Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 07 November 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spy (band)[edit]

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

Including:

Local band (seemingly no longer active judging by the defunct website), fails WP:MUSICBIO, and their album similarly fails WP:NALBUM. I can't find any significant coverage, or really any coverage at all, even local. Unsourced. Lennart97 (talk) 23:39, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Baghdad (2006–2008)[edit]

Battle of Baghdad (2006–2008) (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 tried to PROD this article but then the sockpuppet of the article creator removed the tag. The sockpuppet told me to search for "Battle of Baghdad (2006–2008" and I would see the sources but I didn't see the sources. This article doesn’t look like much of a battle and looks like WP:SYNTH and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What is wrong with you? Here are some sources that indicate there were offensives or battles in baghdad. Are you trying to rewrite history and just assume baghdad was completely secured during this period? Stop treating wikipedia as an area to argue and treat it as a place for informations. Here is your sources https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/20/usa.iraq, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna15145106, https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/report/62310/iraq-sectarian-violence-tears-baghdad-two-parts, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html, https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2006/6/24/iraq-to-discuss-reconciliation-plan “ Iraq’s government clamped a state of emergency on Baghdad and ordered everyone off the streets after US and Iraqi forces battled anti-government fighters” 78.164.218.120 (talk) 16:04, 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 Flight Centre & salt. Daniel (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StudentUniverse[edit]

StudentUniverse (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 deleted this as advertising under a variant title many years ago. It remains a cross between an advertisement and a company web page. It certainly fails the current version of WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt:No evidence of notability, recreated multiple times. Lots of SPAs in the edit history which makes me wonder if there was paid editing as well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Flight Centre: The present article text is little more than a summary of the firm's market proposition followed by a roll-call of each mundane announcement that the firm has made. If it was copy-edited to address this, most of this material about the comings and goings of company recruitment would probably be erased; regardless, it is trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The firm was acquired by Flight Centre in 2015 and continues to be operated as a brand, so a redirect seems reasonable. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: I'm with Pi -- our forbearance has been abused enough. Ravenswing 17:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Flight Centre. Per WP:INHERITORG, subsidiaries do not inherit notability from their owner. However, seeing as this is a subsidiary, I don't see a reason against a redirect to the parent company's article, where the subject could be reasonably covered. However, if there is a redirect, I would like to see that redirect given ECP so as to prevent this from going back to AfD after a motivated individual restores the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this item of significant abuse of the no-promotion policy, whose supporting sources are tellingly mostly ads and advertorials. When something is put up on Wikipedia without the necessary support we do not send it/redirect it elsewhere; we delete it. And, since the probability of interested parties reposting the content is indeed high, the suggestion to salt it is well founded. -The Gnome (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NCORP --Devokewater (talk) 17:27, 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 Acharya (film). Daniel (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neelambari (song)[edit]

Neelambari (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)

There is not a reason why as to why this article exists nor are there enough references given for the song SP013 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Every ref is simply a listing of performers and news of song release (even Astig's added ones) Some are just social media reactions or outright PR pieces. Does not meet WP:NSONG or WP:NRV --Hemanthah (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since, despite the efforts to give birth to notability-supporting sources, there's really not much out there. It blatantly fails WP:SONG. At best, or at worst, a redirect to something/anything more worthy of inclusion could be considered. -The Gnome (talk) 15:04, 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) 23:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Products Corporation[edit]

Sand Products Corporation (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 fail to see how this really passes WP:NCORP, feels like it was added to wiki as WP:PROMOTIONAL, and wikipedia is not a yellow pages. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:04, 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 merge to List of embassies of Nicaragua. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Nicaragua, London[edit]

Embassy of Nicaragua, London (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. All the article confirms is that this place exists. No third party coverage. Embassies are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries in Missouri[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable local businesses. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Ohio better to list notable locations at the main article Missouri wine. Reywas92Talk 22:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is not a "directory". Nominator has not said which of the 7 criteria under WP:DIRECTORY this list article fails. It does not even link to the winery websites. Each entry has one or more citations, satisfying notability criteria for items in a list article. Missouri wineries are a category used in winery literature, journals, and magazines. This is not at all comparable to the situation with the Ohio article, but rather more similar to the AfD discussion on List of wineries in New Mexico, which was closed rightly as a keep. Skyerise (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the only five notable entries to Missouri wine and perhaps some of the other content that may aid to article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you're talking about here. WP:LISTN clearly states that the individual entries need not be notable if the grouping itself is notable: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." Skyerise (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • So far I can only see five entries with articles, four appear notable without looking into any real detail. The rest seem be be supplemented by a number of indirect publications and their notability remains unclear. The bulk of the entries are sourced by a single entry entitled "Search Wineries | MO Wine", this is where WP:NOTDIRECTORY comes into play. Wikipedia is not a business directory nor a forum for free advertising. For this reason, I feel a merge is the right outcome here and only those wineries with clear notability be mentioned. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list with a clearly defined scope and multiple notable entries. I'm not sure which part of WP:NOTDIRECTORY the nominator feels this falls under, but there are no telephone numbers here and this doesn't have any pricing or product info so I don't feel that WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. NemesisAT (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I deprodded this when it was prodded a few days ago, and after giving this more of a look I think the article should be kept. There are all kinds of wiki pages for lists of wineries. If this is deleted, it calls into question all of those other winery lists. This can easily become a noteworthy page (it already is IMO). --Tautomers(T C) 00:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep “listy” sections in main articles are considered poor style and are discouraged. It’s better to roll out the list into a standalone list article. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article passes WP:LISTN. Running both a deletion and merge discussion at the same time appears to violate WP:FORUMSHOPPING policy, see Talk:Missouri wine#Proposed merge of List of wineries in Missouri into Missouri wine.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:LISTN, and doesn't seem to be suitable for merging as suggested elsewhere. - Aoidh (talk) 21:39, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries in Kansas[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable local businesses. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Ohio this is better merged to the main article Kansas wine with only notable locations. Reywas92Talk 22:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we don't delete fixable articles. This one merely needs citation, which are most likely readily available for most, if not all, of these wineries. Wineries are a matter not only of wine making, but of tourism. This makes wineries as notable as the wine they produce. Articles are written from both sides of this spectrum. See List of wineries in New Mexico which has met list article criteria since it was created, and was rightly kept in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in New Mexico in 2015. Skyerise (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tourists can visit a lot of businesses, but that doesn't mean we need to list the non-notable ones. Specific wineries they visit can also be discussed in the main article. Reywas92Talk 02:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but when a winery is covered by two different wine tours written up in the mainstream wine lit, they become notable enough for list inclusion. Yes, they maybe aren't notable enough for an article, but that really is what list articles are for, they are ideally a mix of listed articles along with those which are in the wine news but don't have an article yet. They don't have to be redlinked, but in some cases where they are first, or biggest, etc. they should be. Would you prefer an article on say, Kansas wine tourism? Skyerise (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a quick online search has turned up a number of pages on Kansas wine. There's clearly some notable wineries in Kansas, it makes sense to have a list--especially since there is discussion about the content as a whole. Therefore, the topic passs WP:LISTN as having been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are "a number of pages on Kansas wine", we have Kansas wine. The notable wineries can be listed there. Even if you want to mention the non-notable ones, that can be merged there too, no need for a separate page. But I do not believe we should be listing non-notable local businesses. Reywas92Talk 02:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you believed that was the proper course of action, you should have proposed a WP:MERGE rather than a deletion. Right now, the question is, "shall the article be deleted." While merging is a possibility, it's your proposal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not believe simple merging it the proper course of action. And this is wrong and you know it. Merging – or partial merging – is an acceptable outcome at an AFD discussion. Reywas92Talk 15:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm even more confused now. This dance around "delete/merge/don't merge/this is wrong and you know it" has me dizzy. I stand on my original assessment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per WP:LISTN. Not a single notable entry on the list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you're talking about here. WP:LISTN clearly states that the individual entries need not be notable if the grouping itself is notable: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." Skyerise (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a single entry has demonstrated notability as there are none with articles nor any that appear under Category:Wineries in Kansas. The sources listed are a range of texts with unclear depth of coverage, these could all be bare mentioned for all we know. The nonimator has pointed out relavant content can already be included under Kansas wine. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is far from complete and there is no deadline. We're not talking about other articles or potential articles or lists in this AFD that could link to this list, we are talking about the one in question only: List of wineries in Kansas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ajf773: All the sources are linked and easily available, so your hypothetical just indicates laziness. And WP:LISTN says notability for listed entries is not required. Did you read my comment? Have you read WP:LISTN? You comments appear to be intentionally misleading about what WP:LISTN requires. Skyerise (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, WP:LISTN is met. The "criteria" that @Ajf773: references are not a part of WP:LISTN and really seems to be nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is worth noting there is a parallel deletion discussion on Missouri Wineries currently with a significant number of keep votes. The arguments are the same there as they are here overall, and like that deletion discussion, this page should be kept as well. --Tautomers(T C) 20:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skyerise. Meets WP:LISTN, and doesn't seem to be content that should be merged into Kansas wine, as suggested above. - Aoidh (talk) 21:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dibson T. Hoffweiler[edit]

Dibson T. Hoffweiler (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 article has been unsourced for years. He falls far short of WP:NMUSIC and I have not been able to locate any third party coverage of him. The subject is unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:18, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch Studio[edit]

Pitch Studio (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 appear to meet WP:GNG. The article itself seems purely promotional with no referencing, and a Google search on my end has turned up zero relevant coverage of the company or the app. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 21:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article has no references and I can find nothing to substantiate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering & Technology, Bareilly[edit]

Institute of Engineering & Technology, Bareilly (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:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 23 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) 14:21, 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) 07:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry Polyamorph (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can tell there isn't even trivial coverage of this out there. In the meantime I'm sure people could justify procedurally keeping it. So I'm fine with that being the outcome. I'd probably go that way myself if there was any indication that this notable. There isn't any though and I rather it be dealt with now instead of when it's eventually re-nominated. WP:AFD doesn't say nominations by socks have to be procedurally kept anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:24, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Starr[edit]

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

I’m renominating this as the previous discussion was tainted by socking and we have seen no real improvement in this since the previous afd closed. This remains a very thinly sourced BLP that fails GNG and N Spartaz Humbug! 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG and well sourced page despite what nominator suggests.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, AVN which is used extensively on the page is agreed on WP:RSP to be generally reliable source, as is The Sydney Morning Herald. CNBC is also a major publication that is also cited of which I see nothing to suggest is unreliable. Helper201 (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • AVN isn’t going to get an article over the line when it has such a terrible reputation for republishing press releases and repeatimg bullshit without critical input. Also its the nature of the coverage that counts not the source that counts. Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, an RfC at RSN believed otherwise.[6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets address the SMH, which is according to the link a blog so not definitely notable and funny enough for me doesn’t open either in the original or the web citation. Did you get it open? Can you summarise the content, or did you just see the source and decide this page would do? As for the CNBC source, well its shitty clickbait but more important its trivial coverage that in no way is a substantial source that meets the depth of coverage required by GNG. Perhaps rather than just making an assertion you can assess the best sources and tell us why you think they pass the gng in terms of independent, reliable and sufficient depth. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Newsblog and WP:LINKROT Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - She passes the GNG. In addition to some of the sources already mentioned in the article or discussion, she is extensively written about in [7][8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments and sources found by ScottishFinnishRadish in the previous AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should never have been nominated. Starr is discussed at length in several books, for example by Helen Hester in Beyond Explicit: Pornography and the Displacement of Sex, published in 2014 by the State University of New York Press and by Rich Moreland in Pornography Feminism: As Powerful as She Wants to Be, published in 2015 by John Hunt Publishing. How could a nominator have missed these? These findings and nom's intro suggest that no proper WP:BEFORE was done. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 02:58, 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. WP:NFOOTY establishes a presumption of notability that can be rebutted by showing that there is not in fact sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The arguments of the "delete" side that this is the case here remain unaddressed by the "keep" side, who do not cite any relevant sources, and whose opinions I must accordingly discount. Sandstein 10:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert Golightly[edit]

Lambert Golightly (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 due to being an amateur footballer playing in an era before the English Football League was "fully professional". More importantly fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (despite reservations about the speedy mass nomination of other similar articles) 1919 is a long time ago; but the one obvious thing here is that if one had to go dig through census records and the England and Wales death registratin index, obviously, this is WP:OR, which likely isn't published anywhere else... The actual article looks like routine coverage of a non-remarkable sportsman; the only sources only trivially mention him, the only one that appears to support anything that isn't routine match coverage (i.e. "X played in Y"; often sourced to places like this); is a newspaper from 1921, which apparently only provides the short snippet that "he was "unknown in London [but] has shown consistently good form for Darlington""... This looks like a textbook example of WP:OR (based on digging through primary sources, ...), and disregarding entirely whether the English league was or not fully professional, it is entirely routine to disregard marginal NSPORTS passes (only 10 games at the senior level?) if there is a thorough fail of GNG, like here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - playing in the Football League confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 16:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GS. The man played in seven FL matches and was an amateur international. Anyone who knows anything about football before WP:RECENTISM times will tell you that playing for the England amateur team was a distinction. We can safely assume that pre-internet offline sources provided coverage. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To the above two, I reply: notability requires verifiable evidence. If you cannot find acceptable sources to write an article, then you are furthering WP:BIAS, and you are also, counter-intuitively, promoting RECENTISM by projecting modern expectations (which likely do not hold true) backwards in time. And whether he meets NFOOTBALL or NWHATEVER, all of these are clear that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. The purpose of requiring actual non-trivial sources is to write an article which complies with WP:V and WP:NOR. Given that the keep voters have so far failed to do so and instead have merely taken the opportunity to vaguely point in the direction of the relevant SNG, one should feel free to disregard them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And as one would expect, the first of the above keeps appears to have been copy-pasted between multiple AfDs simply because the subject supposedly meets NFOOTBALL, without addressing any of the nomination arguments. I count 21 AfD comments in less than 10 minutes... (including what looks like 8 exact copies of the mentioned comment). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)In a case like this, it is necessary to use WP:COMMONSENSE and remember per WP:IAR that we are here to improve the encyclopaedia. Someone with Golightly's record easily meets NFOOTY and the article improves our football coverage. In due course – see WP:DEADLINE – the article will be improved by the addition of offline sources as WP:FOOTY is highly active in improving its historical subjects. As for what one should do, one should disregard anything said by someone who is known for using WP:BIAS when relisting discussion topics. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, one should ping GiantSnowman if one is inclined to have a go at him. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't invoke IAR willy-nilly for every subject that fails GNG. A mundane sportsman, who played maybe a few games, where that is essentially all we can say about them (plus some bare minimum [birth and death dates] biographical information from primary sources), doesn't seem to justify ignoring the rules here. It doesn't improve an encyclopedia to have dozens of unremarkable articles about unremarkable sportsmen from a century ago; and I don't see what is so exceptional about this one as to justify keeping it while deleting all sorts of other articles routinely for having exactly the same problems as this one, whether they pass NFOOTBALL or any other N(not-magic-password-but-used-as-such-anyway-acronym). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also think there are WP:BLPPRIMARY concerns with this article. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does the BLP policy apply to someone who died more than 30 years ago......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY in this context is an issue, with or without the BLP part. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't seem to be any real concern regarding WP:NFOOTY, but a lack of overall concensus around GNG. Nothing has been presented to indicate anything approaching significant coverage. Feel that this is a delete given the current input and complete lack of sources, but the NFOOTY / GNG discussion needs more time to be discussed to allow the presentation of sources that satisfy the claim to GNG which NFOOTY presumes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite an interesting disconnect between claims that WP:NFOOTBALL "confers" notability, and competing claims that it merely "presumes" notability. Just so we're clear, which one is true? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bring back Daz Sampson - it depends on the context. If we're talking about a pre-internet player, where internet searches will have limited value, we can say that it confers notability. If we're talking about someone who made a handful of FPL appearances in 2011 then disappeared, we could call it a weak presumption of notability. This is because internet searches should give us a better idea of notability in the latter example and, if nothing turns up for them, we could say that the presumption of notability is invalid. That's my interpretation of the current consensus anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to any evidence of this emergent consensus? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone and Bring back Daz Sampson: AFAIK, absolutely nothing on God's green earth "confers" notability (look at the big bolded and linked answer a few posts earlier). From even a quick glance at NSPORTS, it should be obvious that it is only a presumption (as one can notice from the ever repeated and bolded "An [x-sport person] is/are presumed notable if [...]"), and presumptions can be rebutted. Now, to be pragmatic, there tends to be more leeway for subjects which are marginal NSPORT-whatever passes if they are from a while ago, but this isn't a free pass to keep such articles when a look through period sources (i.e. the newspapers already cited) reveals only trivial coverage, Even less so when a fair bit of the rest is based on primary sources (census records). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the presumption of notability from NFOOTBALL is predicated on professionalism, but this guy was an amateur footballer. I suppose next year we'll be able to see from the census what he did for his day-job. That's pretty standard since the supposedly 'fully-professional' English Football League was replete with coal miners, steel workers, school teachers etc. until quite recently in historical terms. Here the only reference which isn't a routine stats listing or an original analysis of a primary source is a single line in a local newspaper, which explicitly describes him as being "unknown" outside his own locality. Hardly the stuff of WP:GNG! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far there is obviously a majority in favour of keeping, but I can't bring myself to call it a consensus, since it entirely ignores RandomCanadian's policy-based argument. Can we have one more try at discussing this without the WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Orford.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree fully with RandomCanadian: what evidence do we have that players of his era and location reliably meet GNG, whether through offline or internet sources? Considering how obsessive local football clubs are in documenting their history down to the minute of every game, wouldn't we expect them to have uncovered all SIGCOV available by this point and at least referenced it on their websites? Restated: if the people most intimately familiar with players in his league, who not only live in the area and have access to historical documents curated by their club but also are incentivized to promote coverage of such players, haven't discovered enough to write a biography of this dude, then who are we to assert some future editor who happens to be in the area will be any more successful? JoelleJay (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established with the coverage being a combination of primary sources, routine life/career details and passing mentions. Avilich (talk) 18:16, 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 speedy deleted per G11. (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pulock Deb Roy[edit]

Pulock Deb Roy (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 was speedied many times before, last on 2 November. The person has responded by (probably) paying small news outlets to publish articles about him (literally the next day on 3 November: [9], [10] and this one today). Obvious promotion of person that fails GNG and MUSICBIO. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:11, 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 speedy keep. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhan, I Am Here[edit]

Wuhan, I Am Here (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 with WP:NFILM and WP:GNG guideline.  from, Orbit Wharf  💬  •  📝 06:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  from, Orbit Wharf  💬  •  📝 06:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  from, Orbit Wharf  💬  •  📝 06:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This film may exist but I was unable to find any coverage in independent, reliable sources in English. Perhaps coverage exists in Chinese, or in Japanese, since it was screened at a film festival in Japan. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the sources that Cunard found. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found nothing in English, Chinese, or Japanese. Jumpytoo Talk 06:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's found sources. In terms of The Long Night vs I Am Here, having The Long Night redirecting to I Am Here is probably the better move. Jumpytoo Talk 19:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was coverage of the then-unusual sight of city streets under lockdown in Lan Bo's February 2020 short film "Wuhan: The Long Night", with the expressed intention to develop a longer documentary, but one film festival showing may be just WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sources about the 2021 documentary film Wuhan, I Am Here:
      1. 荒井南 (2021-10-13). "「山形国際ドキュメンタリー映画祭2021 オンライン日記③」". Nobody (in Japanese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-15. Retrieved 2021-10-29.

        According to https://twitter.com/nobodymag, "Film critic magazine. Since 2001."

        The article notes from Google Translate: ""Wuhan, I'm here" (Lan Bo) is a movie that reminds us that smartphones have become a tool to point to the current location of "now" and "here" and have changed the way documentaries are, and in that sense, it is timely. I thought it was a good creation that caught. In early 2020, he entered Wuhan to shoot his first director's feature film, and soon after he encountered a city blockade by COVID-19. As uninfected sick people are forced to leave the hospital one after another due to lockdown and hospital recruitment, the directors manage to find a new hospital. In the first place, the purpose of the directors working with the general public was to complete a new feature film by filming all the processes taking place in Wuhan. Some of them were conscious as producers, but they gradually took on the appearance of joint struggle with the citizens."

      2. 上月英興 (2021-10-07). "世界のいまに触れよう　山形ドキュメンタリー映画祭、きょう開幕". The Asahi Shimbun (in Japanese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-29. Retrieved 2021-10-29.

        From Google Translate: ""Wuhan, I'm here" (Director Rambo), which will be screened as a special invitation film that symbolizes the last two years, will be released for the first time in the world. A crew member in Wuhan, China, who was in Wuhan, China, encountered the world's first lockdown (city blockage) due to the new coronavirus in January last year to shoot a feature film. I went out on the street and turned the camera to record the facts that happened in front of me. People waiting in front of the hospital, volunteers working to distribute supplies free of charge. Frustration, impatience that I want to help but can't help. It is said that the rapidly changing situation and the citizens who are confused by being tossed about are projected."

    2. Sources about the 2020 short film Wuhan: The Long Night, the predecessor of the documentary film Wuhan, I Am Here:
      1. Sharf, Zack (2020-02-19). "Film Crew Stranded in China Releases Footage of a City Plagued by Coronavirus — Watch. The short film "Wuhan: The Long Night" has gone viral with millions of views on China's social media platform Weibo". IndieWire. Archived from the original on 2021-10-29. Retrieved 2021-10-29.

        The article notes: "With a forced break in production, the crew turned their cameras to the streets of Wuhan to document the effect of the coronavirus on the city. The result is a chilling montage film in which a city of 14 million people appears all but abandoned (click here to watch the video)."

      2. Cai, Xuejiao (2020-02-17). Bhandari, Bibek (ed.). "Film Crew Documents Life in Wuhan Amid COVID-19 Epidemic. The film they had planned to shoot in Hubei was derailed by the coronavirus, so instead they're creating a visual chronicle of a city under lockdown". Sixth Tone. Archived from the original on 2021-10-28. Retrieved 2021-10-29.

        The article notes: "Lan told Sixth Tone that he and his team had to postpone their scheduled film project because of the epidemic. That’s when videographer Xie Dan started filming on his phone: The team put together a short film titled “Wuhan: The Long Night” and shared it online. The haunting images of Wuhan attracted millions of views on microblogging platform Weibo, and the video’s popularity spurred Lan to expand it into a feature-length documentary."

      3. Tseng, Douglas (2020-02-20). "Stranded Film Crew Made A Chilling Short Docu About Life Under Wuhan's COVID-19 Lockdown". Today. Archived from the original on 2021-10-29. Retrieved 2021-10-29.

        The article notes: "Set to a pensive score, the four-and-a half-minute short paints a grim and eerie portrait of a ghost town (which happens to be the docu’s Chinese title). The sight of the nearly abandoned streets and roads evokes memories of 28 Days Later (or Vanilla Sky). One surreal moment has a man singing out of his window onto a deserted street. That’s a guy with a story to share."

      4. 陈晨 (2020-02-13). "文艺片剧组滞留武汉，改拍纪录片" [The literary crew stays in Wuhan and changes to a documentary]. The Paper (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-29. Retrieved 2021-10-29.

        The article discusses the history and production of the documentary.

      5. Dawson, Brit (2020-02-24). "This short film takes you through Wuhan, the city shut down by coronavirus". Dazed. Archived from the original on 2021-10-29. Retrieved 2021-10-29.

        The article notes: "Created by filmmaker Lan Bo, Wuhan: The Long Night offers a glimpse into what life is currently like for those living in Wuhan, exposing the magnitude of what’s happening there. ... Following the success of Wuhan: The Long Night – the video quickly went viral on Chinese platform Weibo – Lan plans to make a feature-length documentary about Wuhan in lockdown, centring on those still living in the city."

      6. Grzelak, Katarzyna (2020-02-21). "Koronawirus nie odpuszcza, a sieć podbija film „Wuhan" Długa noc"" [Coronavirus does not give up, and the network conquers the movie "Wuhan" Long Night "]. Focus (in Polish). Archived from the original on 2021-10-29. Retrieved 2021-10-29.
      7. Han, Karen (2020-02-19). "A short film provides a striking look inside Wuhan's coronavirus lockdown. Wuhan: The Long Night has taken off on China's Weibo". Polygon. Archived from the original on 2021-10-29. Retrieved 2021-10-29.
      8. Bisset, Jennifer (2020-02-19). "Chilling footage emerges of China's deserted streets in coronavirus epicenter. The city where the novel coronavirus originated has been captured in on-the-ground footage". CNET. Archived from the original on 2021-10-29. Retrieved 2021-10-29.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wuhan, I Am Here and Wuhan: The Long Night to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wuhan, I Am Here is a documentary film. Its predecessor, Wuhan: The Long Night, is a short film. There is more coverage about Wuhan: The Long Night so if editors believe there is insufficient coverage of Wuhan, I Am Here, renaming and refocusing to Wuhan: The Long Night is a possibility. I think that is not necessary though as Wuhan, I Am Here passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this was nominated by a sock, shouldn't this AfD be procedural closed? – The Grid (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Cunard that passes WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly passes GNG as per above. No plausible chance of any other outcome at this stage now anyway Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominated by sockpuppet whose MO is nominating articles for deletion, with no thought to their notability. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 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 Australia-Pakistan relations. I find Pilaz's contribution the most persuasive from a policy viewpoint, in a debate that teetered on the edge of no consensus but ultimately came down to strength of argument, not quantity. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Australia, Islamabad[edit]

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

Embassies/high commissions are not inherently notable. This article just confirms it exists, lacks third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added 4 new references from the major newspapers of Pakistan. Removed all dead links and added 2 external links from Australia. Meets WP:GNG now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY following edits by Ngrewal1. Deus et lex (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because of the added referencesJackattack1597 (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only the first source even purports to cover the commission itself, the other ones just mention it in passing alongside routine associated events, such as minor cultural exchanges or public statements by the people who work in it (again, only proving that it exists, as the nominator pointed out). Notability not established with significant and WP:SUSTAINED coverage in sources. Avilich (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Ngrewal's edits. If something can be fixed, it shouldn't be at AFD, it should be fixed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Australia-Pakistan relations. Favoring merge because the first source (The Express Tribune) covers the High Commission with a little bit of depth which could be useful for the other article. Coverage is neither sustained, significant nor multiple since sources cover almost exclusively the High Commissioner, and not the High Commission. Fails WP:GNG, and as Avilich pointed out, WP:SUSTAINED. Pilaz (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The nomination has not been disproven referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Daniel (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Derakhshani[edit]

Sam Derakhshani (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 actor; article has been essentially unsourced since it was created in 2010. BEFORE, at least in English, turns up nothing usable (string: "sam derakhshani"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article is poorly sourced, but Sam is a very well-known Iranian actor who has appeared in many popular movies and TV series Mardetanha (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is completely irrelevant here. Without sources, notability has not been shown. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?q=%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%86%DB%8C%D9%85+%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%85+%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%AE%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C&sxsrf=AOaemvLqizgZLag0aiQNbxdwfvmi541OTA:1635764514686&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV9NTWgffzAhURRuUKHc_CC8wQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&cshid=1635764579723477&biw=1366&bih=657&dpr=1 bi (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can any of those results be used to cite anything in the article, per WP:BLP and WP:N? Just throwing us a Google search is worthless; the overwhelming bulk of Google hits aren't useful sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Do you want to delete the article of an Iranian movie star?! With a little searching you can see that this is wrong. Google News شبنم زندگی (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to see a real discussion about notability including sources. So far, none of the above votes have any policy-based merit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Sam is a very well-known Iranian actor who has appeared in many popular movies and TV series.--Alireza Khabib (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added news sources to the article.--Alireza Khabib (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability guidelines. The sources that was presented were mostly unreliable sources. This discussion should be relisted. 39.121.228.67 (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Sam Derakhshani is a famous and very well-known Iranian actor. Kidsonthemoon (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Based on Entertainers Notability. He is well-known Iranian actor who has appeared in many popular movies, TV series & TV shows. He is famous enough to have an article. Pinkfloyd amir (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* keep iranian best actors.--2A01:5EC0:B003:4752:9026:3EC5:D1F9:B70A (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many-to-many[edit]

Many-to-many (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 skeptical this is a "real" concept. There is one, low-quality source. We already have articles on multicast and Broadcasting (networking). This article claims "many-to-many" is "one of three major Internet computing paradigms", but this appears to be a false claim made up by a non-notable consultant. cagliost (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is a real concept and there are many sources on the subject,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] but the article is awful. Wikipedia itself is an example of this concept!

References

  1. ^ Chandler Harrison Stevens (June 1981). "Many-to many communication" (PDF). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Damien Smith Pfister (2011). "Networked Expertise in the Era of Many-to-many Communication: On Wikipedia and Invention". Social Epistemology. 25 (3). Taylor & Francis: 217–231. doi:10.1080/02691728.2011.578306.
  3. ^ R. M. de Moraes; H. R. Sadjadpour; J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves (2007). Many-to-Many Communication: A New Approach for Collaboration in MANETs. IEEE INFOCOM 2007 - 26th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. pp. 1829–1837. doi:10.1109/INFCOM.2007.213.
  4. ^ Iulia Ghiu (2003). "Asymmetric quantum telecloning of d-level systems and broadcasting of entanglement to different locations using the "many-to-many" communication protocol". Physical Review A. 67 (1).
  5. ^ Dondeti, L.; Mukherjee, S.; Samal, A. (1999). "A distributed group key management scheme for secure many-to-many communication". Tech. Rep. PINTL-TR-207-99.
  6. ^ Renato M. de Moraes; Hamid R. Sadjadpour; J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves (December 2008). "Many-to-Many Communication for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks" (PDF). IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS. 7 (12).
  7. ^ Bogdan S. Chlebus; Dariusz R. Kowalski; Tomasz Radzik (2009). "Many-to-Many Communication in Radio Networks". Algorithmica. 54: 118–139. doi:10.1007/s00453-007-9123-5.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is kept it should be moved, as "many-to-many" can qualify lots of things apart from communication between computers. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sources exist above, and the poor state is tempting to WP:TNT, but it doesn't qualify for deletion per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Widefox; talk 23:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primarily a TNT delete. Many-to-many (data model) is a separate (and notable) concept, but what we have here is just original research. The sources above are about network protocols and bear almost no resemblance to the current article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's enough to avoid a TNT delete. Not sure this is primary over the data model, but that's a follow-up discussion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've revised the article and added sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the editing work of SailingInABathTub on clarifying the topic and adding references, this is now a well-referenced stub on many-to-many as a mode of social interaction, rather than of network protocols or database schema. I think it shows potential as an article, or at least a possible merge into an associated sociology article on the subject. In either case, verifiability has been established, and the topic seems likely notable, hence deletion is not warranted. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:41, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhik Choudhury[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Singer-businessman that does not meet the singers guideline or the general notability guideline; there is a lack of significant coverage in independent sources, only passing mentions or user-generated listings (such as Spotify or lyrics websites). Articles written by him online or simple quotations are not enough, as they are not about him as a person; the quotations are not enough to satisfy the creative individuals guideline either. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:09, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cadsby[edit]

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

Okay, now I've had time to look at this properly. Beyond articles written by the subject himself; social media/similar profiles; the subject's Youtube channel; and book listings in databases, and after removing the more dubious content based on such sources, I can't find any coverage amounting to WP:GNG. The fundamental COI/promotional tone issues are probably linked to this lack of acceptable sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 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 speedy keep. Nevermind this deletion, I went deeper and found some sources on the same site of the interview. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Magic[edit]

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

Before search yields no significant coverage of the game. Only refs in article are two sites you can download the game from and the game's official site. I did find one other source though, but it's an interview. May be eligible for merge or redirect to Zynga. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:10, 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 merge to DC Talk. ✗plicit 23:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under God (book)[edit]

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

Including:

Both the first book and its sequel appear to fail WP:NBOOK, which requires a book to be the subject of two or more non-trivial, independent works. I can find only one piece of coverage for each book: a Publishers Weekly review of Under God ([11]) and a Cross Rhythms review of Living Under God ([12]). Both reviews are additionally fairly short and not particularly in-depth. Lennart97 (talk) 14:55, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Country Girl (Hasan el-Saifi film)[edit]

The Country Girl (Hasan el-Saifi film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable film which fails to show any notability to meet WP:NFILM. Htanaungg (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Delete It's not a good sign that the disambiguator refers to a person Hasan el-Saifi who is a redlink; however based on the English coverage I assume Arabic speaker could create a well-sourced article on him. Regarding the film, there is not enough in the article to demonstrate notability, and I find nothing more in English; however without checking in Arabic I can't give a full endorsement of deletion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:45, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Chic (book)[edit]

Geek Chic (book) (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:NBOOK; there's no significant coverage to be found. None of the authors seem to be notable, either. Unsourced stub. Lennart97 (talk) 14:42, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Integrative Nutrition[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are mainly WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:NOTRS, and a search for news items and scholarly literature shows no significant coverage by either. François Robere (talk) 14:32, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey McKnight[edit]

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

Insufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BIO. McKnight's passing is tragic, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Obelus19: Hello! I saw that you are new to WP and wanted to offer some help with AfD discussions. It might be helpful to review WP:AFDFORMAT. It's generally best practice to state why you are !voting keep; you'll notice below each editor states their !vote (keep, delete, etc.) and then explains the reasons for such. AFDFORMAT states, "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." If interested, you can also read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Note that this is an essay and not adopted as policy at this point. Hope this helps! Feel free to reach out on my talk page with any questions. --Kbabej (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kbabej: Thank you, I will keep that in mind for the rest of the discussion. Obelus19 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't even spell his name correctly... Article has correct name, it's just the AfD that is misspelled. It's tragic that such a promising researcher's career was cut short, but he just doesn't meet the requirements for NPROF. I looked at the 25 coauthors of his with 5+ articles who hold or have held research positions beyond postdoc (but including senior scientists in industry, even though many never did postdocs). These are their Scopus metrics:
Total citations: average: 4820, median: 2304, McKnight: 646.
Total papers: avg: 76, med: 55, M: 19.
h-index: avg: 29, med: 27, M: 11.
Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 574, med: 311, M: 145. 2nd: avg: 349, med: 192, M: 125. 3rd: avg: 262, med: 130, M: 79. 4th: avg: 218, med: 109, M: 55. 5th: avg: 182, med: 79, M: 54.
Even if we include all 38 coauthors with 5+ papers (including postdocs and grad students), he is below the median:
TC: avg: 3289, med: 852, M: 646. TP: avg: 53, med: 20, M: 19. h-index: avg: 21, med: 15, M: 11. 1st: avg: 427, med: 190, M: 145. 2nd: avg: 254, med: 127, M: 125. 3rd: avg: 189, med: 96, M: 79. 4th: avg: 154, med: 76, M: 55. 5th: avg: 127, med: 60, M: 54. JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that WP:1E should apply here as well. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this being a 1E situation. --Kbabej (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is unfortunate that he died, but I don't see how this subject meets NPROF or GNG. Taking out the tweets and the self-published LinkedIn sources, the sourcing is very weak. Without the social media, two sources are by his employer (therefore non-independent sources) and so we are left with two sources about him dying. --Kbabej (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I corrected the spelling error earlier, if I am not mistaken his name is spelt correctly throughout the page. An category of academic notability is "the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". The reference from The Scientist Magazine notes that "McKnight was one of the only researchers in the world capable of intentionally manipulating chromatin structure". Would that not be a notable attribute? On the issue of sources, would expanding to more news articles and adding information from Google Scholar help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obelus19 (talk • contribs)
@Obelus19: Yes, newspaper coverage about the subject (not by him) would be helpful. --Kbabej (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Obelus19: I found more information that could potentially add to the article, tell me what you think.
     * https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-GM129242-02
     * https://people.com/human-interest/dad-lymphoma-surprised-family-plannning-life-after-death/
     * https://www.dailyemerald.com/news/beloved-uo-biologist-jeff-mcknight-dies-6-months-after-cancer-diagnosis/article_a6b4565a-11af-11eb-9a63-cf39ad822b51.html
     * https://pages.jh.edu/bowmanlab/alumni.html
     * https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey-Mcknight
     * http://molbio.uoregon.edu/mcknight/

Some of sources provide more publications, would any of them boost his median? Also, his full name is Jeffrey Nicholas McKnight. Obelus19 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline; faculty profiles and similar links simply establish factual information, they are not reliable secondary sources that address notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The citation record looks well short of WP:NPROF C1 in a higher citation field, particularly when you note that the higher citation papers have the subject as middle author (in a field where that matters). The awards are strictly early career and student, and do not contribute to notability. There's actually enough media coverage of his death to make a weak case for GNG notability, with coverage e.g. in Today [13], but his sad early death looks like the kind of single event discussed in WP:BLP1E, and I don't think it's enough. The article is undercited and promotional enough that WP:TNT would be relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:43, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Oulton (actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor and talk show host, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to get over WP:NACTOR.
This was originally created as an autobiography by the subject himself in draftspace, rejected once at AFC, and then moved to mainspace by the creator without any followup reviews at AFC -- following which it was redirected to the subject's show, and then was reverted back to a standalone article two days ago by a different editor without comment.
But the sourcing here just isn't enough: I've already had to strip fully half of the article's footnoting as primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and even the five that are left still comprise three pieces of "local man does stuff" in his hometown local media market, one piece that's simply a syndicated reprint of one of those first three and thus not adding a new data point to whether he has enough coverage or not, and just one piece that actually goes beyond just local interest coverage within Calgary.
His talk show already has an article, but none of the content or sourcing in this article offers a compelling reason why he needs a standalone biographical article as a separate topic from the show. Ordinarily I'd just redirect this to the show and walk away, but since there's already been reversion-warring by other editors over that I thought it better to test for consensus rather than acting arbitrarily. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Seems to be a pretty uncontroversial delete to me. This just seems to be a content fork, there is nothing that indicates that this person is notable enough independent of their show to warrant a wikipedia page. The fact it failed AFC and was published anyway says it all imo Vanteloop (talk) 19:27, 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 merge to Hillsborough County Public Schools. (ATD) Daniel (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empowering Effective Teachers[edit]

Empowering Effective Teachers (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 think its failing WP:GNG. The topic itself is too minor to have a standalone article. All refs are from the country's public school, are not WP:RS and in general, the article looks like an example of WP:CONFLICT. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 04:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even very interesting, and five years out of date.Nwhyte (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Not even very interesting, and five years out of date" is not a valid reason for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Stott[edit]

Neil Stott (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 article as written does not satisfy WP:PROF. Additional searching did not reveal additional material that would satisfy this notability criteria. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:18, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Carter[edit]

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

Porn performer with inadequate sourcing to meet BLP, GNG & N. Spartaz Humbug! 21:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article cites AVN with multiple sources which is listed on WP:RSP as a generally reliable source, as well as CNBC which a major American business and LA Weekly, of which I can see nothing saying this source is unreliable. As for Xbiz according to RSP there is no consensus but it is not labelled as unreliable. The page could certainly do with improving as far as sources go but I don't think it justifies deletion. Helper201 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiProject Pornography provides an additional warning about AVN and other porn trade press, that they do not clearly distinguish press releases from news reporting. The Wasteland citation is an obvious press release, with the standard indicator, "For more information on the movie Wasteland, please click here." It's a promotional source indicating the subject won a minor film festival award. The other AVN and XBIZ citations are standard porn award rosters. None of the porn trade articles provide non-trivial coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are tons of pornographic articles, but this one is isnt good enough. 121.185.35.240 (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks independent RS coverage to support WP:BASIC or WP:ENTERTAINER notability claims. To add to my comments above, the LA Weekly, CNBC and similar hottest porn star lists do not constitute significant coverage, and AVN's "Fresh off the Bus" is promotional primary source content. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:32, 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 keep. NBOOK shown to be met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of the Irish-Israeli War[edit]

Memories of the Irish-Israeli War (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:NBOOK, as I can't find any significant coverage of this novel. The author appears to be non-notable as well, at least as a writer. Unsourced original research. Lennart97 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - incredibly obscure book by obscure writer. NO sources, no assertion of notability whatsoever, just a plot summary with coy euphemisms. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I canx tw reviews of the book here [14] and here [15] and a mention here [16], none given a breakdown to match the page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely not notable. Amazon.com has no reviews whatsoever for a book that has been out for a quarter of a century, and illustrates it with the cover of a completely different book in French. Amazon.co.uk shows a different cover (correct, but obviously computer-generated) and likewise no reviews. Athel cb (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I wouldn't expect Amazon reviews for a book which predates Amazon. Works from the 80s and 90s can be the hardest to find sources for, since the coverage is usually in print which has often not been digitized. This may not be a book which currently attracts much notice, but notability is not temporary, and to my surprise I think it has sufficient reviews to pass NBOOK. I found records of a review by Alison Woodhouse in the Times Literary Supplement, 1995-06-09 (4810), p.27; added to what appear to be reviews in New Scientist, Jewish Quarterly, and Books Ireland above, it seems to exceed the minimums for NBOOK. It would be nice to be able to access the sources in full to confirm that they are full reviews (of at least a paragraph) rather than simply notices of a recently-published book, but the snippets indicate that the reviewer has actually read the work in question. The article is unsourced, but it's also all plot summary, which is assumed to be sourced to the book itself; I don't think it's in such a bad state that WP:DYNAMITE would apply. I expected this to be an obvious delete but I actually think NBOOK supports keeping the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: One review found online and added, in New Scientist, bizarrely. This suggests that there may be more reviews out there in pre-online sources. PamD 08:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This was a before-the-world-went-online minor phenomenon in its circle. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent detective work above. pburka (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with mulitple reviews as discussed above, btw jstor lists the Books Ireland review here. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article, and also agree as per Coolabahapple's reasoning. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:26, 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. The nominator's rationale was supported and built on by established Wikipedians, referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and those opposed to deleting did not present any policy-based refutation. Daniel (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tears for the Dying[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a local band which appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. While they get some coverage in local media ([17]) and genre specific outlets ([18]), and one member in particular has received coverage in relation to the queer punk movement ([19]), none of it amounts to the in-depth coverage by reliable sources that MUSICBIO/GNG requires. (Full disclosure: this nomination was suggested to me by Doomsdayer520 on my talk page, inspired by some related bands that I nominated yesterday.) Lennart97 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated, the nominator and I are in agreement on this one. Group member Adria Stembridge has gained some media notice as an influencer in queer punk (e.g. [20], [21]) and might even qualify for a dedicated article. But in its own right, this band has received little coverage beyond local interviews, and is usually only mentioned as one of Stembridge's endeavors. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - Article clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria #1, having multiple instances of global, national and regional prominent, non-trivial press coverage([22])([23])([24])([25]) ([26]) ([27]) ([28]). Setting aside the fact that this band page very clearly meets Wikipedia's [qualification], queer and specifically transgendered artists have limited visibility due to built-in biases in [[29]] culture, the continued retention of this band page does far more good than harm. Trans individuals lack visible and positive role models, and without such, many are left closeted and alone; and many undoubtedly suffer from depression and some may even attempt suicide from feeling secluded and ostracized. Removing this article removes a visible and prominent trans artist's Wiki page from individuals searching for those like themselves. This article should remain in place and this AfD removed. ---Adria_Stembridge (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the only website in the world in which someone can get noticed, and the above vote shows little knowledge of this site's notability qualifications. Also, I noted that Adria Stembridge could possibly qualify for an article of their own, but that must survive the same analysis. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per notability qualifications, this band "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". Global and national "non-trivial" articles on Kerrang([30]) and Alternative Press([31]), as well as multiple examples of regional press listed in the Retain vote above clearly meet this plainly worded qualification. I stand by my recommendation that this AfD be removed and the page in question remain in place. Whether or not there is an additional article for the individual musician has nothing to do with this specific AfD discussion. ---Adria_Stembridge (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - I'm going to agree with retaining the article. The band has, as the previous retention mentioned, appeared - in national press([7])([8]) as well as regional and queer press([9])([10]) ([11]) ([12]) ([13]). This meets the terms of notability under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" criteria 1 which states that a band has to appear in multiple nontrivial published works which cannot be a self promotion or manufacturers advertising [1]. This article should remain in place and this AfD removed. Villain105 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)
  • RETAIN: Tears For The Dying is a notable band within the Death Rock genre with a following as well as influential within the genre. They should be researchable on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:8681:3BB0:6D02:3109:4EB0:3C08 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: The Tears For The Dying page clearly meets section one of wikipedia's notability standards as outlined in previous articles. Tears For the Dying holds a long list of appearances on multiple nontrivial published works in which are not self promotion or advertisement. Other members belonging to marginalized communities have given quotes on noteable published works. We need pages like this on Wikipedia specifically so other poc and queer youth can have easy access to a path of musicianship readily available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morguewidow (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the sources which User:Adria_Stembridge posted above, I'm not convinced that any of them prove this band's notability. This one covers Ms. Stembridge herself, and the only thing it says about the band is that it is goth and post-punk. This one also covers Ms. Stembridge herself, and says absolutely nothing about the band. This one is an interview, and so doesn't count towards notability. This one is trivial coverage, and so doesn't count towards notability. This one is also trivial coverage. This one I can't access. And this one is also an interview. So there are two sources which suggest that Ms. Stembridge is notable independently of her band, but none suggesting that the band is notable independently of Ms. Stembridge. I would fully support anyone who wants to write an article about Ms. Stembridge as a person, but this article should be deleted. Mlb96 (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial articles are specifically outlined as "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories". Interviews are considered prominent press per notability qualifications. If users have issues with notability qualifications, I suggest they offer edits to that page and state their reasoning there instead of AfD discussion. ---Adria_Stembridge (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the articles which I said were trivial are indeed trivial. One of them is merely a passing mention in a list of "best albums from Atlanta," and the other one is a report of a performance date. As for interviews, they are not considered independent of the subject, which is one of the requirements for a source to count towards notability. In fact, the page you keep linking to specifically states that "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" do not count towards notability. Mlb96 (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's interesting at the very least that two brand new accounts and an IP address suddenly popped up here to vote "retain", which is incidentally also a very peculiar, nonstandard term (we normally use keep) also used by Adria Stembridge... I hope it's clear that such a transparent attempt at gaming the system (whether sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting) will have no bearing on the outcome of this AfD, as that is determined based on the strenghts of arguments and not on vote numbers. I would also like to clarify that I obviously mean no harm to the queer/trans community by this nomination, but that queer/trans visiblity in itself is not a valid reason to keep an article that fails Wikipedia's notability standards (see also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Lennart97 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being that many of us have actual day jobs we aren't as in tune with the correct verbiage to use. I entered the word Retain as it made sense. I have no control over what others enter, just as the verbiage Retain vs Keep has no substantial bearing on the discussion and is intended to question character of those posting in support of keeping this page in place. ---Adria_Stembridge (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Morgan Widow and I published the previous vote. This is not an attempt at gaming any system. That is inaccurate speculation. I am no writer and am only seeking to follow formatting as closely as possible. Other than Ms. Stembridge I personally, as a member of the band and seperate entity have contributed to said journalist releases in interviews about Athens, queer culture and the music scene this band has helped forefront. The argument that notability should be dismissed because Ms. Stembridge is only speaking on themselves or is the sole feature of said non trivial articles is invalid because there are instances with proof that other people talk about seperate subjects unrelated to Ms. Stembridge. Below is an non trivial article featuring myself speaking on the cultural subjects above. This proves our right to notability based on arguments you presented and notability standards. https://www.onlineathens.com/story/entertainment/2021/09/30/athens-musician-adria-stembridge-active-voice-trans-visibility/8148846002/ I can also assist in providing acess to previously mentioned articles as they are evidence of notability and need to be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morguewidow (talk • contribs) 02:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no emotional investment here and if the band's article is kept, I never have to look at it again. But all of the non-delete votes so far are from users who have done little or nothing in Wikipedia before this discussion, and at least one of them is in the band. Everybody has to start somewhere, and new editors are always welcome, but you have to realize that Wikipedia (as the name implies) is an encyclopedia in which people and things have to qualify for inclusion. It is not a media website to promote bands or to advocate for social causes, however noble they may be. Yes, Tears for the Dying is a band that stands for important issues and its members advocate on behalf of important issues. Those important issues might be "notable", but the band isn't. Sorry. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Providing access to the article won't be necessary because you admitted that you contributed to the article and that you are a member of the band. Anything which was written by or contributed to by any of the band's members is not independent of the subject, and so does not count towards notability. Mlb96 (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is no "right to notability" for yourselves just because you talked about an important issue. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:07, 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 11:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Bharatiya Poorva Sainik Seva Parishad[edit]

Akhil Bharatiya Poorva Sainik Seva Parishad (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 was speedily deleted under CSD:A7 on 25 October 2021 by User:Materialscientist. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 26, this deletion was overturned and the decision referred to AFD. I am completing this listing as a procedural measure and express no opinion on the article. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 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 11:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political Film Society[edit]

Political Film Society (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, and the article seems to have been heavily edited by it's CEO! JeffUK (talk) 08:40, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Vizjim (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dene music[edit]

Dene music (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 does not appear to cover a distinct genre or shared tradition of music, instead blurring many types of music from many different Canadian First Nations and Native American tribal nations (albeit within a shared language group) into one. I PROD'ed the article last week as it had been unreferenced since 2009: editor AleatoryPonderings then did sterling work in looking for citations. However, the citations they have added both refer to music within a specific Dene nation, not the larger group. It would be better for Wikipedia to have more precisely targeted articles. This could be done by reference to specific musical genre (e.g. Athabaskan fiddle) or by specific nation (Chipewyan music, Tlicho music, Yellowknives music, Slavey music, Sahtu music). If there is a general shared music tradition across all Northern Athabaskan nations, then that should go to the more etymologically precise Northern Athabaskan music. Vizjim (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator AleatoryPonderings has produced excellent evidence that a shared tradition exists, so we should have an article on the subject. The article needs substantial improvement, especially to the definition of "Dene," but I'm convinced it should not be a candidate for deletion.Vizjim (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm going to get OCLC 1001373658 from the library and see what it says. Neutral for the moment about whether it is reasonable to speak of a unified Dene musical tradition. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources follow below. I'm honestly still unsure of what I think the appropriate disposition is. Maybe simply create Drum dance? I am wary of WP:OR here—basically, there have been very few studies of music among people denominated Dene. However, I'm not sure the solution is to use more specific terms such as Slavey music, because—although some studies, like Asch's, flag that they were conducted among people speaking Slavey, they cast themselves as studies of Dene music.
    Quote 1 is from Asch, Michael (1988). Kinship and the Drum Dance in a Northern Dene Community. Boreal Institute for Northern Studies. p. 73. ISBN 0-919058-73-6. ISSN 0838-133X. OCLC 18749031. Citations are replicated inline. Quote 2 is from Abel's Drum Songs; the full cite is in <ref> tags. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quote 1. Very little Dene music has been collected; only Mason's recording made in 1913 using wax cylinders, and Helm's tapes of Dogrib and Slavey music made in the 1950s and 1960s are on file in the National Museum Archives. … Until 1975[1] the only published Dene music descriptions were by Gertrude Kurath.[2] These were based on a corpus of twelve Tea Dance songs and four Drum Dance songs (of the Rabbit Dance type) collected by Helm and Lurie … at a Treaty Day Tea Dance held by the Dogrib Dene at Lac LaMatre.
The Drum Dance songs described here [i.e., in Asch's study] are from the Slavey region. They were collected at five of the six Drum Dances which took place at Pe Tseh Ki in 1969–70.
Quote 2. Music was very important to the Dene, who had a variety of songs for different occasions. George Keith described the love songs, lamentation songs, and ceremonial songs that were performed at Fort Liard early in the nineteenth century, noting that other songs performed at dance ceremonies were generally made in imitation of animals like the bear and wolverine. … Music was an important part of the Dene's lives … particularly in relation to the acquisition of spiritual power.[3]

References

  1. ^ Asch, Michael I. (May 1975). "Social Context and the Musical Analysis of Slavey Drum Dance Songs". Ethnomusicology. 19 (2): 245–257. doi:10.2307/850358. JSTOR 850358.
  2. ^ Helm, June; Lurie, Nancy Oestreich; Kurath, Gertrude Prokosch (1966). The Dogrib Hand Game. Ottawa: Queen's Printer. pp. 13–27. OCLC 1148842102. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 205.
  3. ^ Abel, Kerry Margaret (1993). Drum Songs: Glimpses of Dene History. McGill–Queen's University Press. pp. 69, 163. ISBN 978-0-7735-6389-6. OCLC 243500610.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incident book[edit]

Incident book (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 an unsourced one line dictionary entry and I don't see any potential for expansion, as it's simply not a notable topic. Lennart97 (talk) 08:01, 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 procedural keep. The general view here is that the discussion was sufficiently tainted by sockpuppetry to prevent a valid consensus from forming. If there's still interest in merging or deleting the article, that can be done through the appropriate processes, "preferably by accounts who are not sockpuppets". (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines at the ASEAN Para Games[edit]

Philippines at the ASEAN Para Games (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 with WP:GNG.  from, Orbit Wharf  💬  |  📝 04:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  from, Orbit Wharf  💬  |  📝 04:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since 2/3 participants are now indeffed, one as a sock, this ought to be given another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep: AfD was created by a confirmed sockpuppet, so this AfD must be declared as invalid. No more, no less. Anyone who is willing to delete this must file their own AfD, provided that they are not sockpuppets. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominated by sockpuppet whose MO is nominating articles for deletion, with no thought to their notability. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasons. Koikefan (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: merges can also be done outside of the AFD process. Preferably by accounts who are not sockpuppets... Geschichte (talk) 23:20, 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 redirect to 38 Special (band). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Carlisi[edit]

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

Jeff Carlisi

Run-of-the-mill musician. An article should speak for itself, but this article does not establish either musical notability or general notability. The reference pages are not independent secondary coverage, because they are interviews, blog pages, and the subject's own pages.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 YouTube About the subject No Yes No No
2 Swampland.com Interview No Yes No
3 Sweet Purple June: Wordpress A blog page about a band Probably No, passing mention of subject No No
4 Velvet Thunder Interview with subject No Yes No
5 Sweet Purple June: Wordpress A blog page interview No Yes No No
6 Jeff Carlisi . Com Subject's own web site No No No


This article has been created in both draft space and article space, and so cannot be moved to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 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.

Withdrawn. VladimirBoys (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roldan Aquino[edit]

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

With the sources presented only about his death and being guilty for kidnapping [32] shows that the topic isn't notable yet. VladimirBoys (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NACTOR. Though it needs more sourcing. He's prolific enough to be nationally notable, as pointed out in his obituaries. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer this to be Dratify. In this case, it is unlikely to be improve along the rest of the articles. VladimirBoys (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep for now. Drags4U (talk) 00:28, 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 speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a sock and no one else argued for deletion (WP:SKCRIT#4). (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Chua[edit]

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

Sources doesn't specifically mention about Manual Chua, and there are no more sources can be found as for WP:BEFORE. VladimirBoys (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC) — VladimirBoys (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of My Royal Young (talk · contribs). [reply]

  • Comment Guest, supporting and special appearance only. No main role. FAils GNGACTOR Mehmood.Husain (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Charlier[edit]

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

Her fiancé is notable; she isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 06:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I'd argue Anna Chartier is as notable as her fiancé. In addition to the sources in the article, several books write about her more than in passing: she is pretty central to Bea Uusma's The Expedition: A Love Story (Expeditionen: Min kärlekshistoria), which won the August Prize in the non-fiction category, the major award in the Swedish publishing industry, and Uusma spends significant time on her not just during the North Pole expedition, but also after. sv:Per Rydén also talks about her in Söndag : näst sista försöket. sv:Grenna museum had a Anna Chartier exhibition in 2016. sv:Land (tidskrift), among other publications, have had articles focused solely on Anna Chartier (article from Petter Karlsson, in issue 8 2020, p. 28–30). She easily passes WP:GNG. /Julle (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm finding enough hits on Google Books to determine that she meets WP:GNG[33]. The article needs proper sourcing to reflect this, but that's not a reason for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your search turns up Annas and Charliers, but nothing significant about Anna Charlier. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarityfiend: I don't know if you're seeing the same results as I am, but I just get specifically for Anna Charlier, some of them not significant, but also including things I've mentioned above, where there's significant treatment of Charlier if you've got access to the entire book. /Julle (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarityfiend that is interesting, because I'm seeing something very different. Try searching on Google books with "Anna Chartier" in quotes, as I'm getting hits for the following books that do include her: Perfect North; The Expedition: Solving the Mystery of a Polar Tragedy; Strindberg's Star; Nordic Literature: A Comparative History. Volume I: Spatial Nodes · Volume 1; The Ice Balloon: S. A. Andree and the Heroic Age of Arctic Exploration; Falling Upwards: How We Took to the Air; Extreme: Why some people thrive at the limits; Anderson’s Travel Companion: A Guide to the Best Non-Fiction; The Oddest Place on Earth: Rediscovering the North Pole; Scandinavians: In Search of the Soul of the North; Flying's Strangest Moments: Extraordinary But True Stories; and many others, making her a clear WP:GNG pass. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 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 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 11:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Nurul Karim[edit]

Muhammad Nurul Karim (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 academic. The cited sources are two brief mentions in lists, and two of his books. Searches of the usual types found no significant coverage in independent sources. The author argues that Karim "authored a number of books", and being principal (1967-1969) of Government Teachers' Training College, Rajshahi satisfies WP:PROF criterion #6.

As of 1963, there were five TTCs in East Pakistan, with an average enrollment of about 120 students each.[34] As near as I can tell, at that time they offered 1-year Bachelor of Education and 1-year Master of Education degrees. Criterion #6 says "major academic institution". The community has never defined precisely what counts as "major", but I don't believe they meant a small, non-notable institution that has no special significance or particular reputation.

The article contains considerably more detail than is present in the sources, which suggests it was written by someone with personal knowledge, perhaps a relative. I can understand why someone might want to memorialize a loved one, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Worldbruce (talk) 05:01, 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 11:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver (American game show)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Quicksilver (American game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Free 4 All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two extremely short lived game shows that got no mention in the media. "Quicksilver" "Ron Maestri" and "Free 4 All" "Mark Walberg" turned up only IMDb, blogs, wikis, and the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows. Only newspaper coverage was a single press release announcing the debut of both. Delete or redirect to List of programs broadcast by USA Network.

Last AFD in June closed as "no consensus" due to no participation after three weeks. Hopefully five months is enough to get more eyes this time. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete per nom. The current info in the article has no sources. – The Grid (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially unsourced for over fourteen years and no likelihood of improvement or better sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Pahiy (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to List of programs broadcast by USA Network per nom. It existed, that's about it. All content is unsourced and needn't be retained with the redirect. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tillandsia 'Gunalda'[edit]

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

For background to this rather large nomination, please see the previous bundle Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Feather Duster', which closed with a consensus to delete the first 10 of these. Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#cultivars for a discussion of the notability of cultivars, which was unanimous in affirming that cultivars must meet WP:GNG and do not have the presumption of notability granted to official taxonomic ranks such as species (and in which numerous participants voiced the opinion that undersourced cultivars ought to be deleted).

The remainder of this statement is copy-pasted (slightly reworded) from the Feather Duster AfD linked above:

All of the following articles are sourced solely to the cultivar database maintained by the Bromeliad Society International. Anyone can submit new cultivars to this database simply by filling in an email form. There does not seem to be any rigorous scrutinizing or verification process that the cultivar even exists, which is to say that it is essentially a user-generated primary source. Even if it were sufficiently reliable, I have not been able to locate any independent coverage for any of the cultivars I have tagged, nor do I expect to locate any for other similar cultivar stubs. It's clear that these cultivars don't meet the threshold for a standalone article either on verifiability or on notability.

When I encountered cultivars of a single species, I redirected to the parent species as possible search terms. Unfortunately, the great majority are hybrids of two species. From a technical perspective, this makes merging difficult, as an article cannot be redirected to two places and there is no objective way to determine which of the two "parent" species should have the redirect (and never mind those which are hybrids of hybrids). Merging would also mean including information in the species articles sourced only to a user-generated primary source.

Merging each one to the genus article would take up an enormous amount of space and place similar undue importance on a large list of unverified, non-notable cultivars. Merging to a standalone list is also not suitable, as the list would fail the verifiability/notability criteria owing to a lack of independent sourcing.

The following 50 cultivars will be included in this nomination just as soon as I can tag them. As before, I intend to notify WP:PLANTS.

A rather large list
♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 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 11:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paraestra[edit]

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

For the references, all 4 Japanese articles are about upcoming Rizin fights where they mention the gym once because that where one of the fighters trains at. That's it.

There's no in-depth coverage about the gym itself from independent sources and an MMA gym article needs several of them.

Also there's a Japan wiki page of this and that too has been flagged as potential not meeting notability guidelines. Imcdc (talk) 03:10, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BharatPe[edit]

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

In its current form, this entity's article fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. In the past, the page has been declined at AfC level ... thrice. And, on the fourth time... it was passed without making any substantial edits and the reviewer paid no attention to the comments of the immediate past reviewer. Also, possible WP:COI at creator 's end. Before this nomination, a detailed discussion has taken place at Talk:BharatPe - please do refer to it. - Hatchens (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've managed to locate some research reports from analyst firms which appear to profile the topic company. There is one from Juniper Research and because the domain openpr.com is blacklisted, if you search for the term ""QR Code Payments Market Trends, Research" in your favorite search engine you should find research from A2Z Market Research. Finally, there is also this JM Financial report which features a profile of the company on page 42. Topic company passes WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HighKing's observation. I had accepted it because I felt the Economic times article related to the controversy and PMC Bank merger coverage along with Business India article seemed to be enough for WP:THREE. But I see why you wouldn't want to count them for WP:CORPDEPTH. As I have said before, it's a difficult criteria to discuss and different editors can feel differently about it (reason to accept after others rejected). Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:29, 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 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phuket Top Team[edit]

Phuket Top Team (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 references here contain very little in-depth information on the gym itself. And many of them are just interviews with fighters (non-independent) which may include a bit about the gym they are training at.

Normally an MMA gym should have multiple independent sources about the gym itself in detail. Imcdc (talk) 02:44, 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 redirect to Stadium Goods. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John McPheters[edit]

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

I'm not sure why this was not noticed at the earlier afD. There is no apparent notability besides his company

The only article about him is the interview in complex,.com and it's a traditional promotional interview, where he says how good he is DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2021-03 (closed as Procedural close)
Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create ← 2020-10 ✗ G5
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist being performed in hopes of getting at least some input from other users here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. – The Grid (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Redirect is a great compromise per Eggishorn. – The Grid (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stadium Goods per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. No evidence of significant coverage apart from the company in independent, reliable sources. Everything that is significant is either not reliable, not independent, or really about the company. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Subject does not meet notability guidelines for a standalone article. Vanteloop (talk) 20:16, 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 keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 11:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangubangu[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this is a copyvio of the archived link, or if that (the only source) is a copy of this article. I can't find any other references to verify this content; there are sources for the Bangubangu language but not a Bangubangu ethnic group. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is WP:SIGCOV about the Bangubangu at least for a stub. A search for "les Bangubangu" in Google Books and Google Scholar gives unambiguous results for the ethnic group. Likewise a search for "the Bangubangu", although this also yields a few sources about the language. @力百: The article is a blatant copyvio, definitely not a case of circular reference. I have tagged the page for revdel, and will later add some text with sources for a stub-sized article. –Austronesier (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right that there is French-language coverage, I didn't check that. With the copyvio revdel'd, this can be closed as Withdrawn. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:51, 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 Redirect per WP:BOLD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mile Road System (Michigan)[edit]

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

Just a list of roads named "X Mile Road". No source explicitly discusses why the roads have these names. They have nothing in common other than being named "X Mile". While some roads such as 8 Mile in Detroit have historic significance, most of these do not and the article is otherwise just a list of roads with similar names. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Digimon Adventure characters. Any merging can be done from the history behind the redirect by interested editors. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters[edit]

List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters (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 discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Question about wether or not we need an article, the article is largely unsourced and also repeats information from List of Digimon Adventure characters given that the characters are the same from the original source material. Discussions were previously brought up at Talk:Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series)#Draft:List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters and Talk:List of Digimon Adventure characters#Split proposal 2. During the draft process, it was rejected at one point for lacking notability but was created anyway without addressing those issues. lullabying (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I think this needs to be done on a case by case basis as some of the lists that are borderline referenced have potential to be improved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87 Yes, which is what we are doing here, aren't we? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Barebones with two references, mostly just a copy from the list of characters found on the original series (very few new, original characters), and VERY WP:CRUFT. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same reasons stated above and the article doesn't add nothing substantially new compared to the other list. - Xexerss (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article of I created is reboot one and must seperate it from original one. - Harimua Thailand (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Harimua Thailand: The problem is that the current article lacks secondary sources to establish that its notable enough for Wikipedia. Plus, the main characters are pretty much the same as the original. lullabying (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. The Reboot characters have multiple exclusive evolutions, if merge back with same Continuity characters which would make things way too confusing. - Harimua Thailand (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sure anyone will be able to distinguish which continuity takes place, and just because there are new exclusive characters and evolutions doesn't necessarily mean it's enough to warrant a whole new page, especially when you barely have any secondary sources to show its notability. Also, the main characters are the same. lullabying (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. per reasons above. - Harimua Thailand (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep The sourcing is enough. It's not good, it's not even okay. I would go so far as to say it's bad. But it's enough. - Harimua Thailand (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have an opinion on this AFD but I should point out the above is an exact copy of a different user's comment from this recent AFD. Please don't do this in any future AFDs (at the least clearly cite where you are getting the words from) and also don't vote more than once. The closer will ignore multiple votes. Rhino131 (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the multi-votes to make it easier for the closer, Harimua can combine the reasoning into their first "keep" vote above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Writing yourself "Keep" four times will not give more weight to your position in this discussion. - Xexerss (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Saying the article has enough sources is useless if the article in question contains only primary and/or unreliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with others that the references are certainly not enough and it has cruft issues. Not to mention List of Digimon Adventure characters already exists so the characters from this series should probably just be there or in the main article. Link20XX (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Digimon Adventure characters. New characters in the 2020 TV series should have their own "Characters" section. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The article is an unnecessary duplicate, that is what the majority of Delete votes have said - and I agree. However, a merge of the new characters, then redirect as discussed by WP:ATD-M and WP:MAD, seems most appropriate for this situation.Canadianerk (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I suggest move it to a draft version of the page so that it can be rewritten into better sentences and adding more citations. Even for a reboot, a character page has its potential, but with better writing and wording. Say, a character in the reboot iteration only states what only existed in the reboot iteration so as to prevent it from being a copy-paste of the original iteration. Zero stylinx (talk) 09:57, 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 redirect to Gallatin County, Montana#Census-designated places. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam-Churchill, Montana[edit]

Amsterdam-Churchill, Montana (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 CDP with no current or past significance. Amsterdam, Montana and Churchill, Montana are separate communities (and CDPs) with their own histories, so there's no reason to have a combined article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It creates unnecessary rehashing of materials. Already did. That's what this nomination seeks to eliminate. This opinion, however, illustrates why delete and redirect are needed. gidonb (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: @Gidonb: I failed to notice that there were separate articles for the respective locales that this composite region is composed of. These sources can definitely just go in those articles; I'll change my !vote from "keep" to "redirect". jp×g 06:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Thank you for reconsidering and letting us know! gidonb (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 11:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Art by Chance Ultra Short Film Festival[edit]

Art by Chance Ultra Short Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. Gnews yields zero hits. The 2 sources in the article are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 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 keep. Multiple sources provided which have not been refuted, therefore meeting the General Notability Guideline. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtrot Zulu[edit]

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

Only one notable mention, one of the non-notable sources only mentions the band in passing and is about a member in the role of a school principal. Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a magazine review. I'm not sure how this fails WP:BAND "quite spectacularly". To me, that statement would only apply to a band article that has no reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gnome I said "Clearly notable" due to the sources that Chubbles mentioned because I think that they show significant coverage. Normally, such coverage is enough to save a band article from deletion and I don't see how this is any different. SL93 (talk) 17:31, 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 11:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algonquin Chiefs[edit]

List of Algonquin Chiefs (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 by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs) with concern Almost completely unreferenced list of non-notable individuals, but deprodded without explanation by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). The article is grossly incomplete, the only bluelink is William Commanda, and the only source is a primary reference about one of the listed First Nations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:52, 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 keep. Since there is a "clear consensus to keep", WP:BIODEL does not apply. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ervin Fodor[edit]

Ervin Fodor (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 tagging this article for an AFD deletion discussion because two editors, one a created account and the other an IP, have asked for this article to be deleted through speedy deletion and through a PROD, stating that it contains incorrect information and also that they do not want an article on Wikipedia. The identity of these accounts has not been confirmed but I thought I'd bring the issue to AFD to see if there is a good argument for keeping this article should the subject wish to see it deleted. This isn't a typical AFD rationale but in 8 years I've only encountered a subject asking for article deletion 2 or 3 times before so I think it's worth considering the request. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a weird one because Fodor certainly seems to be an influential and highly-cited scientist in whom the public (and by extension WP) could have a legitimate interest, but the article is most peculiar. It writes as though his significance were entirely the receipt of one award, rather than his work. It would be helpful if the account/IP could specify what is the incorrect information. I would be more inclined to correct and expand the information than delete the article. Formally, I haven't counted his citations but note that he has a Nature review article, and he is also listed as a fellow of the academy of medical sciences, which is probably already enough to establish notability. Elemimele (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this person seems to unambiguously meet at least three of the criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC - he's a fellow of a prestigious society, the recipient of a major award, and his research clearly seems to have made an impact on his scholarly discipline. While the article needs to be careful to follow WP:BLP guidelines, of course, I can't see any rationale for deleting it. PianoDan (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1, even in a high-cited field. I don't see anything offensive about the BLP. What is the incorrect information? I guess that some people like to preserve their privacy. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. He does seem to be a notable virologist based on list of publications and H index of 59. My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reasons provided by the initiator of the proposal, no doubt with noble intentions, are entirely speculative. We have no way of knowing if the subject himself asks for deletion. Therefore, WP:BIODEL cannot be invoked and, since that is the basis for the AfD proposal, we cannot accept deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 15:22, 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. Geschichte (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Battalion Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

Cntested PROD. No evidence of notability or competitive success, no references found outside the self-referential DCI ecosystem. Simple DCI membership does not automatically confer notability. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 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. czar 05:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vine Hill-Pacheco, California[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vine Hill-Pacheco, California (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 census-designated places are generally not notable, this was superseded by the notable communities Pacheco, California and Vine Hill, California prior to the 2000 census ([42]). Reywas92Talk 00:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CDPs have usually been kept at AfD, but I would dispute any "legally recognized" status since they're really just used as a tool to group people for census purposes. In this case Pacheco and Vine Hill are separate communities with their own histories and the former combined CDP serves no current or historical purpose to the reader as a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Basically agree here about CDPs - the census does not confer legal recognition on a community. Any locale may be listed in a census (for example, the UK census includes individual households). Things like e.g., incorporation do. In this case, anyway, the article simply duplicates content already on wiki. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is interesting. I looked at the first AfD and the article served as a disambiguation page for the two CDPs. (example here) I would think this is a valid compromise as the former CDP would still show up in databases. On that same tangent, there's WP:USPLACE, WP:MPN, and WP:WIAN. I would want to imagine this instance of a CDP splitting into two isn't a one-off event? WP:PLACEDAB seems like a perfect place to see what to do in these scenarios? So a delete seems valid as a census-defined boundary has no established basis (WP:GEOLAND) and the history of the former CDP can be explained in the separate articles. It just seems like I'm missing some important disambiguation guideline here. Like, the existence of X and the existence of Y does not mean the existence of X-Y. – The Grid (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I converted this page from a dab in 2016 per WP:XY. The topic seems borderline notable. "Keep", "delete" and "redirect to Contra Costa County, California" all look like reasonable outcomes. Certes (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete CDPs typically correspond to unincorporated towns and thus serve as a source of data, and also to validate the town's notability. These combined CDPs are artifacts of census decisions which they have mostly taken back by splitting them up to one CDP per community. No CDP is notable of itself. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_8&oldid=1055869669"