Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 06 November 08 >

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 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) 03:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey–Tuvalu relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is not much to these relations except a one off meetings of leaders, and a bit of aid. No embassies or agreements. Trade is negligible. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this just doesn't seem notable. Its not a significant diplomatic relationship, and I don't think we need pages for every trivial interaction of every pair of countries.--IdiotSavant (talk) 22:54, 8 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, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diversicom[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. Not a lot of coverage located on a search - mostly business listings and one source that appeared promising until I realized it was a novel.

It's also important to be aware of false positives. According to this article, the company didn't rebrand as Diversicom until 1999, so any sources about Diversicom before that are not applicable to this company. I was not able to find any significant coverage of it as "Melrose Telephone Company" either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is one of those topic companies that doesn't appear to be notable in their own right but at the same time has some historic significance and should perhaps be mentioned if there was an article on the history of local exchange carriers or similar. The lack of sources means it fails NCORP. HighKing++ 21:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails wp:org. Behind the moors (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broomfield Enterprise[edit]

Broomfield Enterprise (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 local city newspaper. Article doesn't cite any sources. SkippyKR (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 7 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) 03:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Rae[edit]

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

Basically only a single meaningful source. That she got fined for missing scenes. Otherwise the usual poor referencing. Spartaz Humbug! 21:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2020-12 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Mimiko-Kesenga[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. An orphan article. Lack of indepth third party coverage of her. Gnews merely confirms she held a position at Constitutional & Law Reform Commission but nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kiribati–Turkey relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There really is not much to these relations except a one off meeting of leaders. Even the Turkish Foreign ministry site says little of relations. The excessively long further reading list contains no title including Turkey. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 7 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, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange but true[edit]

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

PRODded per WP:DICDEF, then deprodded by recently topic-banned Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) without explanation. Just a dictionary definition without any encyclopedic information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now to Don_Juan_(poem)#Canto_XIV because this is where truth is stranger than fiction goes. They both seem to originate from the same poem, same sentence, by Lord Byron. “’Tis strange — but true; for truth is always strange; Stranger than fiction”. Should it ever become an article [tough] both phrases could be combined as a single topic on Byron's claims to truth and virtue (source). The popular culture appropriations of these phrases are banal Byronisms. They might be discussed as a section on cultural influences but not as a main subject of the article - unless there are sources for such a discussion, I doubt it, but truth can be strange. -- GreenC 02:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing GNG and DICDEF. I am surprised this is the only source I can locate discussing the phrase given how widely it is used. Against redirect as this is way too tangential. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have !voted to Transwiki to Wiktionary, as much of the content seems usable. Unfortunately, per WP:ATD-TRANS, Wiktionary no longer accepts transwikis from Wikipedia, and so is not an alternative to deletion. As a result, I would support deletion of a non-notable phrase that fails WP:DICDEF. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritius–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article seems to be almost entirely sourced from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Actual relations are very little: no embassies, agreements, state visits or migration. Even the article states "Mauritius is not a priority or preferential country within the Master Plan of Spanish cooperation" LibStar (talk) 23:21, 7 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, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FIF7[edit]

FIF7 (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 proof of notability, fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:21, 7 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 23:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest megalopolises[edit]

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

Deprodded without explanation, although the original PROD rationale (Duplicates existing articles: List_of_largest_cities, List_of_largest_cities_by_area, List_of_countries_by_largest_and_second_largest_cities) was a bit off. My concern is that the article fails WP:LISTN, WP:NOTSTATS, and WP:OR: All the data are unreferenced, and the only two references are in the lead about the term megalopolis. Worse yet, the creator claimed that all the data came from other Wikipedia articles. I could foresee a List of megalopolises that has better sourcing than the one in the Megalopolis article, but not this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regions in Megaregions of the United States (which has the bonus of being an article not a list) include Southern California Megaregion which contains the Tijuana area of Mexico and Northern California Megaregion which includes the Nevada portion of Lake Tahoe so not sure what the argument is here? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Megalopolis. Just need one spot which list all the megalopolis in a single chart, instead of splitting them out all over the place like it does in that article at the moment. Dream Focus 00:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary, unhelpful and unsourced WP:CONTENTFORK of Megalopolis. I would also support a merge and redirect but seeing how unsourced the article is I don't think this is needed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree the article is unnecessary. Dear Debasish (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite the walls of text produced by those wishing to keep, no clear evidence of notability has been presented. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper's Riddle[edit]

Jasper's Riddle (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 living person is not notable, and many of the sources cited are unreliable and/or self-published. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before I removed them, there were many other sources which were blatant literal press releases from Zeickner - see the talk page of the article for my explanation on that. The article has existed for half a year now, so there has been time to add sources if they existed. It was initially created by an apparent corporate account, and has been facing huge amounts of edit warring when editors point out the problems with the article. I think most of the publicity around this artist is simple astroturfing - he isn't signed to a label according to his YouTube, and has very little engagement on his social media platforms for someone who apparently gets this much press.

The part about the Benin bronzes is the only real verifiable, notable thing there, and I don't think that section alone warrants Zeickner a whole article. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sources are either not independent or lack depth of coverage on the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MrsSnoozyTurtle @User talk:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith already removed the troubling references regarding his music career. Personally his work for Benin Bronzes meets notability requirement and is very important to a lot of people, especially Nigerians to justify this article. Dude was featured on primetime TV news NTA, CGTN, Reuters, The Times, You dont get to decide its not notable enough because you said so. As it stands, all the sources are real and notable. It would only be re-added if it gets deleted. The warring seems resolved as the article was improved. I recommend removal of AFD notices/template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaboutnigeria (talk • contribs) 08:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC) — Factsaboutnigeria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If your argument is that the Benin bronzes thing alone makes him notable, I would say WP:BLP1E contradicts that. Sorry, but I don't see how that would justify him a full article, and certainly not one named "Jasper's Riddle." How important it is to people in a certain country doesn't really matter if there aren't sources. If it's important, stuff like this event can go on the Benin bronzes page, if it fits there.
It would only be re-added if it gets deleted. That's not how deletion works. If it gets deleted and an account starts trying to recreate it, they'll just get blocked and the article salted. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also 'No grounds for deletion' isn't the right format, iirc. You should probably change the bold text in your post to 'Keep' if you want your vote to count. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Sorry but its extremely ignorant of you to say the news concerning the Benin bronzes doesnt make him notable. People have done less with articles on wikipedia, dont let arrogance belittle your credibility as an editor. Also as pointed out already, there are numerous sources which you continue to ignore just to justify you warring with editors that dont agree with you. You also put blatantly false information such as saying contributor has close links to the artist which is not true and baseless. You then posted on my talk page saying I'm a corporate account based on a company's twitter username based in LA I never heard of. You accused an IP username of "Self promotion" however when I checked that IP it shows the same IP banned for the same "self promotion" for a number of completely different people, so how can they self promoting multiple people?
You complained about the name yet didnt bother to change it despite making loads of edits yourself, which seems a little petty from an editor's point of view. If the guy is legitimately known by a professional name, performance name or otherwise, there's no problem with it imho. Other editors can chip in here.
If its deleted wrongly, it can be reinstated. You dont get to delete articles you dont personally like using incorrect claims. Literally all of the issues you mentioned when nominating it were about sources concerning his music career and were already resolved. There's no valid grounds for deletion. Your only actual argument is that you personally dont think its notable according to your tastes despite numerous sources and notable references saying otherwise in news coverage about the guy. It was literally a historic accomplishment. Try not to be unbiased or take things personal. Its becoming less about the article and more about your power trip. If you have useful edits to make, make them so the edit warring can stop. What other valid improvements do you recommend for the article?
Also note that you're linking material which literally contradicts your argument. WP:BLP1E refers to 'Events' not creations. Like I said, try to be unbiased, Can we give it a rest? --User:Afrorocktv
  • KeepOriginal arguments for nomination no longer stands as the all flagged sources were since removed. There are literally no unreliable sources on this article. Original sources she claimed were self published related to his music career and were removed. My bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrorocktv
— Afrorocktv (talk • (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Claims this living person is not notable yet sources and internationally celebrated achievements says otherwise. Original arguments for nomination no longer stands as the all flagged sources were since removed. There are literally no unreliable sources on this article. Original sources she claimed were self published related to his music career and were removed. My bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrorocktv
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop the personal attacks about me being "arrogant", but I'll try to address your arguments anyway.

Sorry but its extremely ignorant of you to say the news concerning the Benin bronzes doesnt make him notable. People have done less with articles on wikipedia, dont let arrogance belittle your credibility as an editor.

I'm citing WP:BLP1E. Nothing you said there contradicted the policy. You might want to read that policy page more closely.

RE: Actually I think you better read the policy. The articles arent just about the event, and his notability is not based on the unveiling itself but the thing which was unveiled. This is starting to get ridiculous and seem like you have an agenda at play for the baseless arguments. Sorry for using the term 'arrogant' because it seems you just want to win an argument falsely rather than respect wikipedia's policies. Also its rich of you claiming personal attack when you're the one attacking my page, and linking someone else's twitter account on my talk page. @User:MrsSnoozyTurtle Can you chip in here? It is 100% false to cite WP:BLP1E to refer to this article about a living person being based on an event when the subject matter's notability is not for the event. The event took place BECAUSE of the notability of the work, and there are loads of news coverage and stories which arent even about the event. He is credited for the creation of the work not the unveiling of it. I agree with the original edits you made but not this false deletion discussion. @User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Please accept that arguments against this notability is totally invalid. Actually as it stands, not a single issue persists in the article from the problems originally flagged about his music career which are gone from the article. So what exactly is the discussion about?

Personally I am removing the original message template from the article which is refers to issues that are no longer present on the article. Kindly verify @User:MrsSnoozyTurtle

You also put blatantly false information such as saying contributor has close links to the artist which is not true and baseless.

Look, I'll try to make this clear as possible. I did not add that template in the first place. I re-added it after an IP account - one that was banned for self-promotion - removed it without explanation. You keep saying that I put that there, but I didn't put it there in the first place.

RE: User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Sorry, I'v tagged the original person now.

Your only actual argument is that you personally dont think its notable

And so do the other editors here. That's how Wikipedia works.

RE: I'm also one of the other editors here and I dont agree with you. Also no other editor has agreed with you concerning the Benin bronzes not being notable because you wrongly claimed it was as single event warranting the article which is blatantly false.

You accused an IP username of "Self promotion" however when I checked that IP it shows the same IP banned for the same "self promotion"...

Exactly my point.
User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Please if you're going to respond to a quote, kindly QUOTE exactly what I said in full. Its a deceptive practice to leave out half of the sentence as if you're trying to sway the conversation.
This is the full quote you didnt want to add :

You accused an IP username of "Self promotion" however when I checked that IP it shows the same IP banned for the same "self promotion" for a number of completely different people, so how can they self promoting multiple people?" This statement refers to the fact that you wrongly banned someone's IP based on what seemed to be an incorrect assumption. It is clear a 'self promoter' cannot be multiple people. This seems to be a case of the same IP being assigned to different people, which Wikipedia itself acknowledges is a common occurrence.

You complained about the name yet didnt bother to change it despite making loads of edits yourself, which seems a little petty from an editor's point of view.

It is not my responsibility to clean up a page that I consider unfit for inclusion on the site anyway. You're the one who wants to keep the page, not me.

RE: @User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Like I said, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy against using a person's known professional name / stage name when its clear they're the same person.

WP:BLP1E refers to 'Events' not creations.

I'm trying to assume good faith, but this is ridiculous and I can't believe I have to explain this. When the media covers the subject unveiling his new sculpture, that is an event. The rules don't magically stop applying when there's a creative work involved. I agree that the Benin bronzes thing is important socially, and support the subject's cause, but this is a website with rules, and I'm going to follow the rules. This kind of thing just doesn't belong on this specific article, on this specific website. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Actually I cant believe I have to explain this to you. It is 100% false to cite WP:BLP1E to refer to this article about a living person being based on an event when the subject matter's notability is not for the event. The event took place BECAUSE of the notability of the work, and there are loads of news coverage and stories which arent even about the event. He is credited for the creation of the work not the unveiling of it. I agree with the original edits you made but not this false deletion discussion.

Also can you explain why you keep vandalising my signature? I'v contributed to loads of other articles but I happen to be spending more time than usual on defending this article since its my first article and you insist of needlessly fighting about it.

Afrorocktv: I'm not sure what you mean about vandalising your signature, since you haven't signed various posts here. Also, what are the "loads of other articles" that you have contributed to please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MrsSnoozyTurtle:: There was vandalism to my signature which I removed. I'v edited articles about Anita Ellis, voice dubbing and loads of others I cant remember of the top of my head. You can also check and see me there. Also are you going to respond to the points I tagged you in and help close this discussion or is it suddenly about my whether I have as much right as you to edit on wikipedia (News flash, I do) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrorocktv (talk • contribs)
That makes even less sense. I looked at your contribution history, and there are only two other articles you’ve edited, and voice dubbing is not one of them. Do you mean you did those edits on another account or something? —HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I meant I wrote about voice acting inside Anita ellis's own article. Its not every day I find interesting topics to write about. How am I supposed to increase my contribution if I'm not allowed to edit articles or any contribution I make is challenged due to lack of contribution history? @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith and @MrsSnoozyTurtle - User:Afrorocktv
I'm not "challenging" anything. I added a template marking that you do not edit outside of this subject. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Afrorocktv: Can you stop editing my posts? I don’t have the time to give a full response right now, but you keep inserting replies to my statements inside my posts, making the whole thing hard to read. That’s against talk page guidelines and I’ve already requested you stop. I have removed your annotation in the middle of my quote, but I’d appreciate if you could move your replies into one big chunk underneath my message, like MrsSnoozyTurtle and I have been doing this whole time. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note: in this diff, User:Afrorocktv is editing someone else's post, adding "Keep" to their comment. That's not allowed. WP:TPG isn't totally clear on what I should do here - does a more experienced editor know what to do in this situation? --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I editted it after I saw that you had posted that "no grounds for deletion" was incorrect and telling them to edit it to say "keep" instead for the vote to count? Sorry if it broke the rules you can undo the edit but its not like I was changing their vote or something. Yikes - User:Afrorocktv

HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Claims this living person is not notable yet sources and internationally celebrated achievements says otherwise. Original arguments for nomination no longer stands as the all flagged sources were since removed. There are literally no unreliable sources on this article. Original sources she claimed were self published related to his music career and were removed. My bad.

This article isn't lacking WP:SIGCOV Can you thoroughly review the sources and explain why creating a historic artefact unveiled in a nationally and internationally broadcast event impacting a major social issue isn't notable for many people who it matters to? @User:WaddlesJP13
@Factsaboutnigeria: Firstly, I checked the references prior to participating here. It's how I got my conclusion that this person lacks significant coverage, because there are no sources (books, news articles, etc.) available that sufficiently cover this person. Yes, there are mentions, but nothing that solely is focused on the person himself. Secondly, please, for the sake of ease in communication, remember to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Between you and Afrorocktv both leaving walls of text and forgetting to sign them, it's impossible to tell who is saying what, therefore making it harder for people to reply to you. Also, to reply to someone, use {{replyto|(username)}} which activates the ping (@). Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


signed by User:Factsaboutnigeria Many people would seriously disagree with your statement that its not notable for wikipedia despite being notable for national and international news.

Dear Cody User:Clpo13 could you please review the discussion and assist in consensus? It appears the only reason for categorizing for deletion was WP:BLP1E which is not applicable. The items discussed in the article do meet WP:SIGCOV. I recommend the removal of tags on the article as they no longer apply to the article. Those voting for deletion are doing so against wikipedia policy with unjustified factors- signed by User:Factsaboutnigeria — Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

_________

To all the editors User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, User:Afrorocktv, User:WaddlesJP13 Can we decide for good, I dont think it warrants such arguments. If you decide to delete it I will accept that if you believe it cant be improved further. If not, please make edits to improve the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaboutnigeria (talk • contribs)

We've all already voted tho --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith Can you review the edits made to the article? You voted based on saying it was about a single event which isn't the case? Can you review the references? -User:Factsaboutnigeria — Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to review - you just removed some stuff and made it slightly smaller. It has a lot of very nice sources for the single event about the bronzes, but - again - that's just the one event. As for the other section, it cites an extremely brief mention on Pulse.NG, then a bunch of routine coverage from the venues he performed at. Still maintaining my vote to Delete. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: @WaddlesJP13: Honestly this discussion is frustrating. I sincerely dont understand why you repeatedly refuse to correct yourself that this article is about a notable item and the notable person is its creator. Its not about the event itself which the sources confirm, you either didnt read them or for whatever reason falsely stated its referring just to an event. Either way I wont bother with this argument anymore. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia of world record title holders (single events) and notable people based on significant few or single accomplishments with 3 or 4 references. There are 14 high quality references here. The subject of the article is the creator of a notable work with all sources verifying that. No need to argue further, delete the article if you like. If more sources pop up I will add it later. Signed Factsaboutnigeria (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "event" is used very loosely in the guidelines. The creation of an object is an event. "One event", "one creation" - potato, potahto. Still doesn't fulfill WP requirements for notability, sorry. Since this topic seems to mean a lot to you, I would recommend copying relevant information into the Benin bronzes page, as it does seem like it could work there. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The creation of an object is an event" Could you please reference this definition in the policy? There's absolutely nowhere on wikipedia stating this.

Please read [[1]] states If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The event involved even the residing government. It is clear and obvious that the event is very notable and the subject's role was significant. The sources cover more than a single event (despite which the event is significant alone to justify the article). Mentioned in the sources is the plaque and its unveiling, the new Ahiamwen guild, and its relation to British Museum so I would say the subject is notable for more than one event. Please verify @Clpo13: @WaddlesJP13: @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: @MrsSnoozyTurtle: and vote fairly. I only think its interesting for it to be referenceable on Wikipedia Factsaboutnigeria (talk)

@Factsaboutnigeria: A large event that is enough to make someone notable would usually be the foundation of a company, organization, political entity like a city or country, etc, alongside the presence of WP:SIGCOV, not just brief mentions like those shown here. I don't see the notability. Maybe others, who are not affiliated with creating this article, do. I have made my decision and no longer want to be pinged day after day in this discussion that is harder than it needs to be. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, since most people voted lets remove the article for now. Who will be deleting it? EDIT can you #REDIRECT page so the link still exists? Since @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: suggested it belongs there Benin_Bronzes#Reception This article should redirect to the article about the event Factsaboutnigeria (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it should be a redirect. Pleas read WP:AFD for more info. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify - I think that only because Zeickner himself isn't really the most important part of the story, and "Jasper's Riddle" was not the name he was known by when he did the stuff with the bronzes. By the way, if you want to change your proposal from "Keep" to "Redirect", you should do that by adding "Redirect" in bold to your comment. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article was created about Jasper's Riddle, I'v edited the article to remove anything not associated with Jasper's Riddle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsaboutnigeria (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG / WP:SIGCOV, the reliable independent sources in the article from BBC and Reuters don't even mention Jasper's Riddle. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notably guidelines as above. I recommend reading the whole argument above as a dramatic reading for amateur theatre groups if you want to entertain yourself doktorb wordsdeeds 09:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page is muddled and poorly sourced. It essentially leads with the idea that the living person is a musician, but is supported by sources about Benin bronzes, most of which do not name the individual, in connection with a large bronze black the person made as a student, which, as one other editor put it, likely fails WP:BLP1E, and, circling back to the original point, is pretty unconnected with the music industry material. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World's Greatest Detective[edit]

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

What is the need to make a disambiguation page for the "World's Greatest Detective"? Besides that mentioning those characters as the world's greatest detectives may be a bit POV, I doubt somebody would type the "world's greatest detective" on Wikipedia, making it an useless disambiguation page. Also, no article links it. --The Typos Checker (fixed typos) 22:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Police Camera Action! episodes#Series 2 (1996). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liver Run[edit]

Liver Run (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:NOTNEWS - this, despite being a standalone article, is not a newsworthy event. Transplant organs are retrieved from source hospitals and taken to target hospitals every day in every country where transplant medicine is practiced. This one just happened to be picked up when the media were present. It is in no way a notable or newsworthy event, just something that happens every day. There might be some content that could be incorporated elsewhere but nothing jumps out at me. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:45, 7 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) 21:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revengers Tragedy (song)[edit]

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

Suspected hoax. While Chumbawamba did make a soundtrack for the film Revengers Tragedy, the song "Revengers Tragedy" does not appear on the soundtrack's track listing per a scan of the album's booklet or Musicbrainz. I do realize these aren't the greatest sources for verification. I was hoping to find this album on Itunes/Spotify so I can verify whether this song appears on the album, but no luck. If this ends up as a hoax, I request this put on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia as this was created in March 2010, over 11 years ago. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that an article is viable, though whether it should be a list rather than a prose piece is something for future discussions to decide. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical chemical compound[edit]

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

Appears to be a dictionary definition with few sources and a good chunk of original research; not much evidence of discussion as a general, standalone topic, as opposed to methods such as the Born–Haber cycle for predicting compounds. The only sources are one about a claimed observation of ethylene dione, and a book that discusses a lot of theoretical chemistry in the context of crystallography, but also does not discuss hypothetical compounds by themselves. Not every category needs a main article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic is notable, and there are many publications trying to predict compounds. The concerns here about content, which can be edited to improve. It appears that most statements are not original research, and are true. The problem is that they are unreferenced. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any references supporting the idea that the abstract CONCEPT of a hypothetical chemical compound is itself notable.PianoDan (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This *should* be a good wiki page with many examples, including the histories of compounds that were first proposed as hypothetical, but later became actual. Xenon compounds come to mind as an example. The page needs a lot of work and should really be made from the ground up. One option would be to send this page to draft space until it is brought up to standard (which it absolutely can be). --Tautomers(T C) 23:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds more like List of hypothetical chemical compounds is what you have in mind.Agricolae (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per what's been said already, and per a large volume of academic coverage of compounds that haven't been demonstrated to exist. Many trans-uranic elements have published simulations of their chemical properties due to the impracticality of actual experimentation; see Darmstadtium#Chemical ("Darmstadtium hexafluoride (DsF6) is predicted to have very similar properties to its lighter homologue platinum hexafluoride (PtF6), having very similar electronic structures and ionization potentials[3][66][67]"), Tennessine#Chemical, Oganesson#Predicted_compounds (including things as obvious as Og2!) Of course, all the things I'm mentioning here are thoroughly sourced (the predicted properties of tennessine chloride, for example, going to Pershina, V. (2010). "Electronic structure and chemistry of the heaviest elements". Relativistic Methods for Chemists. Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics. Vol. 10. pp. 451–520. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9975-5_11. ISBN 978-1-4020-9974-8.). jp×g 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of hypothetical chemical compounds - the latest 'Keep' !votes are saying that individual hypothetical compounds have received coverage so the umbrella category of hypothetical compounds must be notable, but that's not how it works. It requires us to commit WP:SYNTH to extrapolate from the specific to the general in this manner, just to organize what will invariably end up as an WP:EXAMPLEFARM anyhow. The only way to square the circle is to make it a list. Agricolae (talk) 19:21, 10 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination is proposing for a merge to Media Research Center. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America1000 23:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and Media Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP for a standalone article and should be merged into Media Research Center (MRC). This article is sourced with primary or non-RS sources: from its own website, from its 'parent company' MRC (which is a generally unreliable source per RSP), or from The Washington Times which is only marginally reliable on RSP.

Culture and Media Institute doesn't appear to be a separate organization from MRC. It's domain name cultureandmediainstitute.org now is redirecting to the NewsBusters' website, another project of MRC's. A search on that site for "Culture and Media Institute" doesn't bring up anything to indicate it's a separate organization from NewsBusters or MRC, and the earliest use of the term calls it "MRC's Culture and Media Institute". References to "Culture and Media Institute" on the website ended seven years ago. This indicates that MRC has 'retired' the CMI name/project and rolled it into NewsBusters.

Per WP:NPRODUCT, "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Neither article is so large that a merging of content would make the target article 'unwieldy'. Also, since MRC is considered generally unreliable within Wikipedia, it would be best to put this content and any necessary mrc.org citations into the Media Research Center article where "[t]he source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions," per WP:GUNREL. Platonk (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of figures in psychiatry[edit]

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

Part of the names in the list are psychiatrists (who already are in List of psychiatrists), the other names in the list are included based on entirely unclear criteria. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 7 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) 21:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maa Basuli[edit]

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

Written in Odia (per Google Translator). Bits of lore associated with a goddess and a temple collected in a rambling fashion, likely to defy any translator who doesn't want to spend all that time to yield an unencyclopedic result. Very subjective, no indication that it's legend, though it appears to be. No sources and, in fact, the third sentence begins "There is no historical evidence, but it is certain that ...." I don't know whether this goddess is widespread or a product of a local cult, but the latter is suggested by the fact that Google returns only 62 hits for it in Roman letters and 22 when written in Odia (ମା ବାଶୁଳୀ ). Previously PRODded, then recreated as a draft and then moved to article space. Largoplazo (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Lectonar (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify. Not appropriate for article space in the English Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the article was already moved to draft space and its creator moved it back unchanged, there's no reason to expect anything other than that if it were draftified again, the creator would again return it to article space. Largoplazo (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable regional variation. desmay (talk) 18:52, 10 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) 21:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick T. Long[edit]

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

No evidence of notability under WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG or any other relevant criterion. There isn't a single independent third-party RS cited; the article references are primary cites, blogs, and thinktanks the subject works with. Is there any independent third party coverage of Long in solid RSes? I asked on the talk page a few weeks ago for any such sourcing, to no response. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would be most useful if it could be shown. David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C1 Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Finding these independent RSes is the precise thing the article doesn't demonstrate, and that I couldn't find evidence of. Where are they? - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you taken a look at the GS link, six inches above, which gives several 100 references to his work? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Google Sources link counting isn't an independent third-party RS we can use for a BLP. Else the article would be, in its entirety, "Roderick Long has several hundred hits on Google Scholar." I suggest this is absolutely insufficient for a Wikipedia BLP.
Do you have any Independent Reliable Sources, as Wikipedia articles are required by hard policy to be based upon? - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Long's works have not been the subject of extended external commentary in reliable sources. Apart from partisan niche corners, I do not see much discussion at all or documentation of the lasting impact of his work. czar 04:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Czar. It appears that no significant coverage exists. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PROF#C1 would in principle be a way to pass, but the citation profile just isn't strong enough (manually tabulating the h-index gives a value less than 20, even by the permissive standards of Google "we'll index anything" Scholar). No editor-in-chief position at a first-rank journal, so there's nothing for WP:PROF#C8. One book without formally published reviews is far below the standard of WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saibou Bungaku[edit]

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

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. The Japanese Wikipedia article has a notability tag and is no better than this article. SL93 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2008-08 ✗ CSD A7 ← 2008-08 ✗ A7
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nav Sandhu[edit]

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

Classic case of WP:REFBOMBing to high heaven to give an illusion of notability. Despite the edit summary i removed pr releases as spiderone put notes that there are too many press releases. there are still too many press releases and articles that do not even mention Sandhu at all being used as the basis for this article. A WP:BEFORE search also comes back with nothing useful at all.

Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ktvn.com/story/44999004/super-producer-nav-sandhu-takes-over-the-punjabi-music-industry No Sponsored - advertising content No No ✘ No
https://www.spotboye.com/pollywood/pollywood-news/producer-nav-sandhu-speaks-up-about-the-time-management-in-the-punjabi-film-industry-says-being-as-much-productive-as-i-can/6103c49de747ae07cc803868 No Extremely promotional from start to finish No ~ Very little actual info when you take the puffery out ✘ No
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/in-focus/050821/entrepreneur-producer-nav-sandhu-touches-new-heights-with-his-busine.html No Disclaimer at the bottom says this is a PR No No ✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-post/nav-sandhu-shares-journey-from-digital-marketer-to-producer-in-music-industry-101622035332220.html No Marked as press release No No ✘ No
https://starsgazette.com/news/exceptional-talent-nav-sandhu-produces-the-most-popular-punjabi-records/0338919 No No Clear PR spam ~ ✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-post/singer-jassa-dhillon-drops-music-album-above-all-gets-overwhelming-response-101616770352204.html No PR No No Barely mentioned ✘ No
https://kiddaan.com/gur-sidhu-announced-his-debut-album-nothing-like-before/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/punjabi/watch-new-2020-punjabi-song-lyrical-toss-sung-by-sammy/videoshow/77460297.cms No No No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://kworb.net/spotify/track/1IDO3YDXZEpBIT53R6QJSe.html No No No ✘ No
https://kworb.net/spotify/track/1E4BrvZRKjcrfCkQS1iDfj.html No No No ✘ No
https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/video/movie-masti/punjabi-songs/gur-sidhu-latest-punjabi-song-goli-ft-deepak-dhillon-full-video-goes-viral-on-social-media/videoshow/86285884.cms Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://archive.ph/RJ31H No No No ✘ No
https://www.ptcpunjabi.co.in/ptc-exclusive-track-sham-da-laara-bu-gur-sidhu No No No ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/punjabi/punjabi-gana-new-video-songs-geet-2020-latest-punjabi-song-low-rider-sung-by-jassa-dhillon/videoshow/78193213.cms Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/punjabi/latest-punjabi-song-2020-manke-sung-by-jassa-dhillon/videoshow/74814146.cms Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.timesnowhindi.com/punjabi/video/gur-sidhu-gurlej-akhtar-ka-gana-kaafla-hit-video-punjabi-dj-song-kaafla-watch-video/302341 No No No ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/punjabi/watch-popular-punjabi-song-faraar-sung-by-jassa-dhillon/videoshow/79833549.cms Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/video/movie-masti/punjabi-songs/gang-life-new-punjabi-song-starring-gur-sidhu-and-jassa-dhillon/videoshow/78276576.cms Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/punjabi/watch-latest-2021-punjabi-song-sau-putt-sung-by-gur-sidhu-featuring-gurlej-akhtar/videoshow/81564509.cms Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14402138/?ref_=nm_knf_t1 No No IMDb is unreliable No ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14233858/?ref_=nm_knf_t2 No No IMDb is unreliable No ✘ No
https://www.spotboye.com/pollywood/pollywood-news/jeep-gur-sidhu-s-latest-groovy-track-hits-the-music-chart-receives-immense-love-from-fans/60d1aa63e5c49b0e58caea15 No No No Passing mention ✘ No
https://www.spotboye.com/pollywood/pollywood-news/new-song-alert-taakre-by-jassa-dhillon-ft-gur-sidhu-is-playing-exclusively-on-9x-tashan/61010e19c22b2417f3f93f01 No No No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/punjabi/check-out-new-punjabi-trending-song-music-video-bhalwani-gedi-sung-by-jassa-dhillon/videoshow/82575908.cms Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/punjabi/check-out-popular-punjabi-song-music-video-ashke-ashke-sung-by-gur-sidhu-featuring-navi-brar/videoshow/86749179.cms Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Producing or working with notable artists doesn't grant notability. Well, producing might under WP:CREATIVE but there is not enough notable work that he has produced either. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per excellent source-by-source analysis by Spiderone. Does not meet the notability requirements for biographies.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please see the following objection to deletion from the page creator (remember that they work for a company that promotes Sandhu) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC) He is one of the top producers in Punjabi Industry. You can even make search "Nav Sandhu Producer" thats why before i mentioned Nav sandhu (Producer). This page is organic. I am requesting you to not delete this page so wikipedia can support this Young Talent. I can show send you many punjabi artist who have only 3-4 songs but they are approved on youtube. This artist has over 100 songs but why you are not approving him. He has produced many songs and album that were in charts. He has featured in songs too which were huge hit over 100 million views on youtube. I think deleting this article would disrespecting this young talent who has done hardwork in last 2 years and became youngest music producers in Punjabi Industry. He was also featured on Billboard, I added photo of that in wikipedia. If you still think there is not enough data about him i can send you link of many Wikipedia articles who have less songs than him.[reply]

This is my humble request to you that please approve this article.I'm wikipedia's regular contributer why should i add wrong data on wikipedia. If you want more information i can find it and add it.

Even his instagram is verified Nav Sandhu on Instagram.I mentioned his instagram in wikipedia you can check it.

The songs i have mentioned in discography of Nav Sandhu depicts his name claerly in all of them, if any clarification requried let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srkhab (talk • contribs)

Srkhab there are absolutely no sources that discuss Sandhu in depth at all. The only ones that do are clear press releases; pure spam designed to promote him. He fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Srkhab also, 'supporting this young talent' is completely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a platform for promotion here. Other websites do that much better. I'm sorry if deleting his article is going to make it more difficult to achieve fame but please read WP:PROMO - you clearly have a close personal relation with the subject of this article and so should stop writing about him here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurtherian Gambit[edit]

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

Lacks sourcing. Doesn't pass/barely passes a before search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Creatures[edit]

The Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Creatures (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, can't find any reviews or other significant coverage Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, adequate sourcing has been found to meet WP:NBOOK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paleos is a self-published website, but the other two defined count for nbook. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals[edit]

The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally unsourced, can't find any reviews other than an extremely brief review in New Scientist. There might be other offiline reviews Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 7 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) 03:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Guillard[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. WP:GNG isn't clearly met either. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I'm not proficient in searching in French, however I was able to find the following articles about her here, here, here, and here. I would bet there are more out there for someone so inclined to search who had better skills than me. GauchoDude (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GauchoDude: You seem to be a inclusionist; there is nothing wrong with that, but I would like to point out that the last source you linked is a primary source from FC Nantes. Additionally, I'm not sure those three other sources you added here suffice to push the article past WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, two of those sources are interviews; surely the subject of the article is a primary source? I don't think they are WP:INDEPTH, to be honest, either. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some claim to there being sources out there. Arguments are weak at the moment and have been rebutted by a single editor. No harm extending for a weak given minimal involvement to date, but would close as delete if no further sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My keep is a very, very weak one. I was extremely surprised that there don't seem to be any non-interview reliable sources about her at all. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interviews have long been held insufficiently independent to count towards notability. Outside of those I am not seeing anything providing SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Véronique Bracco[edit]

Véronique Bracco (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 musician per WP:MUSIC. The French Wikipedia article shows no notability as well. SL93 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article on fr.wp shows a certain amount of overlap with her website. If the article is kept it may require some copyvio clean-up. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny Happy Jihad[edit]

Shiny Happy Jihad (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 14-year old stub fails GNG. It's sole citation (from AllMusic, labelled no-consensus at WP:RSP) showed up 9 years ago — nothing since. A BEFORE search brought up a lot of sales plugs, but didn't find any reliable sources that would contribute towards notability. Per NOTCATALOG, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." Platonk (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Eloquent and hilarious". The Gazette. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2009-04-17. p. 42. Retrieved 2021-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.
  2. ^ "Fear not a factor for Rogan - on or off stage". The Province. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2007-05-03. p. 83. Retrieved 2021-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.
  3. ^ "Last year's laughs". The Boston Globe. Boston, Massachusetts. 2008-01-11. p. 36. Retrieved 2021-11-10 – via Newspapers.com.
@JPxG: I wasn't able to spot them when I did a WP:BEFORE. Now I'm convinced enough with those sources. SBKSPP (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by JPxG. There's also a Brag article that has a segment about the album. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vomit Thrower[edit]

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

Former local band, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced. There's some mentions in local media but I can't find any significant coverage. (This is the second band with vomit in the name that I'm nominating today, but I swear it's a coincidence.) Lennart97 (talk) 19:07, 7 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) 19:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nessrine Zizi[edit]

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

The reference used to source her international appearance doesn't list her. In fact, she isn't included in the GSA database itself. Nehme1499 18:59, 7 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) Nehme1499 12:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Chebil[edit]

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

The reference used to source her international appearance doesn't list her. In fact, she isn't included in the GSA database itself. Nehme1499 18:56, 7 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) Nehme1499 12:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlem Hattab[edit]

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

The reference used to source her international appearance doesn't list her. In fact, she isn't included in the GSA database itself. Nehme1499 18:56, 7 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) 19:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Ben Achour[edit]

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

The reference used to source her international appearance is only the called up list for the competition. She could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme1499 18:55, 7 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) 18:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ourjouwan Issam Idin[edit]

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

The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme1499 18:00, 7 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) 18:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Najlaa Saleh[edit]

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

The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme1499 18:00, 7 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) 18:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samia Kassam Hussein[edit]

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

The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme1499 18:00, 7 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) 18:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nariman Lino Joseph[edit]

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

The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme1499 18:00, 7 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) 18:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Babker Babo Amer[edit]

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

The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme1499 18:00, 7 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) 17:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hala Mostafi[edit]

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

The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme1499 17:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I've tried looking online (in English and Arabic), and couldn't find anything. Given that the notability of the article itself is under doubt, adding a {{cn}} isn't enough. Nehme1499 09:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, thanks for confirming that you did attempt to look already! It wasn't clear from your nom; now it's clear and AfD seems appropriate then. Seany91 (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tolulope Ebun[edit]

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

BLP of an unsuccessful political candidate. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 7 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) 17:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iduitua David[edit]

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

Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 16 minutes in the league and 8 minutes in the cup. Geschichte (talk) 17:55, 7 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) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan women's national football team all time squads[edit]

Sudan women's national football team all time squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary page; there is no need to have a list of historical national team squads. Nehme1499 17:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Brazilian[edit]

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

Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. The ethnical intersection in question is very small and insignificant, and escapes speedy deletion on a technicality (new ref). Geschichte (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Colombia–Uruguay relations. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colombians in Uruguay[edit]

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

Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. This group is small and insignificant. Geschichte (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Paraguay–Uruguay relations. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguayans in Uruguay[edit]

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

Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. Even though these are neighboring countries, the group seems pretty insignificant and certainly small. Geschichte (talk) 16:45, 7 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. Meets WP:GEOLAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amorós[edit]

Amorós (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 fails WP:SIGCOV and has remained a stub since 2016 signed, Iflaq (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vomit Pigs[edit]

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

Former local band, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced. I can't find any significant coverage, although it's possible it exists offline. Online, all I can find is a mention of one of their songs in this article, which isn't nearly enough. Lennart97 (talk) 15:59, 7 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) 21:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cetan[edit]

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

"Čhetáŋ" (not or Cetan) is the Lakota word for hawk, and though I don't doubt the existence of a hawk spirit of some kind in Lokota mythology, I can't find any evidence that this one is notable. Unsourced since 2002 (!). List of Lakota deities, where Cetan is listed, could be a redirect target, but I don't see much use in redirecting without at least one reliable source confirming this spirit's existence. Lennart97 (talk) 15:07, 7 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. Procedural close as article has since been speedy deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makwana Chiranjiv[edit]

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

Non notable film-personality. Most of the references are poor quality blog-like articles. Seems highly likely that this a paid article and the details mentioned are bogus (or hijacked from a different person with the same name). A Buzzfeed reference alludes to him being the casting director of The Avengers (2012 film) when he was 16 which seems highly unlikely. Also the claim that he is the story writer of Scoob! does not have any references apart from a WP:UGC site like Metacritic. Even if they were true he would not satisfy WP:GNG due to the absence of any references from quality sites detailing him apart from some link-ups to famous actresses regurgitated by blog type sites. Jupitus Smart 14:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : This article should not be deleted because this is the same person Chiranjiv Makwana/Makwana Chiranjiv his upcoming film is Rowdy Boys, He is screenplay writer of that film[1][2][3][4][5]
  • Delete An interesting person (very unlikely for the combination of things claimed) for sure. Writer born in Gujarat writing Telegu films and casting for American films. Casting for any films won't give any credit. If he was truly writer for Scoob, he would have got some points at WP:CREATIVE but that doesn't seem to be the case. Rowdy Boys would give him some notability once it becomes notable which isn't happening right now. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, note that I cleaned out some of the more ridiculous claims from the article, including BLP material sourced to some junk blogs and gossip sites. I'm concerned that the whole thing is a hoax, given some of the other links on that article. Kuru (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After further review of this investigation, this is obviously a compromised account and more hoax material. As it deals with some fairly creepy BLP problems, I've deleted the article as a G5 to start with. Kuru (talk) 15:24, 9 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 Alison Moyet. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Screamin' Ab Dabs[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Launchballer 13:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Alison Moyet: yep, their "fame" rests entirely on being Moyet's previous band before she joined Yazoo. They're mentioned in both Moyet's and Yazoo's articles for this reason, and there's little else to say about them – they never went beyond playing the local pub circuit, and as far as I know they never released a record. Richard3120 (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is that this topic (perhaps titled differently so as to be more broad) is likely notable, but that the current article needs to be re-built from scratch, in a far more neutral manner, using a much broader scope of independent sources. Would suggest that if article creator wants to try again, the Articles for Creation path be utilized. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Intelligence in UAE[edit]

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

This page is basically just propaganda for the UAE government: the government tries to portray itself as a "leader in technology" and "leader in AI". The content is not sourced to independent reliable sources but to UAE government websites and news outlets that do not operate under freedom of media. There is nothing to indicate that AI in the UAE is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that have been added to the article do not substantiate that this is an independent notable subject. The sources are just a spam of unreliable sources or reliable sources that happen to mention both technology and UAE. There are a trillion reliable sources that happen to mention artificial intelligence in the context of the UK, US, France etc, but it would be madness to create country-specific AI articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans Thank you for your feedback. I have gone through the Wikipedia policies and guidelines carefully before publishing this article, I don't see any bias in the content, especially that it states different information on the topic sourced from various reliable sources as well. However, I would love to know if you think this article should be part of an existing one or you have some suggestions to edit the content. Your suggestions are most welcomed. Thank you.Jaa Noble (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find any additional sources that meet WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PianoDan Thanks for your feedback. I have added some more diversified sources from international journals and publications as recommended and added some more information to enhance the overall article. I will work on adding more of that. Would you mind letting me know if you have any more suggestions? Thank you.Jaa Noble (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PianoDan. Snooganssnoogans Thank you both once again for your feedback. I have added more content to enhance the article, give it more depth, and diversified the citations with international journals, books, and more as recommended earlier to abide by Wiki rules. If you have some more suggestions to enhance it further, I would love to know that. Your feedback is always welcomed.Jaa Noble (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Thank you so much for your feedback. I just need a little more help understanding how to do what you have suggested. So, I should create a totally new page under the title "science and technology in the UAE" and combine all the info included from the AI article with the E-Government in the United Arab Emirates one, right? I appreciate your support here since this is my first major article done on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot.Jaa Noble (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is that this page is not encyclopedic. From start to finish, it reads like a promotional announcement rather than a neutral description of the topic, as covered in secondary sources. The WP:TNT article referenced above is about the situation where an article is so far from meeting Wikipedia standards for neutrality (see WP:NPOV) that it would be better to blow it up and start over than to try to fix it piecemeal. Further, it's important to be aware of conflict of interest policies (WP:COI) when working on an article in which you have a direct interest in the topic. PianoDan (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dubai International Academic City. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Knowledge Park[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. There is no substantive coverage of the organization in reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Studio City[edit]

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

This is just a bunch of buildings owned by Dubai Holding. There is nothing to indicate that the collection of buildings are independently notable and deserve their own Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Troq chai[edit]

Troq chai (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 preparation method of tea doesn't appear to be notable, as I can't find any significant coverage of it. Unsourced article. Lennart97 (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rooster Booster[edit]

Rooster Booster (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 energy drink brand, unsourced and there's no significant coverage to be found. (If this article is deleted, Rooster Booster (horse) should be moved to this title.) Lennart97 (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2008-07 move to → Rooster Rooster (energy drink) ← 2005-04 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persa (water)[edit]

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

Non-notable brand of bottled water. Unsourced, can't find any significant coverage online. Lennart97 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ving (beverage)[edit]

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

I'm unable to verify that this drink even exists, there's nothing to be found online. Article is entirely unsourced and I'm surprised it has been around in this state since 2006. Lennart97 (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Per source searches, this mixed drink does appear to exist:
  • From Diffordsguide.com (link) – "In Jamaica Ting is often mixed with overproof rum to make a Ting Wray or a Ting 'n' Sting. It is also mixed with citrus flavoured vodka to create a Ving.
  • From Islands.com (link) – "Locals love mixing it with citrus vodka to make a boozy beverage know and Ving."
  • From Jamaicanproducts.com.au (link) – "Ting has also been known to be mixed with citrus vodka to create Ving, an alcoholic version of the drink."
However, no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. Fails WP:GNG. North America1000 00:38, 8 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 12:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Barthelemy[edit]

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

Assistant prof, seems like WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF to me. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:26, 7 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 12:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Allavaru[edit]

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

Unclear notability. The subject has been one of Joint Secretaries (whatever it may mean) of a large political party in India and also one of the leaders of its youth wing. However, I found no indication that the person has gained sufficient notability as to have a dedicated article in an encylopaedia. — kashmīrī TALK 12:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His bio in party website says nothing extraordinary about him, [3] [4]. No major public post held. Found some minor coverage [5] [6] Lack of detailed coverage so he fails WP:GNG and not won elections so he fails WP:NPOL. A young politician, may be in future he may become notable, The article can be created in future when he becomes notable. Venkat TL (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Fenton[edit]

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

Assistant prof with a patent, not convinced passes WP:NPROF. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, TOOSOON. I looked at his 52 coauthors on Scopus with 7+ papers who hold or have held research positions beyond postdoc (but including senior scientists in industry even though many of them did not do postdocs). Here are the results:
Total citations: average: 10429, median: 2800, Fenton: 1716.
Total papers: avg: 115, med: 36, F: 27.
h-index: avg: 33, med: 21, F: 17.
Top 5 paper citations: 1st: avg: 988, med: 312, F: 261. 2nd: avg: 535, med: 261, F: 239. 3rd: avg: 356, med: 245, F: 230. 4th: avg: 309, med: 236, F: 210. 5th: avg: 266, med: 158, F: 111.
He has a promising career, but at the moment he does not have a citation profile putting him well above the "average professor" in his subfield. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 8 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 12:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Buddha College of Engineering, Elavumthitta[edit]

Sree Buddha College of Engineering, Elavumthitta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Advait (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is only one source and it is not independent of the subject. Bwmdjeff (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nominator above nominated 21 articles for deletion in the space of 21 minutes. Whether the sources in the articles are sufficient or not, that is clearly not enough time to conduct a good-faith WP:BEFORE search, especially not for institutions like this where the coverage is likely to include stuff which is not in English... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Maybe the nominator did the research beforehand. Personally, I have a semi-long list of articles I researched ahead of time that I plan to nominate for deletion at some point when I'm not busy. I could see the nominator doing the same thing here. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: At which point I would assume you could have something more convincing as rationales (and having taken care to look whether there is any appropriate alternative to deletion) than mere copy-pasted assertions that something "Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES" or "Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Sure, but I would assume that instead of copying the same message about the nominator in 21 AfDs you could have given a more convincing rational about why the articles should be kept. If your so against copy-pasted assertions why not lead by example? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because here, unlike the AfD nominator, I am only noticing the exact same issue, which applies equally to all 21 nomination. Note that I at least took the time (maybe I missed a few ones) to highlight where there were obvious alternatives to deletion (redirecting to the parent institution) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that you posed alternatives to deletion where there was the option. That said, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG can apply with redirects. I've suggested redirecting plenty of articles that didn't meet GNG myself. So the AfD nominator can still be correct that all 21 articles don't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian - The page has been nominated by me after due checks after a user asked me to review a list of pages on my talk page. Its is incorrect to assume that they were nominated without verification, I verified the articles first and then nominated as there is nothing notable with these institutes, the pages merely establish institute existence. I hope the other editors would take an independent view considering the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and the references / citation on record.Advait (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Nominator blocked for sock puppetry. Polyamorph (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VKKM[edit]

VKKM (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 basketball school with no sources used and very little information on the web. All that is linked on the article is the school's website and the school's league or conference it plays in. Nothing establishes notability or meets basic GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My searches find no coverage in either English or Lithuanian that goes beyond trivial single-sentence mentions; as such it fails the WP:GNG. While the school appears to be associated with various notable individuals, it doesn't seem to have garnered any significant coverage for itself. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel of Urantia[edit]

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

Complete promotional fluff; basically my reasons for nomination are the same as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CosmoPop. wizzito | say hello! 02:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 12:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The gentleman has spent at least 55 years as a tireless self-promoter (which by the way contradicts many of his own Christian principles), claiming to have invented entire genres while influencing millions. The article is dependent on "sources" that are largely reprinted PR announcements from his own organization, and some minor concert announcements. The article serves as little more than a biography written by himself or a few fans, and is better left to promotional sites where evidence doesn't matter. Verifiable evidence of his supposed widespread success and influence is severely lacking in significant and reliable music media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 10 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 12:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cervecería Vegana[edit]

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

Small brewery which fails WP:NCORP. I can't find any significant coverage of this company or of its product. Completely unsourced. Lennart97 (talk) 11:54, 7 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 12:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Creative Artists Agency clients[edit]

List of Creative Artists Agency clients (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 huge part of this list article violates WP:DIRECTORY. See a precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current Star Magic artists. Per Mrschimpf there, "Wikipedia is not a talent agency database." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:48, 7 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 12:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speech and language pathology in school settings[edit]

Speech and language pathology in school settings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has a totally unclear lead section, most of the article isn't even about school settings (schools are first mentioned in the fourth section, then never seem to appear again), but rather about speech and language disorders in general, which an article already exists for so this is a WP:CFORK. I am also concerned about possible copyvios as the wording seems to be rather unusual for Wikipedia, though this could have nothing to do with copyvios. It basically doesn't cover its topic, is excessively long, (oh, and the lead has been wikilinked to the moon by newcomers trying to help, but never mind that). Fork issue is the main problem

Mako001 (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Any salvageable content should go in the main article. Rogermx (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Knoitalno (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment by nominator FWIW, I think deletion is the only way to deal with this mess. Even if the article could be blanked and rewritten, the edit history would remain. Sometimes you do want this, but in this case, I think that there could be issues with people "helping out" by reverting it back to its current state. And that's assuming that a proper, non-fork article could even be written about this.Mako001 (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads like a bad personal essay and like the nominator says most of it isn't even about school settings. I'm not seeing a viable way to re-write it into something even half workable either. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bowers Mountains. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Ridge[edit]

Adams Ridge (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 Antarctica stub fails WP:GEOLAND. It is related to a geological/geographical land feature on a continent without permanent human inhabitants and therefore cannot possibly be said to be related to a populated place, still less one with legal recognition. The sole reference is to a USGS survey listing that can be seen here. This a pure directory-listing, and Wikipedia is not a directory (and by extension Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, though it has features of one, and so should not simply reproduce GNIS listings). It is also not significant coverage since it is the equivalent of a capsule review, being only 45 words long. My WP:BEFORE search turned up no further references. This therefore fails WP:GNG.

This article was created by Ser Amantio di Nicolao at 00:51 UTC on 24 March 2008‎ during an article-creation campaign in which articles were created at a rate of one every 30 seconds or less, apparently by going through the GNIS database in alphabetical order and importing listings directly. That day 93 articles were created in this fashion. I say this not as a criticism of SAdN - 2008 was a long time ago and things were quite different then, indeed editors were encouraged to do this - but as an indication of the scale of the problem which I believe can only be addressed through bulk-deletion. I therefore intend for this to be a test-case on Antarctica geostubs sourced only to GNIS, similar to what was done with the articles on abadi that were sourced only to the Iranian census earlier this year. FOARP (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amélie Barbetta[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: passes GNG. Even just the UEFA article on her would suffice. Seany91 (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails GNG with a lack of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The UEFA source coverage is that she scored two goals against Macedonia and plays for Saint Etienne. The Saint Etienne source can be ignored entirely as it isn't independent of her. I couldn't find any sigcov of her either. Dougal18 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Seany91. Passes GNG. The UEFA article is enough to ensure notability – they don't produce articles about just any old player. The St Etienne source is fine although I would want to see more if it was the only one. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the only additional sources that I can find are Footofeminin and another UEFA article. Is this enough? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NFOOTY and GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Not enough coverage, the UEFA piece is not enough on its own. GiantSnowman 16:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. scope_creepTalk 15:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus. Clearly some significant coverage. The UEFA source can be said to be independent, but as all editors with any experience know we need more than a single source to demonstrate GNG and the St Ettiene sources, being from her own club are to close to primary sources to be acceptable for establishing notability. No harm in extending for another week to allow further investigation for new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:NFOOTY due to playing in the highest French feminine division and winning the 2010 UEFA feminine U19 Championship. As for GNG, here's another UEFA article about her. Could those who support delete please flesh out the rationale for arguing that she doesn't pass NFOOTY? Pilaz (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)). Striking my !vote.Pilaz (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. She does not pass WP:NFOOTY because she hasn't played for a team in a fully professional league or for a senior (not youth) national team. Your new source has already been linked to above. The only Barbetta related info in that source is that she is returning after 10 months from an ankle injury. The rest is all about the French U-19 team. Dougal18 (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The UEFA source seems largely derived from an interview, with the interviewer essentially summarizing her statements before each quote without really providing independent analysis. If this one source is the most SIGCOV she's received in 10 years I would say GNG is not met. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing and coverage are insufficient to meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Alobo Naga#Discography. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Road of a Thousand Dreams[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG, the references cited are from non-reliable sources and all of them are about the artist, not the album. Onmyway22 talk 07:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onmyway22 talk 08:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There was a single by the 80's band Trixter that had the same title which causes a lot of false hits, but nothing in RS sources that I can see. The sources in the article are all interviews or otherwise non-RS, and anyway don't give any significant coverage to the actual record. FOARP (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alobo Naga#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alobo Naga#Discography per above. Fails WP:NALBUM but redirecting to the artist is reasonable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2022 Nebraska gubernatorial election. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles W. Herbster[edit]

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

Far WP:TOOSOON for this primary candidate. Sources, which are formatted oddly, do not indicate that Herbster passes WP:NPOL at this time, or WP:GNG for that matter. Users should edit Draft:Charles Herbster until the primary. If he wins, I would support the creation of a page. KidAd • SPEAK 16:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is about a businessman with some interest and influence in politics. Herbster is CEO of a multi-million dollar agriculture direct sales company (Conklin Company) and of a multi-million dollar cattle breeding company (North American Breeders). He was chairman of Trumps agriculture policy campaign committee. Reliable sourced articles the are substantially about Herbster include [7], [8], [9], and [10] - all four are from different years and cover substantially different events in Herbster's career. Full D - I am the primary editor of the page and was unaware of KidAd's draft when I published. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Holding leadership positions at local companies isn't enough for Herbster to meet WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. The Trump campaign role is pretty flimsy as well. And another thing, why in the world is this page called "Charles W. Herbster" when Charles Herbster already exists? Why didn't the creator of the "W." page just remove the redirect on the main page? If there is no consensus to delete, I support a move to Charles Herbster. The "W." page should redirect to the main page, not the other way around. KidAd • SPEAK 17:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the W, Herbster uses the W in his professional materials, such as the "Charles W. Herbster foundation" and in government filings for the Conklin Company. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious to see how many reliable sources refer to him as "Charles W. Herbster." Local companies and his foundation are not reliable sources. KidAd • SPEAK 17:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more material from a Nov 2017 profile of Herbster in the livestock show magazine, The Showtimes, which was published as a part of his induction into the magazines "Hall of Fame". The article can be read here or on the magazines webpage, here. I'm not sure if being inducted in the magazine's HoF should move the needle on anyone's !vote, but it does profile him with the middle initial, which is why I bring it up here. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to fuss, but what do you mean by worthiness? For a figure like this, WP:NOTWHOSWHO seems the closest to a call for "worthiness", which is why I pointed out that there are multiple, independent of each other and of Herbster, reliable, local and non-local sources covering multiple, independent, activities of Herbster (I'm thinking of WP:SIRS here). Smmurphy(Talk) 17:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having multiple independent sources makes Mr. Herbster verifiable. That's necessary but not sufficient to keep the article. Notability is a separate issue, and the sources don't point to any single notable accomplishment either as businessperson or candidate. Yet. IMO he comes closest to significance as a major political donor, one probably-a-record donation to another candidate after his own abortive 2013 run. I've changed my vote, though, thanks for making me look closer. (BTW, WP:SIRS is written to apply to organizations and companies.) --Lockley (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. It sounds like your definition of worthiness has to do with notable accomplishments, then? My reading of WP:N is that this is covered by WP:SIGCOV (which is a section of WP:N) and, in a way, WP:NOR. Or is there some other policy that you are going off of? What makes an accomplishment notable is, otherwise, subjective. I think it is fine to have subjective reasons for a !vote, I may be misreading your points, or something else may be going on. As for WP:SIRS, to me that is one of the clearer objective definitions of N in our guidelines, which is why I pointed to it. BY my reading of WP:NBIO, we have a bunch of sufficient qualifications but nothing necessary except, "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under WP:N". Smmurphy(Talk) 19:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:59, 7 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 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harvesting_chives[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Harvesting_chives (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 is just an English translation of a popular Chinese idiom. Wikipedia is not a language dictionary. Every language has hundreds of idiomatic expressions, but these do not merit entries in Wikipedia. Mandarin Chinese also has e.g. "frying squid (炒魷魚)" meaning to terminate someone's employment, but there is (quite rightly) no Wikipedia entry for that idiom. Lemur in the Sky (talk) 05:41, 7 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 snow keep. Consensus based on discussion aligns with a BEFORE done prior to closing and demonstrates that this undoubtedly is a notable video game based on sustained, in depth coverage. This has been up just short of 7 days with no delete !votes thus I feel a snow keep is within reason. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 01:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Bowl[edit]

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

This is not a notable game, and perhaps a bit too soon to make an article; I would like to see rationale and opinions from other editors on why or why not delete. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid rationale for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Door chain[edit]

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

Unnecessary; only cites 2 sources, neither of which are reliable, and does not seem too notable. Philosophy2 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this is a very common type of lock. The article can be improved, and I'm certain there are a ton of sources about it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:30, 7 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 13:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Émilie Trimoreau[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:37, 7 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 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makan Traoré[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Little to no sources about her. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:36, 7 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 13:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Svaluto[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and comprehensively fails WP:GNG Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aurélie Samptiaux[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY - there are pretty much 0 sources about her, should be quick delete. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Romanelli[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Poulain[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:30, 7 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 13:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Véronique Pons[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:29, 7 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 13:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zohra Ayachi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:21, 7 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 13:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Benmokhtar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:17, 7 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 13:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Machart[edit]

Julie Machart (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:NFOOTY is failed, and she comprehensively fails WP:GNG as well. A quick search is proof. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:11, 7 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 13:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Lozé[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:09, 7 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 13:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Lerond[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Félicité Hamidouche[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY - you can see on here that she has not played in the Spanish first tier. She has also played in France/Italy, but the leagues are not professional there. No appearances for France. Plus, she fails WP:GNG - sources hard to find about her. Most are just routine coverage for when she signed for clubs. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwenaëlle Butel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian International Sex School[edit]

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

"Was said to be" a hoax or whatever--kind of a joke from the beginning, and never a hoax rising to encyclopedic notability. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as written. I could see a merger to topic at a higher level of abstraction, such as the group behind the hoax, or campaigns to counter low birth rates in Austria more generally, if either such topic existed and notability was supported by sources. BD2412 T 02:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree delete I only edited it because it was there. As BD2412 says maybe a merger if one is suitable Wandererjon (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz and Pete Fordred[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E, basically, for lack of sustained coverage. First source is primary (authored by one of the subjects), second is a review of the book and not independent coverage of the couple themselves, third is another primary source (guy on his own website talking about meeting them), fourth (working link here) is also by Liz Fordred, and the final one is basically a book review. What we don't really have is sustained significant independent coverage of the Fordreds themselves. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacking third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sustained coverage. – The Grid (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "Rowdy Boys to make noise in theaters from 19th November". Tollywood. 2021-10-21. Retrieved 2021-11-08.
  2. ^ "PHOTO: Anupama Parameswaran cannot take her eyes off Vijay Deverakonda as she shares her fangirl moment". PINKVILLA. 2021-10-21. Retrieved 2021-11-08.
  3. ^ "Rowdy Boys to make noise in theaters from 19th November - KARKEY". Retrieved 2021-11-08.
  4. ^ "Rowdy Boys to make noise in theaters from 19th November". Sency News. 2021-10-21. Retrieved 2021-11-08.
  5. ^ "PHOTO: Anupama Parameswaran cannot take her eyes off Vijay Deverakonda as she shares her fangirl moment". www.msn.com. Retrieved 2021-11-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_7&oldid=1056142261"