six-month incubation period for the development of better sources. BD2412 T 06:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BD2412—better to draftify if we have a bunch of users willing to work on the article's inclusion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Given the difficulty of finding sources (foreign language, non-Latin script, paucity of independent newspapers in the country) I suspect we are not doing the subject justice. There is every sign that he is well known in his own country. Holding in draft for a while will give a chance for print sources to be found in Uzbek. SpinningSpark 15:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The two best sources in the article are [31] and [32]. This has been rather obscured by a large number of passing mentions. I recommend that the authors read WP:GOLDENRULE to understand what kind of sources they need to find to improve the case for notability. SpinningSpark 15:15, 4 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 keep. Consensus is that sufficient sources have been supplied. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pension (film)[edit]

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

No GNG, no sigcov, Looks promotional attempt. Only two sources that too not independent and definitely not reliable. thanks QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 14:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Two reviews are enough for WP:NFILM. TOI has issues for sure but for film reviews, it can be considered. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:18, 11 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) 15:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unbelievable. The film exists. Users are likely to look it up. How on Earth is WP improved by deleting useful information from it? Notability and Afd need a serious revamp. In the meantime, if anyone needs policy basis to keep, look no further than WP:IAR to limit the damage of our well-meaning but destructive current guidelines. —В²C ☎ 14:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has independent reviews in three national newspapers now referenced in the article so passes WP:GNG with dedicated secondary coverage so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:30, 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 Draftify. You can find the article at Draft:Melladaze.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melladaze[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. It's just too soon. Draftify as an option? Less Unless (talk) 20:36, 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) 21:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify there is definite potential in the sources given to date per GNG, but right now they don't meet NMUSIC. I think deleting the article would harbour more loss than gain, and I for one am dedicated to improving the article in draftspace. – DarkGlow • 16:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they have won BBC music competition and have been on BBC, they check off a couple of boxes in WP:BAND criteria. Chelokabob (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A reality TV show to find a new band certainly does not pass criteria 8 or 9 of WP:BAND... this is not a major award on the scale of the Grammys or the Brits. And one other small point... they didn't win it, they came fourth. Richard3120 (talk) 14:26, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Packers–Steelers rivalry[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. No rivalry exists between these two teams. This is evidenced by a very few reliable sources. A google search of Packers Steelers rivalry shows very few relevant hits, and no such sources appear in the article. In fact, there are reliable sources that establish a rivalry between these two teams does not exist. For example, this list of the Steelers’ top TEN rivalries published by Sports Illustrated (a top authority in national NFL coverage) does not even list the Packers, showing that the Steelers have less “enmity” toward the Packers than they do for a third of other NFL teams. Frank Anchor 13:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify, but leaning delete. There may be something there, but if it wasn't for the Super Bowl, I doubt there would be much discussion of a rivalry. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meeting in one Super Bowl does not establish a rivalry. And there is very little discussion of a rivalry even with the SB meeting. Frank Anchor 14:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, pretty much what I said... I say draftify because there was a good faith attempt at an article that may have some merits. Wanted to give them a chance in a less stressful environment than the mainspace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has no merits as evidenced by the complete lack of reliable sources per the nom and the below “delete” votes. Frank Anchor 16:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 14:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 14:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 14:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 14:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom and Gonzo fan. Cbl62 (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unsourced. WP:BEFORE comes up with one Clutchpoints article that is hardly reliable. This doesn't even warrant a mention on the teams' respective pages let alone a stand alone article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, and Qwaiiplayer's comments. No rivalry ever existed here. Spf121188 (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not finding enough coverage in my search to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this does not belong on WP. We are not a fan forum. If there were any newsworthy events connected to this- sure, but as it stands- there is nothing here that does not exist elsewhere on WP. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough coverage of this "rivalry" to even justify referring to it as one. --Zander251 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page only contains 10 questionable references. A justifiable example of a rivalry would entail something like the Broncos–Raiders rivalry.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lokesh Umak[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:AUTHOR, both of his works have not been reviewed by anyone and are non-notable, a google search for anything except social media and goodreads-type stuff was also unsuccessful. 15 (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't qualify WP:NAUTHOR. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This could be deleted as WP:A7 also. The article provides no assertion of notability. Sources are all self published and I couldn't find any reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and probably paid-for spam. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 12:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This probably could have been speedied under WP:A7. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:45, 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 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 12:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S v Chitate[edit]

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

Relies on a single, primary source. Google search only turns up results for Wikipedia and its mirrors. It seems that this case is actually less notable than a Zimbabwean case of the same name in the High Court of Harare, which set precedents over several countries and has numerous results on legal databases. But for this article, it would be most appropriate to merge with Recklessness (law). Mako001 (talk) 12:17, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Sukumar[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage. The existing sources in the article that mention him are all directory entries, the more in-depth stuff I could find online are a couple of quotes in media and a semi-marketing piece in yourstory. 15 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable person. Another clever trick to call software the company and linking it with a generic page - giving a perception that he founded a notable company. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:42, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022[edit]

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A clear case of WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL (and also just a blatant copy of the draft article). I didn't even think that this AfD would be needed, given that there is clear precedent for this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013 ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:41, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Dimension v Kruger[edit]

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

as stated in the previous proposal for deletion it is not referenced, and there is no proof of notability. This is especially vital as the article also concerns (likely) living persons. Mako001 (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have included my response on the article talk to the editor who deprodded this one below,
Peet M. Bekker, Criminal Procedure Handbook covers it and it appears to have set an important legal precedent in South Africa. Not sure on the depth of coverage though. Primary source. SpinningSpark 17:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Afd'd this one now, since being mentioned in a Criminal Procedure Handbook hardly justifies notability. A quick google search turns up only results for Wikipedia, its mirrors, and a primary source (SAFLII). The SAFLII result only mentions it in a couple of sentences as part of the precedent for another case. Interestingly, no other SAFLII results showed up, if it was such an important case, why hasn't it been used as a precedent more often? and if it is notable, why hasn't it been covered by secondary sources? Mako001 (talk) 11:51, 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 delete. Nothing presented in the keep argument convinces me he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG at this time.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Caine[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that raises him over the WP:NACTOR bar. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. That "bio" is almost entirely a list of his stage credits, with barely a line or two about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible syndrome[edit]

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

This topic does not actually seem to meet WP:GNG. There is only one source that discusses the topic in detail - the one in the article - and it's a non-WP:MEDRS case report. The vast majority of search results are coincidental "impossible syndrome" and most don't even pertain to medicine. The original paper is cited several times on Google Scholar but a) the vast majority are passing mentions and b) citations probably don't count as "independent sources". Besides, since there was only one case in recorded history any conclusion would be fairly speculative. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is basically a neologism coined for a syndrome described in one person. I can't find any sources beyond the original description that seriously discuss this as a medical condition. I don't think the topic meets WP:GNG, and deletion is recommended at WP:NEOLOGISM. Ajpolino (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one article (a non-MEDRS case report) describing one case in 1989 does not a notable condition make (in fact, may not even define a condition at all). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, searched for this term at websites for Harvard Medical School, John Hopkins Medicine, and the Mayo Clinic. No results for this terminology. Also no search results for MedlinePlus.gov, which is the online National Library of Medicine for the US Government. — Maile (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments at WT:MED. This is an exaggeration of a case study into a syndrome. Vaticidalprophet 22:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one being who had this was stillborn, thus nothing more than an autopsy could be done. I thought in the very least for a condition to be had, the subject had to be living for an examinable period. Nate • (chatter) 04:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided Sorry for that guys, since it is snowballing, but it seems that the paper announcing the syndrome [34] has been cited 18 times. Is it a syndrome or a case-report, it is not for us to judge. Had the citing articles been 50 or more, I would be leaning towards keep. Now I am undecided. Cinadon36 07:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't anything relevant in PubMed. I don't think it even meets the (low bar) definition of "neologism". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per others. The authors write "We therefore propose that this array of abnormalities represents a new syndrome. For those who like acronyms, how about the IMPOSSIBLE syndrome? (Imperforate anus, polydactyly, sex anomaly, situs inversus, branchial, laryngeal, epiglotis)." Cinadon36, there is no doubt the cited paper is a case report, for that is the kind of literature it is. That's not something Wikipedians need to judge. For judging if the medical community have agreed it is a notable syndrome, we'd expect the secondary literature to have chapters and articles about it. I've looked at some of the citations and they are similar case reports where the authors cite this paper as an example of a case of bifid epiglottis or chondrodysplasia or whatever, but I have not found any that used the term "impossible syndrome".
One other case report proposing yet another syndrome here refers to that case as "Fraser-Jequier-Chen syndrome". Searching Google or PubMed for that name finds nothing other than references back to that one paper. Here the authors have chosen not to use the original proposed name (because, let's be serious, it isn't a serious name) and more professionally created a name for this using the case report authors surnames. But they did so merely to refer to the case, and not to report other cases of that "syndrome".
In other words, this proposed syndrome is being cited in the primary literature as a single case report with features the authors wish to compare their own different proposed syndromes or cases against. So, in thirty years, we have no evidence this was ever more than an unfortunate combinations of defects in one stillborn baby. -- Colin°Talk 11:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convinced. Delete Cinadon36 12:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly McGill[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO, to my knowledge Dana White's Contender Series is a seperate promotion from the UFC making it not top tier. Therefore she only has two fights in a top tier promotion out of the required three. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 09:50, 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. Tagged for CSD G4 via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dabhi (2nd nomination) so I deleted. There are several versions in Draft space, too. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelDabhi[edit]

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

No actual evidence of notability: sources are press releases, puff pieces, or sites of dubious reliability. Article has been salted at Michael Dabhi, but that was a while ago and the current version has more recent sourcing. Fram (talk) 09:14, 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 09:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2032 in sports[edit]

2032 in sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TOOSOON, only listed events are the Olympics and Paralympics. 2029 in sports, 2030 in sports, and 2034 in sports are currently up for WP:PROD and I will bring those to AfD if that fails. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the inclusion of UEFA Euro 2032 is WP:CRYSTALBALL. I mean it's generally assumed it will happen, and while the information is from WP:RS, it's information about which country might bid for an event, which to me violates If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2024 U.S. presidential election and 2028 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2036 U.S. presidential election and 2044 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Speculation on bidding, not the event itself, at least to me falls a bit into the Crystal Ball territory. There is no host named for the 2032 Euros and going by previous patterns we likely won't know the host for Euros 2032 until around 2027. With regards to WP:TOOSOON, if we say that Euro doesn't warrant inclusion the only events that are non-speculative are the Olympics and Paralympics which don't really warrant a page of their own if they're the only 2 things in sports we know of that are certainly planned on happening in 2032. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 03:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Snood1205: Thank you for your explanation, I'll remove UEFA Euro 2032 and Winter Youth Olympics 2032. But I don't think it matters that there are two competitions confirmed, because 2028 in sports also lists two competitions. Thanks Mwiqdoh (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that argument falls under WP:WAX to some extend. To be honest, it's possible that 2028 in sports is also too soon as it also only has two events and there's really not much on that page either, but it's not currently AfD'd. Having said that, 2028 does have the benefit of being 7 as opposed to 11 years away. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Snood1205: No no I don't mean it to be WP:WAX, it's just that I don't understand how many competitions a page should have for it to not be deleted. So what I'm understanding is that this should be created in 2025–2026 so it's closer and there's more competitions? Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A fair, fair. Sorry about that! My thought is this article would probably end up warranting creation when there are more confirmed events that are not just the Olympic and Paralympic games. Based on the sports schedule and when things are announced this probably will be able to be created again in a few years; having said that, if new information comes up about a notable sporting event in 2032 sooner, the page can definitely be recreated then. To be honestly, I would have voted to draftify if it weren't so far away (because of the 6 month draft deletion rule). It might be worthwhile userfying in this situation because the work you've done on the article is good and it will be useful in a few years, just more than 6 months, so it's not subject to the draft policy. I really appreciate the discussion! I know AfDs can be stressful especially if it's your article, so I appreciate the straightforwardness of the discussion. Cheers, Mwiqdoh! snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 16:03, 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 09:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Aziz Arfaj[edit]

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

All described in the article are about who his parents are and where he worked; no indication of his notability to pass WP:NPOET nor WP:ANYBIO. Htanaungg (talk) 06:29, 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 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 09:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaffee, Washington[edit]

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

Another case where reading the actual text of the name origins source disagrees with the article, for it says, "Chaffee was a siding on the Oregon-Washington railroad west of Benton City on the north side of the Yakima River in Benton County." Nothing I see looking at topos and aerials disagrees with this. Not a community, notable or otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 03:52, 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) feminist (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Earons[edit]

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

WP:TNT, totally unsourced, puffery ridden. I can't find any significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been modified to remove all the sources and add puffery in July by a SPA, here is the old version. Is charting #1 for one week on the US Dance chart and #36 on the Billboard R&B Chart in 1984 for the same song enough to pass WP:NBAND? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new Billboard articles presented below. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Total puffery. If an article starts with "This incredibly influential band...", I know something is very wrong then. If the charts are okay for a pass, then my vote is keep, if not, then it's 'delete because they don't look very notable at all. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but only on WP:TNT grounds. They satisfy the notability requirements, but this article is dreadful and there's nothing worth saving. Mlb96 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article is fine now, and notability is satisfied. Mlb96 (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as there is no salvageable material whatsoever in the article. They may well be notable, but the current article is crying out for TNT and a totally fresh start. Elemimele (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Incredibly influential, so much so that they haven't done anything since 1985. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Their hit song also has an article at Land of Hunger, so something will have to be done with that if the band's article is deleted. Their chart performance can be verified, and they also have a brief bio at AllMusic: [35]. I personally am undecided on whether the one hit song adds up to enough notability. However, per WP:NOTCLEANUP it's unclear whether the community has fully accepted "TNT" as a reason for deletion (immediatism and eventualism) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as i've reverted back to the less promotional version with references that was messed up by a drive by promotional editor. They pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 with a high charting hit single. If this is kept the article on the single can be merged here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a vast improvement, thank you Atlantic306 (talk · contribs). The article as it now stands is quite acceptable. Elemimele (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: in fairness, the puffery was only introduced a few months ago by the editor Frank Venditti as an obvious COI, purely to publicise the fact that he wrote lyrics for two of their songs. Now that Atlantic306 has reverted the self-promotion back to a readable version (thank you, Atlantic306), it looks like the band were briefly notable on the back of their one big hit... as well as charting on two Billboard charts, there are reasonable articles about the group in Billboard [36], [37], [38], a short review of their album from the same magazine [39], and a review of the single in Music Week in the UK as well [40], so there may be more coverage in the UK music press too. Richard3120 (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG thanks to sources shared by Richard3120. NemesisAT (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it passes WP:NMUSIC due to the single and WP:GNG due to the sources presented by Richard3120. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitcomb, Washington[edit]

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

This one is interesting because Whitcomb has been moved relatively recently. A 1963 topo shows it lying about a mile east of its current location, and a 1970 aerial shows why: the old roadbed is plainly visible arcing out into the river. The thing is, both locations were plainly just sidings; the older one appears to have been a water stop, and the new one has a string of rail maintenance buildings and a big radio tower. The only other thing else in the area besides water is the main spread of the Canoe Ridge Vineyard. SO not seeing keeping this one. Mangoe (talk) 02:34, 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 keep. Nominator has withdrawn (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bears-Cardinals rivalry[edit]

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

There is no demonstration of an actual rivalry between these two teams. Notability needs to be provided. – Jackmar1Jackmar1 02:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Jackmar1, I would suggest withdrawing this, especially as it seems you're creating this page in bad faith, as you've seemingly done with others. (This may not be the case, but it seems that way.) There are several references on the page itself demonstrating a historical rivalry between these two teams, and as we know, coverage does not necessarily have to be recent. Spf121188 (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep agree that this should be withdrawn. It appears in bad faith similar to the others that he nominated. It also has received plenty of coverage on Newspapers.com (in addition to being the NFL's oldest rivalry), enough to satisfy GNG in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn The sources of the rivalry need to be moved after the first sentence - currently they sit further in the article.Jackmar1Jackmar1 05:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think they have to be listed after the first sentence, adding a large amount of refs after the period sometimes makes it harder to read. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 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 03:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DexOS[edit]

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

I previously tagged this as G4, but this version is substantially different from the deleted version. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't my area of expertise, but I was unable to find any coverage beyond the barest of casual mentions about the topic, to say nothing of significant coverage. I looked at the previous AfD and it leaves a lot to be desired on both ends. Using the "External Links" of the current state of the article, only one (maketecheasier) gives significant coverage (presuming it is independent/reliable). That's not enough coverage to create an NPOV, non-copyvio article with encyclopedic coverage of the topic, therefore this encyclopedia would be better off without it. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I don't see any grounds for notability either. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ghettoblaster, if you want your comment to count, you'll have to give a reason, or no administrator will give it any credit. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. I could not find in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone article, and the page sourcing does not meet either of the guidelines. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:47, 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. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamics Explorer[edit]

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

because I created Dynamics Explorer 1 and Dynamics Explorer 2 articles CRS-20 (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CRS-20 wishes to split Dynamics Explorer into Dynamics Explorer 1 and Dynamics Explorer 2 Leijurv (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's already done. CRS-20 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge the extremely useful new material written by CRS-20 (talk · contribs) into this, the combined article on the two satellites (subsequently deleting the separated articles). Since DE1 and DE2 were part of a single mission, two sides of the same story, it makes more sense to have the entire story in one place. Otherwise there must be repeated text in both new articles (as there is: the new leads are nearly identical) and it is almost certain that anyone who reads one, will read the other. I'm sorry, @CRS-20, that this involves extra work! Elemimele (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rather than merging data from the satellite pages here, pare this page back to talk about the overall mission, and keep the detailed information about the individual satellites in their own pages. The instrumentation and results between the two satellites was sufficiently different that they do warrant separate coverage. PianoDan (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that would work too. Elemimele (talk) 07:01, 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. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fayez Barakat[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. These are interviews with just direct quotations [41], [42], [43]. There [44] seems some coverage about his art gallery which covers him in a non trivial way too, but the BLP needs more sources. Maybe there are local print sources I couldn't find. - hako9 (talk) 02:11, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apricot, Washington[edit]

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

The name origins piece says that "It was once a siding for the Northern Pacific Railroad northeast of Prosser." From what I can tell, that was all it was. No topo or aerial shows a town here, and while there is a census-based document which give "Apricot" a population, reading the preface indicates that this number comes from two block groups put together according to a scheme of the authors; there's no claim that this area was intended to represent a distinct settlement. Mangoe (talk) 01:38, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seychelles–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This article is largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There's a bit of vessels being based in Seychelles and cooperation in the "field of renewable energy and water and energy management" but not things that make notable relations like embassies, agreements or state visits. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_24&oldid=1058436446"