Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 09	October 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Art of Illusion. Anyone wanting to merge content can do so from the page history of the redirect. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Eastman (software engineer)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BASIC. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Art of Illusion, most of the info is just a repeat of what is already on the Art of Illusion page; perhaps it would be better to have a brief section about it's development and mention Peter Eastman there. Jazatz2 (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there seems to be no need to have this information since it is on Art of Illusion and he isn't notable otherwise. FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Art of Illusion#History. I am not seeing any information that is suitable for merging and what already exists on the suggested target article is sufficient. Suggesting a straight redirect to the History sub-section as a suitable alternative to outright deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Johnson[edit]

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

Does meet any criteria to be included in Wikipedia, basically they are self promoting a t-shirt brand. IKnowTheWayToSanJose (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Clear case of WP:PROMO. All it needs is button on the page for ordering Tshirts. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep: I know you're a new editor so I'm not trying to bite you, but if the article feels promotional It can easily be fixed as the article already has the sources to pass GNG. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 00:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I am quite bite-proof. But seriously, I see nothing encyclopedic about this "brand" of T shirts, and I think WP:Junk was written about this type of page. Ode+Joy (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nothing I can see there would qualify for WP:TNT, and WP:JUNK certainly isn't in play (which is for nonsense and jibberish). This is a reasonably well-sourced article about something that looks to meet WP:GNG. On the basis of controversies that have resulted in significant coverage, alone, this probably meets our significant coverage requirements. That some of it might be written in a promotional manner is a fixable problem. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my concept of "encyclopedic" differs from yours in that in my view a notable encyclopedic item educates the reader about art, science, literature, etc. The material in this page would not be relevant to The Smithsonian, The British Museum, the Louvre etc. I still see it as promotional junk, but I think I have said enough, so I will stop. Ode+Joy (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I suspect we have a similar view of what is interesting. But the requirement here is not that something is "encyclopedic" (ironically, perhaps). That's mostly because Wikipedia isn't a traditional form of historical record like those museums you reference. There are whole wikis dedicated to Star Wars, D&D, etc because that is what they have decided is important to them. Our decision-making is based on what is notable. I agree none of those museums would find this material worthy of coverage, but to be fair, they aren't trying to build a paperless repository of human knowledge like we are. Their inability (or unwillingness) to cover this sort of thing is akin to our inability to physically display a restored historical aircraft, dinosaur skeleton or marble statue. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A keep based on the sourcing, but the article certainly needs work. I took a small pass to remove some of the worst promotionalism. Suriname0 (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources establish notablity. Ok, maybe it's unduly promotional; that's something that can be fixed, not a reason for deletion. Maproom (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be kept probably be cleaned up enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard (film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews in Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Obscure old film with no notability. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's mentioned in the many RS obituaries of both Harry Hurwitz and Bertrand Castelli, although said mentions are at most a sentence or two. The American Film Institute Catalog and Variety cover it in short paragraphs. The New York Times ran a review in the 1 Aug 1972 paper. Since it's Nixon, there is most likely scholarly pop culture analysis of it. (edit conflict) Caro7200 (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Review at TV Guide [1], and is listed at AFI where citations from NY Times, Variety, LA Times, and others are listed. Obtaining copies of those original citations should be easily found online by someone with a subscription. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since Donald asked, I found other reviews from 1 August 1972: Daily News, The Record (Hackensack), The Journal News - then finally Los Angeles Times of 20 October 1972. Geschichte (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources reviews identified above such as The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and other newspapers so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promota Kay2[edit]

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

Please pay no mind to the ref bombing, which comprise of fake referencing. A before search shows they do not satisfy WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. This is an WP:ADMASQ on a non notable musician and businessman. It is borderline G11 worthy. Celestina007 (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Shameless promo and ref bombing, as the nominator stated. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent and reliable references.Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's the same press release / promotional profile piece used as a reference repeatedly. -- Whpq (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lowell High School (San Francisco)#Lowell Forensic Society. ✗plicit 00:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell Forensic Society[edit]

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

Per WP:ORGSIG, despite its claims of being the oldest speech and debate team in the United States, there is simply no significant coverage to be found for this organization. Most texts I could find are usually published by the school or alumni organization. Per WP:INHERITORG, despite its alumni list, no organization is inherently notable simply because of who they are associated with. I don't doubt that this is an important club within the school's history, but there is simply not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. BriefEdits (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- the high school article talks about this club that’s enough. WP:inheritorg only thing significant is the famous people which is not enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the highschool page. Anyway, no indep evidence that The Incredible Hulk was a member! Ode+Joy (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Forensic Society section of high school's page. We also already have List of Lowell High School (San Francisco) alumni, and those two articles cover the relevant content of this article. The remaining content is un-cited, and there appear to be no additional references available to resolve that deficiency. One other issue: Earwig's Copyvio detector indicates the lead is potentially a copyvio, but since several websites use the same phrasing, it may be a case of citogenesis. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Striegl[edit]

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

Subject is mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO for not having at leat 3 fights under top tier promotion and also fail GNG for fight records are merely routine reports. Cassiopeia talk 20:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 20:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 20:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 20:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are several top tier fighting promotors, one being the UFC and another being ONE Championship. Mugen has only fought in one UFC event but he has fought in 3 ONE Championship events (Valor of Champions, Spirit of Champions, and Age of Domination) and in two of those fights his fight was listed as the co-main event. In the international competition 2019 Southeast Asian Games, he won the gold medal in Sambo for the 74kg weight group representing the Phillipines. As of today he is still an active fighter on the UFC's official page, even if we are not privy to his arrangements for future fights. PyotrRossetti PyotrRossetti (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ONE Championship is not a top tier promotion as per Wikipedia MMA guidelines. And being SEA game gold medalist doesnt not qualify WP:NSPORT. He has only 1 fight under UFC, the requirement is at least 3. Cassiopeia talk 23:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt As per above. And please salt the page because it was recreated after it was nominated for deletion for the past 4 years. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Striegl. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little has changed since the last AfD discussion. He has one top tier MMA fight and since it was a 51 second knockout loss (and his only fight in the last 3 years), he seems unlikely to get two more. Listings in MMA databases do not overcome the fact that there is no significant independent coverage that makes a case that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on if he meets BASIC, but I would oppose salting as he has made progress towards notability in the last few years, and from a quick search there are plans for him to compete in UFC again this year. It's possible he'll meet MMABIO within a few years. Jumpytoo Talk 01:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To meet the MMABIO within a few years is WP:CRYSTAL and if he does in next few years then the page can be created. Wikipedia notability is not based on crystal or if but need to meets already before a page can be existed in the projgect. Cassiopeia talk 02:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORT per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 21:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Balducci[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL she has only held local offices. To be included she must have held at least a state wide office. Both offices are small offices she has held. Reason Rrmmll22 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The second point in NPOL allows for local politicians with significant press coverage, and Balducci qualifies based on the coverage she has from The Seattle Times. Sounder Bruce 20:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I typed this woman’s name into google and the Seattle Times does not come up on the first 5 pages of google. Plus many other people with the same come up. This is an obvious Delete.--Rrmmll22 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need for a bolded extra vote. Besides which, the "first five pages of Google" argument is just silly. SEO isn't a notability criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Sources indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG. As an aside, the seemingly-systematic attempts to delete pages of members of the King County Council is becoming somewhat concerning. KidAd • SPEAK 20:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ User:KidAd to address your accusations of a conspiracy notice Jeanne Kohl-Welles is not up for deletion. That’s because she has been in the Washington state senate and state rep. I personally don’t feel she should be included but she meets WP:NPOL so we can’t delete her. Even state politicians are so numerous hundreds of state senators at once across the country they are so numerous and not important at all. Hence, I don’t see this conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs)
Keep She meets the GNG. The nominator states To be included she must have held at least a state wide office, but this is demonstrably false. Wikipedia has many biographies of notable politicians who never reached the state or provincial level of office. She has served as mayor of Bellevue, Washington, a city of 150,000 people, and Wikipedia has thousands of biographies of mayors. She is an elected member of the King County Council, the governing body of a county with 2.3 million members. Compare to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors which governs a city and county of about 900,000 residents. And Category:San Francisco Board of Supervisors members shows that Wikipedia has biographies on 91 of its members. The notion that state senators are not important at all is contrary to reality and to the goal of building an encyopedia, and really quite surprising. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG, nomination isn't correct about the relevant SNG, probably not the relevant SNG here, still meets GNG anyway. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King County Council. This is far from an obvious delete, but the subject does not pass WP:NPOL. The expectation is that an incumbent in a position that does not have the presumption of notability is that the article contains more than "she exists." I do believe that the volume of news hits indicates there should be enough for an editor to describe the contributions the subject made while in office, but most of that coverage appears to be limited to a quote, rather than about the subject. The question about meeting GNG is whether there are multiple articles in independent news sources in which she is the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:HEY, the article now includes more than "Chair of the King County Council" and "former mayor of Bellevue", due to the addition of multiple independent and reliable sources focused on her during her career. Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anja Steinlechner[edit]

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

Seems notable, but this is a BLP witout any references. Rathfelder (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is full of claims about her achievements but I can’t find an6 coverage of her at all. Mccapra (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't seem to find much to support the claims either, so it's possible that this article is a hoax. Even with proper sourcing demonstrating notability the tone and format of the article would probably lend itself to being WP:TNTed and then re-written from scratch. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's not a hoax – she still has a Facebook page [2], although she's not active on it anymore, a LinkedIn account, and a MySpace page from way back when [3]. And therein lies the problem... it looks like this was created back in 2009 to promote what was hoped to be her burgeoning music career, which unfortunately never happened. It seems like she never went further than some co-writing credits and backing vocals, albeit for some big names in the music industry. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 21:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girmay Zahilay[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL Reason Rrmmll22 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The second point of NPOL allows for local politicians with significant press coverage to have articles. Zahilay has had a few major profiles in The Seattle Times written, especially since taking office. Sounder Bruce 20:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- obviously any local politician is going to be published in the local newspaper many times. Hence by this standard any politician including all municipal and local ones would be exempt from WP:NPOL. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG. As an aside, the seemingly-systematic attempt to delete pages of members of the King County Council is becoming somewhat concerning. KidAd • SPEAK 20:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- These do not meet the requirements obviously. These are no name politicians that influence a very small amount of people. Plus they are only published why they are in office. Hence WP:NTEMP needs to be considered. With a politician if they don’t pass WP:NPOL they should not be included . I don’t think It’s concerning that these king county council members are being brought up because they are nothing people and should be removed. I personally live nowhere near Washington state so It’s not political.--Rrmmll22 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)--Rrmmll22 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG. The King County Council represents 2.3 million people. Rrmmll22, please be aware that WP:BLP is policy, and you are simply not allowed to call people "no name politicians" or "nothing people", especially in the context of trying to delete their biographies. Please strike those words. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- These people represent about 1/2 a percent of the United States population. That’s not significant at all. I just think there is going to be very limited interest in these people. In the scheme of things these people don’t represent much. I don’t think it meets GNG. Just google search these council members, nothing comes up. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - King County is the sixth most populous of over 3000 counties in the United States. Your assertion that there is very limited interest in these people is both incorrect and inimical to our goal of building an encyclopedia. Hundreds of millions of people pay enough attention to this type of official to cast votes, and if reliable sources give them significant coverage, then this encyclopedia should have articles about them, and our editors should not insult them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - This Google News search shows plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no way unless this official runs for us president that “hundreds of millions” of people are going to pay attention the whole population of Washington state is shy of 8 million^[1]. Just a couple million at most would be interested in this tier of politician. It won’t upset me if this politician is not deleted I am just pointing something out. Nor do I see it as belittling the politician. They have potential to move into a greater role down the road. You have to start somewhere. But the role is not that important in the scheme of the greater world. This page gets about 400 views a month. Our us senator, Elizabeth Warren gets about 58,000 views a month and the mayor of the city next door, Boston, Kim janey gets 20,000 per month.--Rrmmll22 (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "State population steadily increases, tops 7.7 million residents in 2021". Retrieved 11 October 2021.

Keep passes WP:GNG. All AfDs should be judged on their own merits. The subject is featured in an article in The Hill and Tadias and is known for legislation that changed the function of the office of the King County Sheriff. These stories, along with verification that the subject serves on the King County Council elevates this to passing GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Norwegian football league system. czar 21:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. divisjon[edit]

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

Fails notability as a league. As you can see from the article, Norway has tiers that are even lower than this sixth tier, but in my opinion the threshold clearly sits between the fifth and sixth tiers. Teams from 5. divisjon are not eligible for the Norwegian Football Cup. The amount of coverage this league gets in the larger newspapers and from television is exactly zero. Geschichte (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sørhaug (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"5. divisjon" could refer to a number of historical military formations that served in various wars. We probably need a disambiguation page here. The current content can be disposed of, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norwegian football league system as possible search term, but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 14:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norwegian football league system. Lorenzo the great (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norwegian football league system for now, with no prejudice against being turned into a dab page later on if appropriate Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norwegian football league system per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GS and others above. Best solution. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on dab. The military item we are supposed to disambiguate the football tier from, already exists at 5th Division (Norway). There is also a fifth division (5. divisjon) in one other sport of Norway, namely team handball. Geschichte (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, honestly, just cause it exists, doesn't mean it needs to be an article. SecretlyQuebecois (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC) SecretlyQuebecois is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether a redirect of any kind should be created can still be discussed. Sandstein 15:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trillionaire[edit]

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

As previous deletion discussions on this very article have concluded, this should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous deletion discussions were from a long time ago (2005 and 2009), and the page clearly has aspirations to be more than a dictionary definition, although the way it currently does so is a bit WP:SYNTH-y. The question of who the first trillionaire will be and when that might happen has received substantial coverage (for a smattering of sources: [4][5][6][7][8]). So, it's within the remit of WP:CRYSTAL for us to write about it. The question to my mind is whether a dedicated article is the right place to do so. XOR'easter (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAD and WP:CRYSTAL. KidAd • SPEAK 19:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTDIC. JBchrch talk 19:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete The nominator is correct. Were the previous pages built by the same author, or others? Is there a way to stop the 4th reincarnation of the page? Ode+Joy (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the closing admin WP:SALT this page. KidAd • SPEAK 00:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: Wikipedia, not wiktionary, and while there will eventually be an article there, "eventually" is not now. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep — articles on billionaire/millionaire exist; Pandora Papers covers sums up to 32 trillion USD (divided between less than 1 thousand people (“underworld” contingent apparently excluded)). — Pietadè (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary using {{Wiktionary redirect}}. See the guideline at WP:SRD. There is in fact scope to write an encyclopaedia article about trillionaires, but this isn't it.—S Marshall T/C 09:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in the article about being a trillionaire. What's here is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. If inflation takes off this might become more relevant, but there's nothing here now. Alansohn (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to billionaire and add a couple sentences there about the possibility of trillionaires coming to be. I rewrote the text so that WP:SYNTH is no longer an issue. There isn't much to say about the topic presently, so a stand-alone page isn't warranted. However, there's more to cover than the definition, so WP:NOTDICT doesn't apply, and we'd be reporting on other sources' speculations rather than indulging in our own, so WP:CRYSTAL allows it, too. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A thought: if a person is wise enough to achieve this kind of status, wouldn't it be wise to assume that he/she has been/is/shall be wise enough not to disclose this kind of „record“...☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 16:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Egyptian gods[edit]

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

An article by this title was deleted ten years ago, but a new one—probably modeled on other family trees for other pantheons—was created this past August. My arguments for deletion are largely the same as they were then. AnnekeBart said "This page gives the impression there is a real family tree, while the real development of AE religion is much more complicated and the roles that the deities had and relations with respect to one another varied over time and geographical location. None of these issues can really be solved by careful editing, so I think not having the page is better than having one that is incomplete/misleading," and I said "The gods represent forces of nature, whose interactions are complicated and shifting. Describing those interactions is not impossible, but it needs to be done in the text of the gods' individual articles and accompanied by explanation of what each relationship means. I know that Wikipedia likes to lay everything out in a neat list or table or template, but in this case that's not only infeasible, but risks misleading the reader about the very nature of the Egyptian pantheon."

What's different is that so far this family tree is much more limited than that one. It mostly consists of the family tree of the Ennead of Heliopolis, the most consistent extended family tree in Egyptian mythology, but that also means it's mostly redundant with the article on the Ennead. But even here there are oddities. The patriarch of the Ennead is usually Atum rather than Ra (though the two are closely related and sometimes virtually synonymous); Horus is usually not included in the Ennead, and when he is, it's often as a fifth child of Geb and Nut rather than as the son of Osiris and Isis; and Hathor, who is not a member of the Ennead, could be the consort of Horus or Ra, or indeed of many other male deities. If the tree were expanded, and thus ceased to be redundant, it would develop far more problems, as the relationships of most deities outside the Ennead are even less consistent. A. Parrot (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per A. Parrot's rational.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, following A. Parrot's rationale this subject isn't cohesive enough for an article. There is a great many different possible trees for different periods and locations, worship of these gods is attested for some three millennia and while many of these gods retained the same name, their meaning and relationship with other gods changed over time and in different places within what is considered Egypt.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale given in the nomination of the first AfD. I'm wondering whether Family trees of the Egyptian gods (surveying some of the most widely encountered family trees per dynasty or time period) would not be a thing though? I suspect that the main reason for the fluidity is that we're speaking of a time period that is longer than the entire history of Abrahamic religions. Maybe if we zoom in on specific periods, something more stable may emerge? Just a tip for the person starting the next incarnation of this in 10 years time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The genealogies don't just vary according to time; they vary according to circumstances. One text from the same time period might treat Horus as the son of Osiris and Isis while another treated him as their brother. In the Late and Greco-Roman periods, forms of Hathor served as the consort of the local male deity in various temples up and down the Nile, producing various children with her/their spouses: Ihy at Dendera, Harsomptus at Edfu, Neferhotep at Hiw. A. Parrot (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are plenty articles on wikipedia with family of gods, look these ones:

Are you going to delete those ones too? And/or Is this article going to be deleted because of the similarity with the Judeo-Christian religion? Thank you.--Alpha Lion (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question, to my mind, is whether the family relationships among deities are consistent enough that they can be conveyed in graphical form without oversimplifying them. I don't know enough about those other cultures to say whether that's true of them. (My impression is that the Greeks made more of an effort to systematize their mythology than most polytheistic cultures do, and thus a family tree of Greek deities is probably more viable than in many other cases, but I also know that even they had local variations that aren't likely to be found in introductory books on Greek mythology.) I don't doubt that you created this article with good intentions; a family tree seems like it should be a viable topic. But I'm afraid the intricacies of ancient Egyptian religion make it infeasible.

Regarding your last sentence, I'm not entirely sure what you mean to imply, but my motivations for the nomination have nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity. A. Parrot (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although sources are given for each supposed relationship, this table is a concoction that smacks of WP:OR and is a table created for the sake of creating a table without any real systematic approach. The fact is that we do not know enough about Ancient Egyptian mythology, unlike the Greek or Norse versions, to confidently attempt a definition of such relationships. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to List of Egyptian deities. The relationship of Horus to Osiris and Isis is correctly shown, but the rest of this may well be WP:OR. However the title is a credible search term, so that I am reluctant to delete it completely. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defunct Drum Corps International member corps. Wheter that is a notable topic is a question for another day... Sandstein 15:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability, no sources at all (except for the single in-universe DCX ref that formerly existed). They did apparently finish first in DCI Division III once, but this is the lowest echelon of DCI competition - I would suggest that only Division I/World class placement should be considered as placement in national competition per the WP:BAND criteria, the other divisions amount to developmental classes. Significant independent sources do not appear to exist outside the walled-garden Drum Corps International ecosystem, other incidental mentions are insufficient to establish notability, merely supporting existence. Acroterion (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. NemesisAT, this is appreciated, but if it is to stay you'll need secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete As the nominator indicated. There seem to be many of these very weak pages about "Drum and Bugle Corps". I would suggest a delete most. Ode+Joy (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and reduce) to new List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of defunct Drum Corps International member corps. Not indpendently notable of DCI. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unbreaking India[edit]

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

WP:NBOOK is not met. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel it is not notable. Probably the article is a promotion engine; can be considered for moving to draftspace. Advait.kansal (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of good quality references show it is not notable. Venkat TL (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against redirection if/when relevant sourcing is added to Gresham, Oregon. czar 21:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph Cemetery (Gresham, Oregon)[edit]

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

Small, generic, local cemetery with no indication of notability. A Find-A-Grave link is not significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 15:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 15:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOPURP For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial. Lightburst (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete No claim of notability for a cemetery which plainly fails WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Mangoe. Fails GNG. MB 01:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. –dlthewave ☎ 12:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see this entry will likely be deleted. If the article isn't kept, please consider redirecting and merging to Gresham, Oregon. The site is historic and there's a possibility of expansion in the future. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92, MB, Mangoe, and Dlthewave: Work for you? This would preserve the article history for future reference. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not mentioned in that article. If you add it there, with a reference, then it would be a valid redirect. In general, putting info about topic not notable enough for their its article in another article is almost always reasonable. MB 17:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MB Sorry, that's why I said merge (so the content could be copied over). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm almost never opposed to redirection. Reywas92^Talk 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is a delete for all intents and purposes. Lightburst (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mulkey Cemetery[edit]

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

Small, generic, local cemetery with no indication of notability. Lacks any significant coverage beyond its own website. Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOPURP I find RS about the cemetery. It is a very old cemetery and the news publishes old passing mentions 1 from 1899, 2 from 1883. I think I default to keep regarding cemeteries . There is not a particular guideline - just a failed proposal. I think WP:GEOPURP For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial. seems like a good guide to apply here. Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- These are obituaries merely stating a non-notable person was buried there, not significant coverage about the cemetery itself. WP:GEOFEAT makes clear that this sort of geographic feature requires significant coverage, and there is not basis to suggest the 100,000+ cemeteries in this country are automatically notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy is WP:NOTPAPER. We have room for 10,000 or even 100,000 cemeteries. I have said they were passing mentions. I do not think we need non-trivial coverage for a geographical location that exists and is historical. WP:GEOPURP is specific and I think applies here. Lightburst (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion." It is not encyclopedic to say "Screw you GNG! Go away GEOFEAT! Notability and significant independent sources are for suckers!" and that any burial ground is automatically notable. Per NGEO, this is not "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage", so notability is not presumed. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GEOPURP isn't an applicable guideline, it's just NGEO's definition of geographical features. The applicable part is GEOFEAT, which completely contradicts this idea of yours that geofeats get automatic notability. Avilich (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some links that may or may not help establish notability (pending further review): [9] [10] [11] Coffin free burial option Kay Holbo landscaping KKK connections -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage amounts to cleanup summons in a local newspaper or passing mentions in obituaries. The Eugene Weekly has nothing substantial either, with no actual KKK connection. Non-notable geographical feature. Avilich (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete A run-of-the-mill old cemetery which plainly fails WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, sourcing consists of routine coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable cemetery. The sources offered by Peteforsyth are essentially routine coverage and not satisfying WP:GNG. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Cemetery (Mt. Angel, Oregon)[edit]

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

Small, generic, local cemetery lacks significant coverage establishing notability, unclear why this was created without a single GNG-passing source – I can't find any. Reywas92^Talk 15:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 15:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOPURP For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Lightburst, it's nice to see you back! But this is a non sequitur and there is no automatic notability for cemeteries. There are over a hundred thousand of them in the US alone, and they are not exempt from needing significant coverage. This may fall under WP:GEOFEAT and because this is not NRHP-listed, there should be substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 21:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes no guideline that I can find, so my default is GEO - a cemetery is a geographical location with local or national historic significance. It is a man made feature and semi-permanent. I do not know that we need more. We keep geographic locations if a train stopped there 150 years ago. Seems logical that a cemetery has more importance and notability than that. Lightburst (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true either, we've been deleting old railroad stations left and right – some may have been mislabeled as communities, but even with sourcing calling them stations and timetable details, that's not necessarily notable. There is no basis whatsoever to suggest that any place where people are buried has historical significance merely for being old. Some are listed on historic registers, but this does not extend to tens of thousands of cemeteries by virtue of their existence. Reywas92^Talk 01:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be comfortable keeping cemeteries without sigcov based on our guidelines. They are historical, religious, places of respect, that we maintain and visit. We write obituaries and we create grave markers to remember our loved ones. Cemeteries are important permanent geographic features. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GEOPURP isn't an applicable guideline, it's just NGEO's definition of geographical features. Avilich (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, searching "Calvary Cemetery" at the Oregonian archives yields 2,500+ results. Searching "Calvary Cemetery"+"Mount Angel" yields 128 results. Searching "Calvary Cemetery"+"Mt. Angel" yields 49 returns. I suspect the vast majority of listings are passing mentions in obituaries, but this is a lot to comb through and more research is needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a WP:MILL small cemetery. Does not meet WP:GNG. MB 01:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete No claim of notability is made, and by any reasonable reckoning the place fails to meet WP:GNG. And I greatly object to the "more research is needed" assertion by the author: if it was needed, it was needed in the original authorship. Geostubs have proven to be a huge time sink since so many of them have failed to pan out, and it's unfair at this late date to shove that burden on others. Amd if all cemeteries contain some history, recording that is a job for Find-A-Grave, not for this site. Mangoe (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-mill geofeat, no indication of encyclopedic notability. Mangoe's comment above is spot on. Avilich (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. WP:GEOFEAT is the relevant guideline here; WP:GEOPURP just tells us what types of places the guideline applies to. In my opinion keeping an article based on the potential existence of sources is a bridge too far. If you need to do further research or look through search results in order to form a clear opinion, please do so before !voting. –dlthewave ☎ 02:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a shi&*y thing to say. Good day. Lightburst (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see this entry will likely be deleted. If the article isn't kept, please consider redirecting and merging to Mt. Angel, Oregon. The site is historic and there's a possibility of expansion in the future. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92, MB, Mangoe, Avilich, and Dlthewave: Work for you? This would preserve the article history for future reference. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tshi[edit]

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

As noted by an IP on the talk page, it's sparsely sourced. Obscure languages often don't have an established romanization scheme, so it's plausible that this doesn't refer to a distinct people. Looking up "the Tshi people" on DDG or Google exclusively gives me results for a book The Tshi-Speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast of West Africa by A. B. Ellis (1964); if they were real, I would have expected more varied results. @Siva1979 __Gamren (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A.B. Ellis book was published in 1887. The 1964 date is presumably a reprint. I added another reference: JEHLE, A. (July 1907). "SOUL, SPIRIT, FATE ACCORDING TO THE NOTIONS OF THE TSHI AND EHWE TRIBES (GOLD COAST AND TOGO, W. AFRICA)". African Affairs. VI (XXIV): 405–415. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.afraf.a099169. ISSN 1468-2621. Together with the Encyclopedia Brittanica article, I think notability has been established. I recognize that a linguistic grouping is not necessarily an ethnic grouping, but I can't find any references saying that it's not an ethnic group. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Van Lindberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. References are profiles and news about other folk. Can't see why he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

So, not a wikipedian, so I may not use the correct terms. But this article seems in line with other open source leaders that also have pages.

- "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field": There are only about 85 open source licenses that have been accepted by OSI; Lindberg was the author of the (arguably) most radical license since the GPL. This puts him in a very small class of people who have authored licenses accepted by the OSI. (Similar to Sam Hocevar, Lawrence Rosen, or Poul-Henning Kamp who have pages.)

- Similarly, Lindberg has been the head of or a board member of the Python Software Foundation for almost two decades, and completely reorganized the foundation. (Similar to Jim Jagelski, who has a page.) Lindberg's work in open source was cited by Intellectual Asset Management magazine - see https://www.iam-media.com/copyright/not-so-secret-source

- "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" - Lindberg is probably best known for his public work against patent trolls. As well as a number of articles cited in the page, there are a lot more (Google "Lindberg patent trolls") - Lindberg has appeared in a documentary about fighting against patent trolls (https://www.amazon.com/Patent-Scam-Austin-Meyer/dp/B0736G66P8, check the details for the list of actors). He also led Rackspace's fight against patent trolls and testified in Congress about open source and patent trolls both (https://gigaom.com/2013/08/02/rackspace-helps-school-congress-on-copyright-and-open-source/).

So perhaps there need to be revisions on the style, or other parts added, but this seems in line with other Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TargozInvictus (talk • contribs) 15:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the first 10 refs:

Ref 1 A profile. Likely non-RS, since it is likley written by himself as is common in the corporate environment.

Ref 2 Open Source Vet Joins Taylor English IP Team In San Antonio An annoucement.

Ref 3 A listing. Likely non-RS. Not a source.

Ref 4 A forum front page. Non-RS.

Ref 5 An annoucement in a blog. A profile. Not in-depth. Likely non-RS.

Ref 6 Another profile. Very short.

Ref 7 Dead domain.

Ref 8 Link to an open source licence page. Non-RS for this particular subject.

Ref 9 Open Source Casebook front page. Non-RS for this subject.

Ref 10 Link to his book.

There is one single ref that independent, in-depth and secondary for this BLP. It is complete crock. scope_creep^Talk 15:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree with the nominator's analysis. The desperation of user TargozInvictus suggests a personal relationship with the subject. Ode+Joy (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article has also been moved to the title with the correct capitalisation (this required a history merge). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony[edit]

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

should be judged by experts, In no way does it seem significant to me ~ Limited Idea4me (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Limited Idea4me (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Redirect This Please: save this article from being redirected it's almost 3 months away 98.186.54.177 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Save This Article: Please save this article it does not be deleted. 98.186.54.177 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: No valid rationale for deletion; nominator is proving themselves to be an increasingly problematic user, as they have begun many errant AfDs over the past week. Curbon7 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No valid deletion rationale has been presented. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 2018 Winter Olympics opening ceremony to conform to standard capitalization for these ceremonies. There isn't much in this article now, but we know exactly when all the real content will be available. As a second choice, redirect to 2022 Winter Olympics#Opening Ceremony. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, nom hasn't present any valid rationale for deletion.Rexh17 (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no reason for deletion. Pretty much every opening ceremony and closing ceremony for an Olympic Games has its own page. While there isn't much info now, info can be added as we move along, especially since the games are only 3 and a half months away. Jjfun3695 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Winter Olympics#Opening Ceremony, as Metropolitan90 said. Plutonical (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Move I think that there is an argument to be made for WP:TOOSOON, but this is not argued by nom and as others have stated it is happening relatively soon. I do support moving the article if kept to conform with naming as stated by Metropolitan90. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 21:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a proper deletion rationale. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The capitalization should probably be changed but it's clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The Olympics are going to start in a couple months. Also, it should be redirect to 2022 Winter Olympics opening ceremony SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the article, Move to 2022 Winter Olympics opening ceremony. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I think 3 relists is enough to try and find a consensus which has not happened. The discussion did lean towards keeping the article which is the default outcome when consensus is not reached. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agbau, Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

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

No citations, not notable. Qwerfjkl talk 15:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Qwerfjkl talk 15:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Qwerfjkl talk 15:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The GEOnet Names Server is usually helpful, but is currently down. Googling for the title gets several pages that appear to be derived from GEOnet data. I don't see a sign of a human settlement at that local using Google Maps, but perhaps I shouldn't expect to, since the vegetation is so thick. For a richer country, I would try to find its census results and official gazetteer online, but the Democratic Republic of the Congo may not have the resources to do that. I think that something named Agbau at that location was on a map that GEOnet added to its database but I can't be sure. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a real place, appearing at least once in the Journal officiel de la République du Zaïre in 1975 (via Google Books) albeit not a particularly notable one. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm _Talk 17:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GEOnet Names Server is back up, and confirms that this is a populated place. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be an actual, legally recognized community, thus meeting GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect can be created separately if desired. Sandstein 15:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dunn (Washington politician)[edit]

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

I guess absent other achievements just being a member of a county council is not sufficient for notability. (Probably other members should be checked as well). Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. he was an inaugural member of a county council in a very large county. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County council is not a level of office that confers an automatic notability freebie on everybody who holds it — the notability test for politicians at the local level of office is not passed just by minimally verifying that the person exists or existed, and instead requires the ability to write a substantive and well sourced article about his political significance: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the history and development of the county, and on and so forth. But that's just not what this article is: it just states that he existed, the end, and sources his existence to one obituary in the local newspaper and a one-off namecheck of his existence in a listicle of everybody who ever served on the county council at all. That's just not enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found and added important information about him including his civility and how he pushed for an officially nonpartisan council Thomascampbell123 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Thomascampbell123 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
No need to vote twice, your opinion is clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doubtful that he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Current members of this Council may have the chance to improve their notability, but this person never will. KidAd • SPEAK 17:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King County Council. It is possible that more information is in the archives from which an article could be created to show more that "he exists." --Enos733 (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Standards politicians are only notable and included if they are at minimum state wide. This guy never held a state wide fold or larger. Hence this should be deleted.--Rrmmll22 (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect can be created and contested separately. Sandstein 15:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

County State-Aid Highway 3 (Pennington County, Minnesota)[edit]

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

Quite simply, this article fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of county roads in Pennington County, Minnesota. This article is not notable enough on its own and the subject is better suited to be covered in a list. Dough4872 23:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dough4872. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county roads in Pennington County, Minnesota.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - patently non-notable. The cumbersome title would make for an unlikely search term, so I don't see the value in a redirect. --Sable232 (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above comment, it is a unlikely search term and according to Page Views very few people look at the article anyways. JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link Lock[edit]

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

No substantive coverage found on a search. The URL for the magazine article no longer goes to a magazine, but even if we assume that was substantive coverage, one source is not sufficient to indicate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage from reliable sources, not really notable. BMB YT 500000 (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree unless better sources could be found. It was not unsalvageable enough for a speedy. Deb (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet any notability guideline.Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Milton Bradley Company products. Feel free to merge selectively from the history if you'd like. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posse: Thirteen Against One[edit]

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

I podded it a while ago with " The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." PROD was removed without any helpful edit summary, article has not been improved in the few months since. There are no references, awards or reviews, BGG page is so bare it has a single forum post about this niche tittle. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

redirect and possibly merge at sentence (which is all there is...) to List of Milton Bradley Company products. Hobit (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of Milton Bradley Company products per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Milton Bradley Company products, does not pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 False attribution. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Quotes[edit]

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

While the subject of bogus quotations is almost certainly real, this article is pure OR with a lot of personal opinion for extra measure. Salimfadhley (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOR. And why does the term "fake quote" need a definition anyway? Whoever does not understand what it means must have a fake brain. Ode+Joy (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to false attribution, which is a more proper and defined article than this (though Ode+Joy's 'fake brain' comment did have me snorting 😂). Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge important information to False Attribution. Has enough information for a section in that article but is vulnerable to violate WP:NOR as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexh17 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to False attribution - a new article that is low quality and a content fork. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 XMODEM#NMODEM. ✗plicit 09:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NMODEM[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to XMODEM#NMODEM where it is briefly discussed. The protocol doesn't seem to independently notable from XMODEM, but basic facts are verifiable and it is a plausible search term. Redirect to an already existing section that has some sourcing seems warranted. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; my searches failed to come up with any useful literature regarding this protocol in its own right, but it seems to warrant a mention in XMODEM. jp×g 20:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Network to End Hunger[edit]

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

This organization appears to fail WP:NGO. I'm seeing local coverage in my searches, but nothing out-of-the ordinary that indicates that the organization is (inter-)nationally notable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does the organization have to be internationally important to be on Wikipedia? A lot of hunger relief organizations don't have that reach, they're national or regionally based. AGParsons (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NGO:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards
The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

The guideline also states that Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead. I simply don't see substantial coverage of the group out of the local area. This is the reason for my phrasing above. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:AUD is relevant here: "attention solely from local media...is not an indication of notability". That seems to be what's happening here: all the sources are local outlets. While I'm sure the organization does great work, some kind of coverage from outside the Tampa area is required to establish notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Track One A.B.[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage and the only reference is unreliable. SL93 (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did find one quality RS; an in-depth indendent review of their first album which was mostly negative. See Mike Joyce (13 September 1996). "Track One A.B. Runs Out of Fuel". The Washington Post. p. 14. Given that a major national newspaper reviewed their first album I'm guessing that some more reviews probably exist.4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete No longer active, no new sources, one ancient mention. Just forget it. Ode+Joy (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwill Group of Schools, Manamadurai[edit]

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

A promotional piece of content. Fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL / WP:GNG, lacks reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Does not pass WP:NORG as there are no WP:RS to support. DMySon (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks significant independent coverage to meet NORG or GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I'm not finding any significant coverage, and even if some existed this is arguably in the range where WP:TNT would be appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opsonin Pharma[edit]

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. || Tajwar.thesuperman ^💬 09:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. || Tajwar.thesuperman ^💬 09:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. || Tajwar.thesuperman ^💬 09:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While this can be verified as the 4th largest firm operating in its sector in its country [12], that does not seem sufficient for WP:NCORP. (The information in that source might be used to develop the Pharmaceutical industry in Bangladesh article to cover this and other firms, but as things stand a merge would give WP:UNDUE coverage of this firm.) AllyD (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Those arguing for keep failed to establish NACTOR had been met. There is possibly one major role in a notable production, but that is insufficient to meet the guideline. I was considering closing this as redirect to Stand My Heroes as suggested by Link20XX but not only does that page not mention her, but their is not a cast list at all. SpinningSpark 17:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misato Murai[edit]

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

I do not think this person meets WP:NACTOR. Per NACTOR, they must have multiple significant roles in notable productions. Looking at their roles list, most of them are "boy" or "passersby", which I strongly doubt are more than additional voices. As for their named roles:

W'z, just the "young" version of the character. While I haven't seen this series, from what I have seen of other series the "young" voice is rarely used and only makes brief appearances when it does.
Stand My Heroes: Piece of Truth, not a notable production.
Ahiru no Sora, this role is listed at the very bottom of the list with no description, unlikely a major role.
Sing "Yesterday" for Me, young version only.
Smile Down the Runway, young version only.
Tsukiuta, young version only
Kingdom, character is not even mentioned in the list.
Peach Boy Riverside, character is 10th on the list with no description, unlikely to be a major character.

A WP:BEFORE search didn't give me much additional coverage either. Not to mention the creator of the article is currently at SPI and has been accused of WP:COI editing. Link20XX (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2019-05-14/stand-my-heroes-anime-1st-promo-reveals-misato-murai-as-protagonist/.146703 Stand My Heroes Anime's 1st Promo Reveals Misato Murai as Protagonist. Peach Boy Riverside he is listed as a main character https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=184346 Bold means main/major character on a show. Kaine is a significant character in the Kingdom series according to fandoms. A recurring supporting antagonist. Dream Focus 17:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how Kaine could be a re-occuring character if they have only made small appearances in one of the series three seasons. The ANN encyclopedia has a very low bar to bold a character as major. I have now seen a bit of Peach Boy Riverside and I can confirm that character makes only small appearances. As for the first point you made, WP:NACTOR requires productions to be notable to count, which Stand My Heroes: Piece of Truth is not. The Japanese article ja:村井美里 also has a bold system for major characters, however the only one bolded is the role in Stand My Heroes: Piece of Truth, which is not notable. NACTOR also requires multiple significant roles, meaning more than one. Link20XX (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10631701/ Peach Boy Riverside he has been in six episodes. If the voice actor gets a news article about them being the main character in a series, that adds to their claim of Wikipedia notability. Stand My Heroes is a notable anime since it gets news mention about. I just created a stub article for it. Dream Focus 21:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) You're really using IMBd for that? I say as someone who has seen the episodes of it that have been released, it is not a major role. As far as Stand My Heroes, it now has an article so it counts, however, NACTOR explicitly states that multiple are required. Link20XX (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, the various Yo-kai Watch roles are also all minor roles; a "young" version of a main character and then a bunch of minor one-off characters. Mlb96 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- However, the jawiki article includes this, which seems to be secondary coverage of an interview. I have no idea if this source should be treated like an interview or like secondary coverage. Mlb96 (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I admit my Japanese isn't good, however, that post appears to be covering the radio show and just states that she had an appeance on it, not really SIGCOV. On the topic of possible ATDs, I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting to Stand My Heroes since this is her only major role. Link20XX (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Incubate The lack of multiple, notable major roles (nor significant contributions under point 3 of WP:NACTOR) should make this a pretty open and shut case. Incubate could be an option here, but the author has yet to engage in this discussion - making it unclear how useful incubation would be. As a result of not meeting notability (without comments from the author indicating any interest disputing this deletion nor proposing alternative options) deletion seems like the best option here. There is only consensus on one role being a major one, and I don't see how the other roles currently listed, fit NACTOR. Canadianerk (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misato has done one major role but she did small and supporting roles too. She has voiced Todoroki in anime Peach Boy Riverside and recently she will be voicing more characters in different animes.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]
- It's great she has done one major role, and has done small and supporting roles. But when it comes to NACTOR, it needs to be multiple major roles. This is why I proposed incubating - returning it to your drafts, and you can easily repost when she gets a second (or more) major roles. In the interim, the post as it is today does not meet notability requirements - it shouldn't just be left up in hopes she gets announced for another major role.Canadianerk (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON. ^Ramaswar _(discuss) 19:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Currently fails GNG and NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - does not pass GNG or subject-specific notability standard. Future notability cannot be predicted. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently a case of WP:TOOSOON. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Square One (single album)[edit]

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

Except the tracklist, all the content in this article is about its two singles "Whistle" and "Boombayah". The album is not notable because notability requires independent evidence. Maximum sources mentions it as the debut album by Blackpink or the aforementioned singles are from this album. According to Wikipedia:Notability (albums): an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Moreover the album didn't chart in any region. As an alternate to deletion, it can be redirected to the group's discography page (Blackpink discography). -ink&fables «talk» 18:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -ink&fables «talk» 18:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neither of those songs are technically singles as they were released together on this album and not as individual songs. Therefore the song articles (which are both lengthy) are legitimate content forks of the album parent article per WP:Content fork, and all of the RS on the songs are really about the content of the album as that is how these songs reached the public. As such, clearly passes GNG and NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All the !votes are keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sand (2000 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing. No reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Marginally passes GNG and NFO. I found no hits in newspapers, PROQUEST, and EBSCOE. I did find two independent reviews in google books with snippet views. The film is also included in an offline film reference work Video Sourcebook with independent analysis by the author. See below.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Martin, ‎Marsha Porter (2004). ""Sand"". DVD & Video Guide 2005. Ballantine Books. p. 962. ISBN 9780345449955.
Jim Craddock (2004). "Sand". Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever 2005. Gale. p. 703.
Thomson Gale (2007). "Sand". Video Sourcebook: A Guide to Programs Currently Available on Video. Gale. p. 2533. ISBN 9781414400990.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second ref you have listed seems to be a for a 1997 movie called Sand Trap. Lightburst (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BARE I know it is an essay... - We may have enough to write an encyclopedic article with inline refs. As it is the article needs a complete going through. Lightburst (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a podcast, of which I'm not familiar with the creator, meanwhile TV Guide is pretty useless and so is the Dutch site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geschichte (talk • contribs) 06:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources listed above DonaldD23 talk to me 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hennesy Carolina[edit]

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

noindividualnotability -- only in the contest of her notable sister DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details of any significance, other than her being involved in a lawsuit, and her sister being famous. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:INVALIDBIO/WP:NOTINHERITED. Being related to someone famous doesn't explicitly make an individual notable. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:G4. The author, in their haste, didn't even bother to spell her name right. (Good catch on this one, DGG). Trillfendi (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ester Macrì[edit]

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

non notable by WP:PROF: extremely low citations for her papers; 9, 5, 2, 1 No indication that her book is importantk of that she meets WP:GNG DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tiny citations on GS not remotely enough for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep A Google books search shows good references, mostly in Italian. She just did not format the page right and did not add those sources. I wonder why she has no page on the Italian Wiki. Yet, the mentions seem good enough to me. Ode+Joy (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instated of saying shows good references, please hint couple of them if meet WP:SIGCOV. Its 15 minuets I'm Googling in English and Italian to find significant coverage.Misasory (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too late now, with so many delete votes, the fate of the page is clear, regardless. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks far too soon for WP:NPROF for this 2013 PhD. No other sign of notability -- being author of her PhD dissertation does not grant notability, and while citations shown on Google Books may contribute, the level is way below what we'd be looking for, even in a medium-to-lower citation field. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF. I couldn't find any reliable sources focusing on her or her works.Misasory (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Not convinced meets WP:NAUTHOR either, but might be able to be convinced otherwise. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-digit citation counts do not meet WP:PROF#C1. The "book" is just her doctoral dissertation, and I did not find published reviews, so it does not appear to contribute towards WP:AUTHOR notability. No other notability criteria look likely. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is some reluctance in the debate, which is understandable since the film involves some notable actors. However, the main issue is that there is no reliable sourcing for the film. The Rotten Tomatoes source is a placeholder entry stating that there are no reviews, while IMDb is listed as "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Façade (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES; Rotten Tomatoes is not a reputable source. The Film Creator (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/Weak delete. I did find two independent reviews which are only partially viewable in google books (can't see film title but the cast list is identical and its in the right alphabetical spot and the reviews make sense in context to the film): [13] and [14]. This ref has an entry on the film. It's a borderline call.4meter4 (talk) 02:19, 2 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) 00:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- I am not sure we should be the keeper of all things. I cannot find anything to say this was notable as a film or art. Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't find any reliable source about this film. Sincrely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:16, 10 October 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 Roger Gnoan M'Bala. Sandstein 15:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Le Dipri[edit]

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

It has bit reliable source but it is not meet to criteria for notable Limited Idea4me (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Limited Idea4me (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable, an obscure film probably seen by 35 people at best. Ode+Joy (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of viewership is not a viable deletion argument, as there are many unreleased and/or lost films that have articles which probably have a very small amount of people who have actually seen it. Coverage of films is what matters, not how many people have seen it. You should avoid using this in your arguments in the future. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roger Gnoan M'Bala. The sources are all using the same text (sometimes in translation), which I assume comes from the distributors - I can't find any independent sources. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roger Gnoan M'Bala per above. Redirecting to the director is a suitable WP:ATD-R for a non notable film. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shovelglove[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article with zero indication of any lasting notability. A DIY guide on Lifehacker and a Freakonomics blog entry are not sufficient to indicate notability. No significant other coverage located on a search, and it was created in 2009, so there's been plenty of time for it to catch on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nowhere near WP:GNG. Promo, promo, promo. Ode+Joy (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just delete. Not notable. It does exist and isn't a WP:HOAX at least. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising content. Both citations and external links are promotional materials. Just another old leftover. Mann Mann (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G11 ~TNT (she/her • talk) 07:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ventoura (marketplace)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Background info: this was split from Ventoura which was deleted at AfD (from what I can tell some sort of Frankenstein article?), but I can't find enough significant coverage for this to be considered notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Roar eSports[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. Sources in article not sufficient to demonstrate notability -- one does not contain significant coverage, and the other is primary. – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 04:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 04:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 04:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, I can't find any sort of secondary coverage. Mlb96 (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY and GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pratik Sehajpal[edit]

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

Non Notable actor that fails WP:GNG. Minor roles in Television and films that does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Previously deleted as speedy under A7. DMySon (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is recognized actor known for bigg boss ott, bigg boss 15, Ace of space 1. He also runner up in bigg boss ott which is one of the india's biggest reality show. Hardipsinhjadeja1 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Ravensfire (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Ravensfire. Trakinwiki (talk) 20:51, 04 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep :he has significant roles in show like bigg boss 15 and mtv ace of space etc. so this article satisfied WP:NACTOR conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:8589:61E2:0:0:2E5:20A5 (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep :he has well known person has significant roles in reality shows like bigg boss and mtv ace of space and also a part of web series. Vikas Sharma. — Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion on the extent to which the roles in Bigg Boss 5 and/or Ace of Space help to satisfy requirements on WP:NACTOR would be good. Some have asserted that they are significant, while others have seemed to ignore it, so an analysis as to why they are or are not significant would be helpful in ascertaining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep :he has well known person has significant roles in reality shows and web series. Some wikipedia articles also verified his significant. Like Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi season 1), Bigg Boss (Hindi season 15), Ace of Space 1 and MTV Love School. So satisfied WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.72.230 (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and so should Ramiz King because if he satisfies the notability factor he does too for being a part of a significant show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.83.210 (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify WP:TOOSOON The actor is frequently mentioned in the news because of the participation in the Big boss 007sak (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely participating in Bigg Boss cannot be a claim to notability per WP:BIGBROTHER, same applies to other reality shows. Not seeing any coverage beyond them. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Participation in a reality show doesn't make someone notable. His roles in the web series are not significant enough to qualify WP:NACTOR; in XXX (Season 2) he acted in only one episode and in Bebaakee, he was not a lead actor. Eevee01^(talk) 09:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. WP:NACTOR has specific requirements that the subject does not meet, you need multiple starring roles in notable productions. A reality show could be one but there are no others. I note the sock similarities of the keep votes and feel consensus is clear to delete. Ifnord (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:NACTOR. ^Ramaswar _(discuss) 19:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Participating in a show does not confer notability, and his roles don't seem to be major or numerous enough to establish that either. Avilich (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Twenty Twos[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives 11.6k results. Band released an EP on Epic Records. Coverage on music websites [15], [16]. Includes member of notable band Spacehog. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. They may have released an EP on a major label, but apart from that, their only other recorded work was a song on a movie soundtrack – they were in existence for barely a year. The PopMatters source is reliable, but I'm not convinced about The Deli – this is a free magazine, only available in a limited number of places in New York City, so it's local coverage, and minimal at that. The number of Google Hits isn't very meaningful, because (a) there is now an electronic synthpop band with the same name, so the hits could be picking both bands up, (b) how many of those Google hits are from reliable sources? And the inclusion of a former member of Spacehog doesn't make this band automatically notable, that's a WP:INHERITED argument. So really the only good source is the PopMatters one, which isn't "multiple independent sources", and as the band has been defunct for 15 years, there isn't likely to be much more online. A very brief and superficial review of the band as support act on a local BBC website is the best thing I've found [17]. Richard3120 (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Groupe Fnac Darty. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProLine (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: I am not seeing evidence of notability for this brand. However Groupe Fnac Darty still appear to market under the brand name ([18]) so a redirect could be an option? AllyD (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Groupe Fnac Darty as the parent company per above. ProLine appliances are just a brand sold by Fnac Darty that isn't independently notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Earth Liberation Front. czar 21:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Liberation Front Press Office[edit]

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

This does not appear to be covered in a significant manner such that would indicate it having separate notability than Earth Liberation Front. The article is a stub with little valuable information. I therefore propose that this article be redirected to Earth Liberation Front. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge For a redirect you can just go ahead and do it without bringing it to AfD. No deletion discussion is required. However rather than redirecting I think there is enough material here to warrant a merge into the main article, rather than a redirect. Mccapra (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Earth Liberation Front. As my reading of the sources, I can't say that the two would be independently notable.Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie_Villalobos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Natalie Villalobos

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

This person does not meet the criteria for notable people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPeeloton (talk • contribs)

Speedy Keep malformed nomination created by an WP:SPA with no significant policy support. KidAd • SPEAK 04:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep its was nominated for deletion by a WP:SPA. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article sure looks like a resume ... User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that he is notable as a former NFL football player, so MMABIO is irrelevant. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Goodman[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MMABIO notability criteria, as he does not have 3 fights in a top tier promotion, only 2. Also hasn't ever been ranked near the top 10 in the world. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 03:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON #1 as a former National Football League player, per this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Speedy Keep WP:NGRIDIRON#1 is passed. Played two seasons with the GB Packers. Lightburst (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON. Two seasons is more than enough to establish notability without even starting a fighting career. — Ghost River 04:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep surpasses WP:NGRIDIRON, as noted above.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While clearly not notable as an MMA fighter, he does meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Papaursa (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not meeting WP:NMMA but meets WP:NGRIDIRON. Cassiopeia talk 23:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extreme WP:OR at best and WP:HOAX at worse. No indication of prevailing usage in a manner deemed noteworty (WP:N). El_C 12:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Obscenity[edit]

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

I couldn't find usage of "Extreme Obscenity" online, and there isn't much in this article that distinguishes "Extreme Obscenity" from regular, old "Obscenity". I think this article should be deleted or redirected to Obscenity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is effectively gibberish and pretty much misses CSD criteria on a technicality. — Ghost River 04:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a mishmash of WP:OR. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as some kind of unfocused personal essay. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Thank you for your input. This is my first article on Wikipedia so bear with me and help me bring it up to standard instead of deleting. D97931478 (talk)

The article contains no original research. The article is not a dictionary definition. The article is not a legal document. D97931478 (talk)

In answer to your concerns. The article is not an essay and is not gibberish. The statements are facts supported with valid references universal to the English language. All statements combined present a focused encyclopaedic reference that informs without the requirement for an unhelpful definition, interpretation, or demographic point of view. All statements are true and fully supported with references. The article is not perfect and will hopefully improve in time and I believe the articles inclusion in Wikipedia is significant to the human race because it addresses issues of obscenity and pornography that are not dealt with on the individual pages. The article separates extreme pornography from obscenity, and also points out that obscenity is not necessarily extreme. D97931478 (talk)

Delete as very much someone's personal point of view: the references are all dictionary definitions (tertiary) or government sites describing law (primary) from which the creator has synthesised a point of view, casting it in complexified encyclopaedia-speak. What was needed was an overview of good secondary sources, reviewing how different societies define and handle obscenity. This is already available at Obscenity. Elemimele (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just a starting point for development but it is relevant where Obscenity is not and avoids unhelpful dictionary definitions. It is written from a neutral point of view relying on trusted sources and the dictionary references offer a informative historical perspective of how words developed and were used in the past. Good secondary sources are available on other pages and repetition is unnecessary but hopefully myself and other editors will expand the page and add genre specific, and societal information in the future specifically relevant to extreme obscenity, and not included elsewhere. D97931478 (talk)

I have taken your comments on board and added references from journals that talk specifically of extreme obscenity. D97931478 (talk)

Is anyone checking this? Result to "keep" was added by IP address 86.142.230.206 - here - is this the Final Decision? Only an Admin can do this right?? STC1 _talk 19:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism, I've removed it. Mlb96 (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Any user without a conflict of interest can remove maintenance tags” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal D97931478 (talk)

Per the plain text of the AfD notice itself - "do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed". Also, the policy you cite has a very clear statement on when *not* to remove templates - "The issue has not been resolved." Which, contrary to the IP editor just blocked for removing the templates, is clearly the case here. PohranicniStraze (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personal opinions are not relevant to a deletion discussion. D97931478 (talk)

Delete - As honestly all it appears to be is a very tangential branch to Obscenity. The few points this article has, could very well be added to Obscenity. Nothing in the article in question warrants a separate wiki. STC1 _talk 16:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Research suggests the term is in separate use from Obscenity, on my computer anyway, if not globally. Your second point has already been answered above. D97931478 (talk)

All previous posts have been resolved without further complaint. D97931478 (talk)

Keep - Good article. Could possibly be merged with other pages but agree it is valid in its entirety and makes points not directly relevant to other pages.

Suggest removing deletion template as the original reason given for deletion is no longer valid and no other valid reason has been given for a deletion discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.45.129 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see why this needs to be a seperate article. The content can be easily merged with the main obscenity article. JellyMan9001 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need to stop voicing opinions and make valid arguments based on deletion criteria and content, and improve the article if necessary. Nothing so far has suggested the deletion discussion is anything but vandalism, and trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.45.129 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. Accusations like that get us nowhere. Also, as I'm primarily a recent changes patroller, I'm not the most knowledgeable on AFD processes, but I don't think you can just close the discussion on your own before consensus has been achieved. JellyMan9001 (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies no disrespect intended but it looks like no valid argument for a deletion discussion has been given and any user can in this situation remove maintenance templates. Looks like trolling and vandalism to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.45.129 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD tags are not like normal maintenance tags. You are not allowed to remove them until consensus has been reached and the discussion has been closed. This is not trolling or vandalism. Please assume good faith. JellyMan9001 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for deletion was A3 no content. Content has clearly been added and worked on. Why not just close the discussion as it is clearly not original research either. No focused argument for this discussion to continue for 7 days has been given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.33.144 (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a focused argument. From what I see, most people are arguing that this topic isn't notable enough to be a seperate article, and the content can be merged with the main article on obscenity. I understand it can sting when your article is nominated for deletion, but continuously attempting to prematurely close the discussion won't help. JellyMan9001 (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - clearly created for the "lulz" and efforts to close this discussion suggest the whole thing is someone's childish trolling. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personal essay and not needed in my view. Any notable content can be placed in the existing Obscenity article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:OR based on primary sources, which reads pretty much like a personal essay. This is also an unlikely enough term that redirecting to obscenity seems inappropriate too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G1, A1 and A11. Unencylopedic personal essay written to push a POV, which makes authors attempts to accuse others of having personal opinions all the more ironic. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A week and a half in, and it seems that there is a definite consensus that WP:GNG is not met here. This leave the SNG notability claim. The assertions that WP:GEOLAND grants automatic notability to cemeteries have been rejected by the majority of the participants in the discussion. There is little sourcing to back up keep !votes, several of which are based on the assertion that all cemeteries should be considered notable, which is an assertion that does not seem to have local or site-wide consensus. Given the nature of the discussion, I would be willing to restore a copy into draftspace upon reasonable request, under the condition that an article on this topic pass through WP:AFC before republishing. Hog Farm _Talk 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Hog Farm _Talk 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Linn Pioneer Cemetery[edit]

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

No indication of anything notable. MB 02:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MB 02:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the references says: "The Philip E. Linn Cemetery has been documented thoroughly by different descendants", but this documentation doesn't seem to be available online. I'd like to treat cemeteries as automatically notable because much of the documentation for them is likely in documents produced before the Web because widespread. One document says the cemetery was established in 1865. I can't confirm this in a reliable source, but the date seems plausible, given the overall appearance of the cemetery. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that this cemetery exists. There needs to be in-depth coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. MB 19:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Calling cemeteries automatically notable is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen at AFD. Category:Cemeteries in Oregon has 33 entries (several of which likewise lack substantive sources), yet source 1 lists roughly 1500 in the state as "historic", including some 200 that are "pioneer cemeteries". Absolutely risible to say "Screw GNG! Forget significant coverage!" here. Documentation by descendents about their ancestors buried there, online or not, is not necessarily significant coverage about the cemetery itself. WP:ITSOLD is not useful here either; this is a small, generic, local burial place. Reywas92^Talk 15:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now (disclaimer: stub creator). I don't agree with assuming historic cemeteries are notable either, but Oregon lists the site as historic; additionally, the cemetery goes by several different names and may also be known as or connected to the IOOF Cemetery, per the source I've shared on the article's talk page. Additional research is needed; based on some non-ideal sources, there's a history dating back to the 1860s, and some library/database diving may be in order, not just a simple Google search. Worst case scenario, redirect the page to Estacada, Oregon and add a sentence to the entry so this page serves as purpose as a redirect. Also, please slow down on the AfDs of historic cemeteries, hard to keep up! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, are you familiar with Oregon's criteria for historic cemeteries? It includes any cemetery that's at least 75 years old and has one or more graves; it doesn't mean there's any real historical significance. –dlthewave ☎ 14:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Likely the sourcing exists to establish notability, but it will take work to unearth it. Ideally that work is done prior to publishing a page to begin with. Here are two articles that may or may not be helpful, I will try to dig up some more as time allow. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a book entry about the Linn family and their real estate holdings. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of these sources establish notability of a "family" cemetery. According do findagrave, there are only 194 burials here. Listings in directories to not establish notability. MB 19:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, do you need me to give a clearer definition of "may or may not be helpful"? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GEOPURP For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial. My default is to keep cemeteries as historic places. Relevant policies WP:PRESERVE WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the scope section of WP:GEOLAND is nonsense. The specific part that applies is WP:GEOFEAT and it gives no pass to cemeteries. WP:NOTPAPER merely says there is room in the encyclopedia to include every NOTABLE topic. Referencing that in an AFD is also nonsense. MB 19:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no guidelines that I can find specific to cemeteries - so in that case I apply our GEO guideline - a cemetery is a geographical permanent historical (locally or nationally) location (mostly permanent sometimes bodies are moved i.e. Poltergeist). If our not-paper policy is nonsense you should start an RFC. My job is to interpret the guidelines and policies as they relate to cemeteries and more specifically this cemetery. Your job is to do a proper WP:BEFORE and investigate our other policy WP:ATD. You shouldn't get angry or dismissive when AfD participants think your nomination is wrong, just do better next time. Lightburst (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say WP:NOTPAPER is nonsense, I said your implication that it is relevant to determining notability is nonsense. I too apply WP:GEOLAND - "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability." Not much more than cemetery directories have been cited here, except the vandalism article which is a minor passing-mention. It needs sig cov to meet GNG. Your job, if you are arguing to keep, is to prove that it does by finding sources. Linking a bunch of policies and summarizing with "I consider cemeteries as historic places by default" does not do that. MB 01:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been participating in geo AfDs for a long time. Often a editor will find a passing mention which says a train stopped somehwere a century ago. Maps show nothing but tumbleweeds. And we keep it based on that former train stop. It would seem to me, the cemetery is permanent. The cemetery appears on the map. By virtue of monuments and headstones it is historical. My default will be keep. We have room in the project for one thousand or one million. We do not need sigcov based on my rationale and based on Geo. Lightburst (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That wall of text is WP:OTHERSTUFF meant to Poison the well ...we both know that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is always in flux. Without a cemetery guideline we are left to use our judgment. I agree with you on other GEO matters and would love to participate in an RFC or some other such discussion about the notability of hallowed ground. (look at the first item on the disambiguation page for Hallowed Ground. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of in-depth coverage, but I'd consider changing to "keep" if better sources can be found. The criteria for recognition as a "historic cemetery" in Oregon are extremely lax: "Any cemetery that has at least one burial of a person who died before that date that is 75 years before the current date and is listed with Oregon Commission on Historic Cemeteries, is historic." Anyone can submit a form and get a cemetery listed. –dlthewave ☎ 02:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails the GNG. I'm usually a bit hesitant to delete articles about historical topics, but with no significant coverage at all (including on Newspapers.com, which tends to be pretty good for these sorts of things) I'm fairly sure that notability has not been established. WP:NGEO simply isn't relevant: none of its criteria can reasonably be understood to apply to this cemetery at all. And while older topics often will have sources, WP:NEXIST's admonishment that "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive" seems apt. As always, I'm glad to reassess if significant coverage can be found, but until then deletion seems appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I understand a hesitancy to call any cemetery non-notable but I would expect any article to indicate a claim on why it is notable. This one does not. A label of "historic" simply means it has a history, as does everything. Is any of that history notable? If not, it does not meet the bar. Ifnord (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multimodal cancer therapy[edit]

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

This is a dictionary entry DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: It is not. It cites a dictionary entry, but it includes examples in other contexts. It is a stub. TiagoLubiana (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into cancer treatment article. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 07:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a dictionary entry. It's not about a word and contains no etymology, grammar or other lexical details. The nomination is therefore mistaken as explained by the relevant policy WP:DICDEF, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry...". Furthermore, as the topic is highly notable, it is apparent that WP:BEFORE has not been followed. Here's a selection of books on the topic:

Multimodal Therapy in Oncology Nursing
Multimodal Therapy of Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancies
Multimodal Treatment of Ovarian Cancer
Surgery in the Multimodal Management of Gastric Cancer
Multimodal Treatment of Recurrent Pelvic Colorectal Cancer
Multimodal Nanoparticle-based Platforms for Cancer Therapy
Multimodality Management of Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer
Surgery in Multimodal Management of Solid Tumors
Combination Cancer Therapy
Multimodality Therapy in Gynecologic Oncology

There are many words here, not one. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found so many reliable sources ~ Limited Idea4me (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in the significant number of sources provided above. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Several sources have been added to the article that allow it to meet WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endure[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else on a WP:BEFORE search. The Film Creator (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment review at CineMagzine [19]. Not enough on it's own, but a start if someone finds more reviews. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are references which need to be added (most likely candidate is the South Florida Sun Sentinel but that is behind a paywall) but consensus appears that the subject meets the notability threshold. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable television film. Fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else was found in a WP:BEFORE search. The Film Creator (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did find something. First a book, a sort of encyclopedia of Christmas movies (I only get one of the two pages). Other candidates are this (not familiar with the website), this probably syndicated review in a newspaper (South Florida Sun Sentinel 30 November 2002), and it was also part of a listicle. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified aboveparticularly the South Florida Sun Sentinel so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 'Atlantic306' and 'Geschichte' DonaldD23 talk to me 12:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn on behalf of nominator. (non-admin closure) Mlb96 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White Rush[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. IMDb is unreliable. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE source and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Review at TV Guide [20] and DVD Talk [21]. Both are Wikipedia Reliable sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also found TV Guide which is significant, the following may be as well: [22] [23] [24] [25]. These I'm less sure about, but might be: [26] [27]. Geschichte (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination since reviews exist per WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dzata Cement[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 10:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NCORP. Spudlace (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVES or WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE are not convincing reasons.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes with general notability tag. It has significant notability for being the first fully owned and wholly managed cement company by Ghanaians. The article must be improved rather than taken off. Ampimd (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first fully owned company isn't a notabilty criteria. It is a brochure article and advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 09:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately it isnt a brochure article and advertisement. The company started its construction in 2011, however full commercial production started in 2021. The notability of the company with regards to the general notability criteria is clear. I believe it meets at least the WP:GNG It is gained more coverage due to it being a fully Ghanaian owned company and because it is owned by one of the richest businessmen in Ghana who is the brother of the former president John Dramani Mahama. The subject as in the product gains more prominence due to all these. I dont think its irrelevant to note that its the first fully Ghanaian owned company. That can not be ignored. That alone shows its significance which also falls under the Manufacturing in Ghana articles and cement manufacturing in Ghana. The article must be improved not taken off as I mentioned earlier. Ampimd (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it fails the required notability test. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Being the first of any company by any country is not, in itself, notable. If it's an interesting enough combination, it would attract reliable sources and thus make it eligible for WP:GNG - but this is not the case here. Ifnord (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Kaufman[edit]

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

Promotional vanity page, substantially written by a series of SPAs (including "Kaufmani"). No biographical coverage in RSes given in article, or visible in a WP:BEFORE - coverage of Kaufman or of Arbor Realty is substantially press releases and churnalism based upon the press releases. Seems a good fellow who does some things, but nothing to show he passes WP:NBIO, nor that we have the RSes for a BLP. David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not properly covered by reliable sources. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Millar[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. I was able to find several articles on her, but they were all over 10 years old and related to her having been Miss Utah 2006. Per discussion on the Miss Utah 2008 deletion page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Barclay) being Miss Utah in and of itself is not notable. The other article highlights about going to college, being a supporting actress, etc. are not notable. Jacobkhed (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wellllll...., the person meets the GNG I'm pretty sure. Here is a whole long article about her, several paragraphs, in a major paper (the Salt Lake Tribune). Here is an even longer one, and then here you have a third whole long article, about her declining to wear a bikini. Which I guess could have been a notable social statement, except that nobody much paid attention.

So, meets GNG. it partly depends on how seriously and/or rigidly you take the GNG. I don't much, but hella people do.

The latter two articles are in the Deseret News tho. The Deseret News, while reasonably widely read, considered a respectable reliable source I guess, and primarily engaged in being a regular newspaper, is a Mormon paper. It's not actually owned by the Church, but I mean it is published by and mostly read by Mormons, and they do include a Church News section that is written or anyway approved by the Church. Millar is Mormon so I suppose you could say that's log-rolling. If you squint; my guess is that the paper probably just covered her because it's a Utah paper and she's from Utah so of course they did.

That's it tho. She does have a (tiny) IMDd entry, and she was Miss Utah, but those aren't much.

I don't know why we don't have articles on Miss [State] winners considering we have articles on extinct fungi and other extremely obscure stuff. Whatever, but I wouldn't count Kayla Barclay as any kind of precedent, since there wasn't actually any kind of disccussion... Not counting the nominator (who was kind of on the fence) there was one vote, of one sentence, by a now-banned sockpuppet. That nom should probably have been closed as No Consensus, and it looks like the closer took 15 seconds considering the matter, which i get that we're way understaffed, but this isn't a good way to set precedents I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In summary: Keep. Herostratus (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:BASIC notability critieria begins, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]. I have reviewed Miss Utah devoted to God, diabetes research (Salt Lake Tribune, 2006), Miss Utah hopes to be example of traditional values (Daily Herald, 2007), Miss Utah not afraid to be herself (Deseret News, 2007), and Standing her ground on the national stage (Associated Press, 2008), which are all in-depth coverage focused on her that can help expand the article. Per WP:RSP, Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. [...] The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed. Also, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage, and WP:GNG appears supported by the coverage noted above. Per the beauty pageant participants SNG, there is discussion of the types of pageant wins generally presumed notable, but it also states Subjects that do not meet the pageant-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline. Notability is not a subjective assessment of importance. Beccaynr (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’delete”’’ Geeze this is old news and Information. Needs to be archived or something. Exactly the same as the other article on Kayla Barclay. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants). Was not a national title holder, but only a state title holder. All of the coverage of the subject is local (with the exception of a trivial AP article over a clothing choice) and occurred only during her reign as Miss Utah. In order to prove notability under that SNG, we need to see coverage outside of Utah and WP:SUSTAINED coverage extending beyond her reign as Miss Utah. Likewise, fails GNG because the subject lack SUSTAINED significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Trivial coverage" is discussed in WP:BASIC, footnote 7, e.g. Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. The 2008 AP coverage is in-depth and focused on her, including biographical information. It does not appear to objectively fit the definition of "trivial" as described in the guideline. As to WP:SUSTAINED, this guideline points to WP:BLP1E, which discourages articles on people if they meet all three of the listed factors, but she does not appear to have been covered in the context of a single event, because the coverage includes her Miss Utah win (e.g. the non-local, 2006 state-level coverage from the Salt Lake Tribune, which also includes in-depth biographical information), and her noteworthy participation in the Miss America pageant, which received non-trivial national news coverage from the AP and in-depth 2007 state-level coverage from Deseret News. Her role in these events also appear to be well-documented, and she does not appear to have been WP:LOWPROFILE, so WP:BLP1E does not appear to apply. The article needs revision to reflect information from the sources, but WP:DINC. Beccaynr (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr, WP:SUSTAINED is part of WP:N (i.e. GNG) not BLP1E. The see also tag is placed there because BLP1E is a related application of SUSTAINED, not the only relevant application of SUSTAINED. I'm not arguing BLPE; merely a lack of significant SUSTAINED coverage from media that has independent discriminate coverage. Any source within Utah is indiscriminate because of its geographical audience. We need discriminate coverage to prove notability. As for trivial, I wasn't referring to the policy of trivial coverage (I didn't link the policy on purpose) but that the content itself is trivial (as in vapid and WP:TABLOID). Just because it's in the news and verifiable doesn't mean its meaningful and encyclopedic. I don't think beauty pageant winners at the state level are encyclopedia worthy as a topic area in the vast majority of cases; something that the relevant SNG explicitly makes clear.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failed to meet the notability guidelines.---Richie Campbell (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SUSTAINED has more than a "See Also" link to WP:BLP1E, because it also discusses people, after organizations and events, with a link to WP:BLP1E within its discussion, so my interpretation is related to how WP:GNG is a broader standard that applies all topics, and how the notability of people has its own criteria. WP:BLP1E does not appear to apply because there is coverage of Millar's Miss Utah win in 2006, with in-depth biographical context, as well as in-depth coverage of her participation in the Miss America pageant, including from the Associated Press. With regard to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there appears to be nothing in this policy that supports deletion due to the geographical location of sources, and the emphasis on context in this policy seems to bolster how the depth of information available can provide the necessary context. With regard to WP:TABLOID, which redirected me to WP:NOTNEWS, there is also an emphasis on how events must be put into encyclopedic context. Within the same section of the policy, there is also WP:NOTGOSSIP, e.g. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person, but in this instance, I think an objective assessment indicates she received national news coverage as a role model. Beccaynr (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccanyr I think you have lost perspective. We have a clothing controversy in the AP article basically highlighting her decision to not wear a bikini but a one piece bathing suit for religious reasons happening at the time of Miss America Pageant. It's a human interest piece, but in the broader scheme of things not all that notable. If it were notable we would see sustained coverage after the event and in some sort of commentary. The issue here is we aren't seeing SUSTAINED coverage beyond the typical pageant news cycle; and this particular human interest story is part of the WP:ROUTINE news kinds of stories surrounding pageant coverage. I don't think choosing to wear a one piece bathing suit in a pageant makes a person encyclopedia worthy or demonstrates in-depth coverage. If this is the depth of what a person has done they don't belong in an encyclopedia, but a pageant trivia fan website. Likewise, state pageant winners aren't considered encyclopedic per the SNG which makes it clear that only national title winners are considered notable. 4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "State population steadily increases, tops 7.7 million residents in 2021". Retrieved 11 October 2021.

[1]