Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 19	October 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CadCAD[edit]

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

Cited source is primary. There's no indication of notability in line with WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG Viia o Lanti (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this program relates to its use in computer-aided design and digital twins of large scale cryptoeconomic systems, including but not limited to the design of the Filecoin network's economic protocols as well as well design validation for past and upcoming Ethereum economic upgrades, including EIP 1559 and Ethereum 2.0: Beacon chain. It is clear that the above review is not familiar with this particular space. While a relative minority of the relevant code is public, but dynamical systems models in cadCAD are the standard for large scale cryptoeconomic systems in no small part due to Ethereum's influence over this space. While the knowledge about this tool and its use to design and monitor protocols controlling Billions of US Dollars worth of assets may be held by a relatively small number experts. Making this knowledge more widely available is a reason the cadCAD community has endeavored to add cadCAD to wikipedia. Its disappointing to see so much negative energy directed at this effort without doing the diligence. As I understand it notability is not strictly equal to legacy institutions. I reviewer interested in understand the notability is urged to reach out to someone from the Robust Incentives Group (see materials at https://github.com/ethereum/rig) at the Ethereum foundation, and/or the Economics team at the Filecoin Foundation (e.g. the researcher giving this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leJHrvz-YY8#t=12m36s) in order to understand the significance this "obscure little program" plays. Thanks for your consideration. Apologies if this note breaks with the standard form form wikipedia discussions; I am not a regular wikipedia contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:4F06:35A5:ED05:CB85:C23C:9D6B (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added new sources that are non-primary and independent. There are significantly more out there, but that is what I got from a first search pass Danlessa (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

btw, notice that using the find sources tools as done by Viia o Lanti will not return relevant results as google is changing the search term from "cadCAD" to "cad cad". Correcting for the search term will return a lot of indications of notability Danlessa (talk)

Delete Obscure little program. Not notable in my view. Ode+Joy (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that creator has obvious COI, and also possibly WP:PAID applies. MarioGom (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominatorBrayan ocaner (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though it appears to be a component in several significant processes, in itself it does not seem to achieve significant enough coverage. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:51, 22 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 14:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reich & Tang Deposit Networks[edit]

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

Obscure company that doesn't even come close to meeting WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Zero coverage. Created by an SPA, which figures. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you please explain why this should be in deletion after many years passed. What is main thing you saw it other that the reason you mentioned here? Just elaborate more..Jyoti Roy (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IF you believe the article should be retained because "many years have passed," please do so but be advised it is likely to be discounted by the closer. See WP:LONGTIME WP:CONTENTAGE. If you are just making a general comment and have no opinion on this AfD, please take it to talk. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. Totally run of the mill company, has received zero coverage (I checked Google, Newspapes,com, ProQuest and the New York Times archives) and doesn't even issue press releases for itself. No claim to notability and should have been speedied long ago. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:00, 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. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamarack Developments Corporation[edit]

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

Highly promotional, does not pass WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude talk 16:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 16:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 16:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a couple of references - not hard to find media articles about the company after 30+ years. The second reference I added was a press release - but it describes the information well, and there are other media articles that cover this Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: I reviewed the references and there are currently only two live media articles sources that covers the corporation. Can you provide the other ones that cover them? ––FormalDude talk 03:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: I'm not sure what you mean about "live". The proquest ones are accessible to all editors through the Wikipedia library. Or do you want me to add more references - which given that the period of notability was decades ago, are going to be firewalled. Nfitz (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 21 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 14:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Serra-Martins[edit]

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

Contested draftify, which has been moved between main and draft a couple of times, with no improvement. As per comments at Draft:Francisco Serra-Martins, the sources fail to demonstrate how Serra-Martins meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I found a decent source in News Australia but it's very brief in terms of coverage. I considered redirecting but the creator would obviously revert it. Also would struggle to think of a redirect location since this businessperson is allegedly involved with Dove Air and Sonder Design, both of which he has edited extensively himself under 'Franciscowashere' and edit warred over the COI tags. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:BIO with only one identifiable source that is not extensive. Deus et lex (talk) 10:50, 26 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Air Ambulance Jamaica[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The only sources provided are interviews and press releases, and a WP:BEFORE search finds no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No significant coverage available. Mommmyy (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only press release coverage available, which clearly fails WP:ORGIND, therefore the topic fails WP:NCORP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. However, the parent company, EMed Jamaica, might meet the criteria. BilCat (talk) 19:52, 26 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aryann Bhowmik[edit]

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

The actor has long career but didn't act in any notable film in a significant role yet. Fails to qualify as a notable actor following Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER Di xiku 16:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Di xiku 16:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Di xiku 16:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Di xiku 16:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 21:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 20 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 23:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Hoffman[edit]

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

"Notable" only for his notes on the Battle of Stalingrad, which amounts to not very much at all. Some searches could not reveal any other thing about this man; a Jakob Walter Hoffman is not. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete a few citations from his journal don't rise to the level of WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A fascinating topic, I'm curious to look at the journal myself. Unfortunately, I too cannot find enough to confirm WP:BASIC notability for the subject. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:58, 22 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 Pennsylvania Railroad class I1s. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Railroad 4483[edit]

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

I cannot find any significant coverage for this locomotive in reliable sources, beyond "it exists". Fails to meet notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A subsection on the Decapod article should be sufficient, doesn't seem to be any more notable than others of the class, beyond being the last one. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As per above. Railpictures.net returns 4 photos of PRR 4483, little else. --Whiteguru (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pennsylvania Railroad class I1s and put some of the information of it in there, since there are very little sources on this particular locomotive. Gorden 2211 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge (to Pennsylvania Railroad class I1s) if someone else wishes to do a meaningful merge. Merging to the Decapod disambig page seems insane, if 2-10-0 was intended that should of been said said explicitly and a merge there WP:UNDUE therefore I object to those targets. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pennsylvania Railroad class I1s, as per above. I found a few book references to support individual statements in the article, but no substantial coverage. As the sole surviving member of its class, 4483 would make a nice subsection in that article. Ackatsis (talk) 10:56, 26 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 Withdrawn. The issue with verifiability has been resolved; thanks in part to somebody finding proper sources which I could not. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almohad Expedition to Dukkala[edit]

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

This is material which was removed from another article because it failed verification or/and was based solely on a primary source (the translated "Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir"). And yet here it is, re-created as an independent article by the same person who added it, without addressing any of the issues which I pointed out to them. Delete as lacking sufficient sources to write an encyclopedic article (failing WP:N) and as currently failing WP:V in its current state. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ibn al-Athir isn’t a primary source. He’s one of the main historians of the Middle Ages. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't base our articles on Rome and Ancient Greece on the writings of ancient historians. These sources are so old that they are effectively primary sources which require expert interpretation. Same principle here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't describe them as primary sources per se, but I agree that the ancient historians generally vary to unreliability; I mean even amongst the best ancient historians, Herodotus claimed that "Indians have intercourse openly like cattle", while Livy openly writes about known myths as if they were facts for the entirety of book 1. Curbon7 (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:10, 21 October (UTC)

Keep This was an important part of the construction of the empire of Abd al-Mu'min, unifying North Africa. Poorly written and poorly sourced is not a reason to delete, but is a reason to improve. There are currently three "modern" sources cited in the article. Sure it could use a major rewrite, include dates, more context in the overall conflict between Almoravids and Almohads, and more citation to reliable sources; but all of that is fixable. The Wikipedia is a shared endeavour. --Bejnar (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have added two citations to single pages in books (I hope these are more than trivial mentions in a single paragraph on the relevant page). I assume that is because you have access to these, and should be able to show us (by directly improving the article) that these sources actually contain which is sufficient to write something encyclopedic. Otherwise, I'm not convinced that cite-bombing the first sentence is really helpful in improving the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are, respectively, a non-trival single paragraph and a non-trivial two paragraphs. You indicated that there was a problem with verification, and lack of modern sources. The history of medieval North Africa is not my area of expertise, but I will endeavour to search further in the periodical literature for more detailed discussions. Again, I do not believe that adequate pre-searching had been done prior to listing this Afd. Also, this Afd is likely to be premature, as a major treatise on Abd al-Mu'min by Maribel Fierro is due to be published next month (Fierro, Maribel (2021). 'Abd al-Mu'min: Mahdism and Caliphate in the Islamic West. Oneworld Academic (distributed by Simon & Schuster in U.S.). ISBN 978-1-85168-428-1.), which will undoubtedly cover this campaign. Maribel Fierro is Research Professor at the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas in Madrid. Based on modern sources, I have rewritten the first (now two) paragraph of text. Like I said this is a cooperative effort, go out and read the available sources and rewrite and re-cite what is necessary to improve this article. --Bejnar (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree about the addition of citations to the lead sentence only. The sourced content must be added to the narrative and cited there. In fact, there should never be any citations in the lead because it is meant to summarise the narrative where all citations belong, so this needs attention. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 21 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. – Joe (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gretex Corporate Services Limited[edit]

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

The few sources in the article are non-independent or do not offer significant coverage. Yet, the article was accepted at AfC, but I'm sceptical about the subject's notability. They are publicly traded since this summer but, as WP:LISTED specifies, that does not make a company notable in itself. I am yet to see the level of coverage required for WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. All I've been able to find is promotional coverage and press releases in connection with their IPO (e.g. [1] and [2]). Modussiccandi (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: In my view this was an injudicious AfC acceptance. I woudl not like to see the work wasted, so suggest it be returned to Draft: space or all attention to WP:NCORP and referencing. The references show it exists, but they do not show any form of notability Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NCORP.Advait (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have TNTed it to remove all the unsourced material and promotional cruft as it was impossible to see past it. As it was it should have been speedied as G11. The little that is left is still not great! However deletion is not cleanup and editors can now focus on whether WP:NCORP is met. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 08:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Simply being listed on an SME index is not a claim to notability and, while I am seeing passing mentions relative to financial deals in which they are involved and in respect of their listing/share price, these fall short of the substantial 3rd party coverage about the company itself which is needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 13:47, 28 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) 16:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don Wright (public servant)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a government bureaucrat, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to clear our inclusion standards. The notability claim here is essentially that he exists as a person with a job -- but the job in question is not an WP:NPOL-passing office that automatically guarantees an article, it's an appointed bureaucratic role where he would have to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. However, three of the five footnotes here are primary source press releases from the government or his prior employer, which are not notability-assisting sources. And as for the two that do come from real media, one of them comes from a suburban community hyperlocal rather than a major newspaper, and both of them are being used solely to support background trivia on his family life and prior career rather than any potentially notability-building content about his work in the role that's purportedly his notability claim. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have quite a bit more than just two hits of coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 02:54, 27 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 23:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fist of the Dragon[edit]

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

Can't find any reviews, or other evidence that the movie passes WP:NFILM. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 5 years and no real citations, and the article looks like simply a duplicate of IMDb information. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Fails WP:NFILM. Platonk (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no significant independent coverage in reliable sources that convince me that WP:GNG is met. I found some promotional pieces/trailers, but that's not enough to show notability. I also found no evidence that this film meets any of the notability criteria at WP:NFILM. Papaursa (talk) 15:05, 26 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 23:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Byrne (choreographer)[edit]

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

The article has not enough sources and fails the notability guidelines. I couldn’t prod the article as it had already been proded in the past. Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. Infinity Knight (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. His IMDb credits are very sparse. The only thing I could dig up is "Talking Dance and Art With David LaChapelle and John Byrne" in the New York Times ArtsBeat blog. Apparently he and LaChapelle had a thing going, but they broke up, and you can't WP:INHERIT notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 21 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. Essentially, the arguments for keeping (there is sufficient coverage to write an article) or deleting (the coverage only amounts to trivial passing mentions and can't be used to write anything of substance) are of about equal stature to each other and cancel each other out. For what it's worth, I did my own search for sources (in the hope I could break the logjam by !voting myself) and came away without any strong view one way or the other. So I think for now, No Consensus is the best option.

As a procedural note, the article I deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Hammond is not this person; this is the only AfD that has occurred for this subject. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hammond[edit]

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

This individual is a failed candidate for office, and does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Lots of refs, but they are mostly focused around the elections themselves and not significant coverage of the subject. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll write what I wrote on the talk page:

The argument is made that she fails WP:NPOL because she was unelected. I believe you can still meet the notability criteria with significant media coverage, even if unelected.

It is also argued that all references being about the election or post-election process cause the article to fail WP:GNG.

My first reason being I disagree that all articles are about the election process. There is a section on her personal life which refers to her attempts at stand up comedy and multiple pieces on her children’s allergies, (second article) for example.

My second reason is she is a political candidate who has coverage consistently which is more than a trivial mentions.

I’ll name several:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/100003864/extop-candidates-start-new-political-action-group
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/99839970/gareth-morgan-wont-lead-top-into-2020-election
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/121806722/the-battle-for-hriu-top-is-back-and-its-hoping-to-spoil-a-fight-between-labour-and-national
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2020-all-or-nothing-in-ohariu-electorate-as-three-mps-contest-seat/HATLYY43YA2QPR7ZIFOSVCX42Q/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/97007632/election-2017-minor-party-and-independent-electoral-candidate-profiles
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96332869/from-bob-dylan-to-waiting-lists-the-times-they-are-achangin-in-ohariu
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/top-promises-gst-returns-for-councils-to-help-plug-infrastructure-deficit/FTEGZTO7NMBJ5K3GUAQNA56GNI/
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/page/from-the-frontlines-jlr-bails-on-botany-1
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2010/S00161/equality-network-lifts-tops-score-on-their-party-scorecard.htm
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/page/will-top-turn-the-worm
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/page/a-four-way-race-in-nzs-thinking-electorate
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/video/jessica-hammond-talks-about-her-daughters-severe-allergies/TCK3BY42OD6BO6GYKJFMCTU23Q/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/tv/13-07-2019/the-people-inspired-by-extremely-cool-television-to-do-extremely-cool-things/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/21-02-2018/a-meal-out-could-kill-my-husband-why-do-so-few-restaurants-seem-to-care/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/renting/122884216/calls-for-rent-control-as-renters-bid-farewell-to-governments-rent-freeze-with-cake
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/124442022/family-outraged-82yearold-wheelchair-user-sold-2k-treadmill

New Zealand's national news station 1 News covered Ohariu and deemed her worthy of interviewing alongside the National, Labour, and New Zealand First candidates. This excludes the 6/10 other candidates running in Ohariu in 2020. It can be found here

I also want to add The Opportunities Party specifically poured resources into her campaign as they saw it as the only seat they can win, (article). She has won third place in Ohariu twice, beating the Green Party, which was a surprise for many given how much larger the Green Party (226,757 votes in 2020) is to The Opportunities Party. (43,449 votes in 2020).

Most local political candidates in New Zealand, including most of her competitors, only have trivial mentions, or barely any mentions about them at all, but she has a consistent pattern of being well-covered both about her political campaign but also events in her private life, and likely will continue to if she runs again, so I believe it displays notability.

Because of these reasons, I'd say I object to deletion. Nexus000 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails general notability. The articles given are typical of interesting failed MP campaigns. The allergy and wheelchair story are trivial mentions eg "When Jean-Pierre Hammond’s daughter, Jessica Hammond, found out her 82-year-old father, who uses a wheelchair and lives in a rest home hospital, had been sold a treadmill that retails for more than $2000, she was outraged."[3] Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this page was set for deletion after another AfD in March this year why are we still debating it? Genuine question, this could be an important part of the process I am missing. Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first discussion was over a different person who merely happened to have the same name, so once it was deleted this person got moved to the current title since it was no longer necessary to disambiguate her. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dushan added "Removed my delete vote. Regardless of nit picking, Wikipedia is better with this article." to the edit summary when removing his delete vote. Nexus000 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a reason to deem a candidate as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass WP:NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would pass GNG and NPOL itself would be meaningless. Rather, to get a candidate treated as a special case, she needs to pass one of two other tests: either (a) you can demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) you can demonstrate a credible reason why her candidacy should be treated as much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). Neither of those are in evidence here. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who happens to pass an arbitrary number" — GNG tests for a variety of other factors, including whether the context of what the person is getting covered for would be expected to get them into an encyclopedia or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced any of the coverage demonstrated above actually demonstrates notability - she was a failed candidate and the media reports reflect that, and she's not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 21:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like plenty of independent coverage to me. None of the sources seemed particularly deep, but are otherwise substantive, independent, and focused on Hammond's actions. I didn't click through all of the sources; are any of them full, dedicated profiles of her campaign(s)? Suriname0 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any, but then I would expect anyone running for MP would have a decent bio written somewhere, maybe a local paper. It would not take much to change my mind from delete. Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is very rare for us to keep articles on failed candidates. We typically discount any articles written about campaigns as coverage that anyone would get, i.e. on NOTNEWS grounds. It's not impossible, but you have to show coverage above and beyond a normal campaign. Hammond is very far away from that threshold at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 12:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the wide range of sources show that she's notable as a community activist as much as she is a political candidate.-gadfium 18:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - relisted following DRV decision here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_October_20#Jessica_Hammond_(closed) — Amakuru (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete although she's close to meeting GNG as an activist, I don't quite think she's there yet. The bulk of GNG is NOTNEWS/ONEEVENT territory in that it stemmed from her failed candidacy, and consensus has been that coverage around the campaigns isn't suitable if they were not otherwise notable. Star Mississippi 19:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The subject fails WP:NPOL as a candidate. The subject is featured in several articles about her comedy, playwriting, and (to a degree) her activism. What we have is an interesting person who is mentioned with some regularity by New Zealand press, does not pass any SNG, and an article that focuses primarily about her failed political campaigns. --Enos733 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not a politican and doesn't make WP:NPOL so that is out. I don't see the lady as an activist in the tradional sense, suffering for her craft, e.g. where is the coverage when the elections are not being held, or she going around polling. There is a lot of PR in the list above, typical of somebody who has been selected, is on the election list and needs to stay relevant, so there is a significant PR spend to keep them in the news. And obviously stay relevent. So she is not politician yet, or an activist in the true sense. She is also a playwright. Where is the plays, and where is the reviews? No mention in the article. In the first six references, what coverage is there, is set piece PR, profiles and interviews. If she gets elected, she will get an article, but not now. scope_creep^Talk 13:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources. None of the potentially relevant SNG criteria appear to be met. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:47, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of current senators of Canada by age[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:OR.The article is loaded with statistical trivia, such as their age at start of office, length of term, and current age, all in years and days. There is also a countdown section for 'Days until retirement' for xx,xxx thousands of days they potentially have left in office.

Doesn't even match the entries at Featured List quality List of current senators of Canada (94 Senators and 11 vacancies vs 77 entries in this article), and has been this way for years (ex. Margaret Dawn Anderson, appointed in 2018, is missing). Was proposed for merging, but nearly two years later, nothing has actually been merged from this article, so it's a valid AfD candidate. List of current senators of Canada is a Featured List without any age cruft additions from this article and is the best place to give an overview on the notable topic of individual Canadian Senators. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Dmehus GenQuest if they want to complete the discussed merge. Reywas92^Talk 19:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another novel cross-categorizations based on age with no evidence that other independent sources collect such trivia. The main list already has the most (only?) important information: each senator's mandatory retirement date when they turn 75. As the nominator notes, lists of "current" things are especially prone to falling out of date so should generally be discouraged. pburka (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would suggest a merge with List of current senators of Canada but this process was started over a year ago and nothing happened. This is really WP:TRIVIA fails WP:LISTN and is plain listcruft. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOR. Avilich (talk) 15:32, 27 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. Essentially, there's nobody left defending the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fazal Mohammad (politician)[edit]

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

Not notable and the sole reference is defunct. Nurg (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Nurg (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This would seem like an obvious keep via WP:NPOL, since he was a member of a provincial legislature, but it's a bit more complicated since we need a source that proves he was a member of the legislature. This is a tricky one since "Fazal Mohammad" is apparently a common name in Afghanistan (not "John Smith" level, but close). However, I think that number 128 in this members list is this Fazal Mohammad. Curbon7 (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Striking per below. Curbon7 (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Members of provincial legislatures only pass WP:NPOL if that country has a federal system of government, which Afghanistan does not have (File:Map of unitary and federal states.svg), so he does not pass WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've honestly never heard of this distinction in WP:NPOL. If it is correct, then should probably be made clear in the criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The change was made in March 2020 [4] following this discussion. I hadn't heard of it myself, I just assumed that the "or similar" meant first level subdivisions in general. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worded well, but the distinction is not actually federal systems, it's members of parliaments, which by definition means bodies with legislative power. As an example of this, members of the Ålands Lagting are notable under NPOL even though Finland is a unitary state, whereas, for example, as a municipal council does not have legislative power, the presumed notability of NPOL would not apply. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have now rescued the sole reference to some extent by adding a link to an archived copy. However, the provincial councils are not legislatures, as far as I can see, and I have now removed the uncited claim to the contrary from Kandahar Provincial Council (see the edit summary there for a reference). One factoid, which is all this article consists of, does not make a worthwhile article and falls way short of proving notability. Nurg (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination is considered a !delete vote, so this is accidental double-voting. Continuing constructive comments such as this are beneficial, of course. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:08, 13 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) 17:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:27, 28 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) 20:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Day[edit]

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

Missed that a previous PROD had already occurred. So the back story: This article was PROD'd in 2016, which was removed on grounds that instead a merger discussion was happening at Talk:List_of_Ubisoft_games#Merge. That elicited a single oppose on the grounds that a non-notable topic should just be deleted, not merged. So the PROD->Merge fizzled.

If you go searching, you're going to find three sets of sporadic coverage. It's announcement at E3, that it was apparently cancelled about a year later, and random "Ubisoft renewed it's trademarks." There's no significant in-depth coverage of the game though, and since it's apparent cancellation, Ubisoft does not appear to have made any announcements or statements, simply renewed their trademarks routinely.

With nothing else to say, I believe this cancelled game fails to be notable. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – The Grid (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It got a small flurry of coverage, but nothing indicating significant coverage as only a small bit of the game was ever shown._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears in some sources, but mostly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL with many sources copying each other in reporting stuff like trademark filings. I found no significant coverage. IceWelder [✉] 19:46, 27 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) 17:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living Academy Award winners and nominees[edit]

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

Trivial cross-categorisation ("age/age at death" and "Academy Award winner/nominee") which is also statistical trivia. Unsourced WP:OR. The article is a deeply confusing series of tables and chronologies of the oldest and earliest living winners or nominees of "Academy Award X", and is a trivia bonanza.

Similar to five recently deleted articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Academy Award for Best Actress winners by age (2nd nomination). Newshunter12 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be a reasonable cross-categorization if the list reported the ages at which the people were nominated or won, but it's based on their current age. Longevity and film-making are unrelated topics, and this is clearly a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. I'm sure a lot of work went into this, but it's not notable and probably original research. pburka (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another one of the interminable "oldest/youngest" lists that are being pruned. Oldest/youngest at the time of winning is the only notable criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, just yet another list of meaningless gerontology trivia and WP:OR. Dronebogus (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe there has been enough precedent set to delete these kind of lists. Fails WP:LISTN with big WP:V and WP:BLP issues. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:FANCRUFT, WP:TRIVIA. Platonk (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Topic also seems to fail LISTN as the only sources are 'top 10' listicles. Avilich (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per the nominator. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:07, 25 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) 17:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Vice[edit]

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

I share the same concerns as Shirt58 when he declined the speedy. There's sourcing present that wasn't when this was deleted last year, but my opinion is that it's not to the level required to meet Entertainment or General notability guidelines. Have no issue with the re-creation, editor was not involved in prior article history or its AfD. Star Mississippi 16:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings from prior AfD: @Addicted4517, 78.26, HHH Pedrigree, Papaursa, Ravenswing, and Reyk: Star Mississippi 16:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Last year, I asserted the following: "Does the subject meet WP:NMMA? No; that guideline sets a pretty high bar that someone with two bouts in an obscure martial art doesn't meet. Does he meet WP:ENTERTAINER? Not in being a sometime-wrestler for two minor promotions, not even close. Does he meet the GNG? No. There you have it." Adding citations from primary sources and obscure fanboy webpages doesn't change the equation. Ravenswing 17:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know about as little about this topic as possible, and I'll disclose that my personal opinion of "wrestling" is pretty low. That said, if this topic has not acomplished anything notable, why do we have a farily in-depth article regarding the "championship" the topic won? Why do we seem to have articles on the great majority of individuals who have won this championship? Do we have a walled-garden problem here? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen at HD/Tea House and WP:AN&I, this is known issue with wrestling related articles. Beyond that, I'm in the same place as you on the larger issue. Star Mississippi 21:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this version relies too heavily on primary sources, data bases and trivia mentions. One thing in common with the previous AfD is the issue over the title and whether or not it confers notability. I state that it does not as the win is not attracting substantive independent coverage. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage that meets WP:GNG, just lots of wrestling databases and some routine event coverage. Wrestling titles are irrelevant to notability since pro wrestlers are considered entertainers and not athletes for SNG purposes. Papaursa (talk) 14:41, 26 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 Canadian federal electoral districts#Alberta – 34 seats. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta federal electoral ridings[edit]

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

In contrast, we already have an article that succinctly explains the list of Alberta's federal electoral ridings, and that is List of Canadian federal electoral districts, and it's more generalized and focused on all of Canada's federal electoral districts without getting too lengthy and specific. I don't see why we need an Alberta-only article. Love of Corey (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect (or you should WP:PROD) Such an obviously unnecessary duplicate this shouldn't require discussion. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to post an AfD because the article has been edited as recently as late 2020, so I felt some people might be interested in keeping this. Love of Corey (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Canadian federal electoral districts#Alberta – 34 seats per WP:CONTENTFORK. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:36, 28 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Walter[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for notability since 2011. It has one unverifiable source. An online search did not reveal anything to support notability, all I was able to find were wikipedia mirrors. No indication that their work is in notable collections, was reviewed in RS's, nor in notable exhibitions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything on this subject. Vexations (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found absolutely nothing. Not even a mention. Zero. --- Possibly ☎ 02:26, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magal Security Systems[edit]

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

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

created 15 years ago. Not much of a page. Had a tag on it for almost 10 years MaskedSinger (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of those are rationales for deletion. What did your WP:BEFORE checks produce? St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of those references are from any reliable source. The references are from finance yahoo, PR news wire, and some magazines and blogs. None of those are acceptable as references and it does not meet WP:NCORP guidelines. Mommmyy (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article whose content and references fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. If there was coverage discussing this and other companies spun out of countries' military-industrial sectors, then the basic facts about this firm could find a place, but in the absence of that, I am not finding the necessary substantial coverage under the current or former names to demonstrate notability in its own right. AllyD (talk) 11:22, 28 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Schillinger[edit]

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

Schillinger worked in several comms posts for different congressmen and as an aide to the Bush administration press secretary Dana Perino. While researching her work before I don't recall finding much news coverage, so I'm hesitant the article meets our general guideline. Aranya (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 13:12, 20 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love For Our Elders[edit]

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

Trailed from the AFD of Brighten A Day, Love For Our Elders appears to be suffering from similar problem - lack of sustained coverage. Most of its coverage are concentrated in the year 2013 only. There are some sporadic coverage since then but nothing significant towards not considering as WP:NOTNEWS. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. I see that there are a few reliable sources to verify this. And the fact that coverage is 2013 should not diminish the notability - notability is not temporary. Lightburst (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The word "featured in ..." in the press section actually means, mentioned by, including articles with such titles as "31 Ways to Give Back This Holiday..." or ". "50 Ways to Have as Much Fun as ever" or "Five ways your small business can..." Any more substantial coverage is tabloid or promotional , though it's hard to tell promotional from real in this sort of subject. We all immediately recognize an attempted adverisement for a businees; it takes a little detachment to do it for a charity--which is why most of our articles on charities--even notable charities-- are not quite NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC) .[reply]
On balance, Keep. We do seem to have enough coverage for notability, I think. I do think this is a borderline case, but we aren't limited by physical paper, so I'm inclined to retain this. RomanSpa (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:ORG indicates significant coverage is necessary, which the organization seems to have. There seems to be other in-depth coverage available online like this one from AJC or this one from NextAvenue (which I just found with a simple Google search) which is significant. Jollzar450 (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~ Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. Probably a project this cm kid did to get into college. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Lots of mentions do not add up to actual coverage. TJRC (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With due consideration, Keep. Albeit not the Oprah mention, sig coverage spans 2016-now, meets WP:SUSTAINED. Can't find any coverage from 2013 so I'm uncertain if Mamushir diligently researched before nominating or read past admin's prior deletion discussion on notability. Result was keep. Looks like org has increased in notability since then. Mayamarks (talk) 21:31, 26 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 14:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Cramer[edit]

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

The subject is described as a serial entrepreneur, but he hasn't founded anything other than Love For Our Elders, which is nominated by me for deletion. Nothing significant is found to be done by him nor the coverage are sufficient to consider him notable. The subject's notability is highly if not completely dependent on Love For Our Elders. Doesn't qualify WP:BLP as notability isn't inherited. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete as Mamushir suggested. Technically a series of length 1 is still a series. But let let him increase the length of his series of organizations, then build a page. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Roman Spa said, both myself and user DGG misread social as serial, perhaps due to priming. But still, although this is a nice young man with good intentions, he is far from notable. By the way the article on priming that I mentioned is mostly incorrect, so please see a better source on that topic, if interested. Ode+Joy (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if Love for our elders were notable , he's still not notable . Serial in serial entrepreneur means >1, as in serial murderer. I think using it for 2 would be a stretch, but I doubt there's a fixed boundary. And "serial entrepreneur" in the lede is the sort of description that makes me immediately think of whether to use AfD or G11 for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Does the misreading change your vote? Ode+Joy (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, not yet notable in anycase. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable secondary, independent sources on him, like the profiling in Kveller, the HARRY show, E! News, etc. are enough for notability to pass WP:GNG. Social entrepreneur is different than serial, and he is the former. Fairly easy to find other significant sources, like Good Day LA and CNN, and absence on the page doesn't detract from notability. Jollzar450 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that this nomination is based on a misreading: the person in question is described not as a 'serial' entrepreneur, but as a 'social' entrepreneur. RomanSpa (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course. But does not change the outcome. Thanks.Ode+Joy (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Seems fairly promotional. KidAd • SPEAK 15:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletedoes not have sustained publicity. WP:SUSTAINED --Rrmmll22 (talk) 00:42, 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 redirect to Glossary of medicine#Atony.—S Marshall T/C 13:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was discussed at an AfD 5 years ago, but I think it's time to revisit that discussion. After looking for sources I don't think it'll be possible to expand this beyond a dictionary definition. There are plenty of sources for uterine atony and some for gastrointestinal atony but none for atony as a topic in its own right. Happy to be shown otherwise. Ajpolino (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder, Srleffler, and Tom (LT): pinging participants in the former AfD. Also as a small correction the past AfD was now 6 years ago. How is it already late 2021? Ajpolino (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep There's no need for another discussion because AFD is not cleanup. This is clearly a significant medical matter and, as it affects a variety of organs in a notable way, it's a reasonable general topic per WP:BROAD. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding just to say as best I can tell the general topic is hypotonia. I don't think writing a broad encyclopedia article on atony would be possible. There just aren't any sources, since the medical establishment doesn't seem to consider it a phenomenon in its own right. Ajpolino (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hypotonia affects the entire body whereas atony commonly refers to a particular organ such as the bladder. Medicine is complex and so there is naturally much to say and explain. The encyclopedia is not improved by arbitrary excision of small pieces purely because they are small. That would be mutilation. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Andrew's reasoning, and in addition, atony is indeed a medical condition that exists in its own right, thereby passing WP:NOTE, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, and WP:CAT. I added one quick source to the original page, but I'm sure there are others in the medical literature. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, I don't think atony is a medical condition in its own right. Or at least I can't find any sources discussing it as such. Can you? If someone had a condition where their muscles had no strength (as the dictionary you linked suggests) we would call that Flaccid paralysis. The more general phenomenon is Hypotonia. Atony isn't really a thing to describe. It's just a word that means "without tone". Ajpolino (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is my first preference as this is a just a dictionary definition. Convert to a set index /disambig page would be my next preference that can link to Ajpolino's suggestions. Tom (LT) (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab or set index page since that's what it basically is: dictionary definition followed by a list of applicable topics (Hypotonia, Muscle weakness, list of organic atonies). I concur that this is never going to become an encyclopedic topic. No such user (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article can be expanded in the future, deletion is not the right decision. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's an idea, Andrew Davidson brought my attention to Glossary of medicine at another AfD. Perhaps merging this into Glossary of medicine would be a better outcome? For the folks who have suggested this could instead be expanded into a freestanding article, can you find any sources that consider "Atony" a topic in its own right (i.e. they're not just using it as a word to describe uterine atony, gastrointestinal atony, et al.)? I'm not asking you to do my job for me; I've looked and I can't find anything. If no one else can turn up anything, maybe we should consider the glossary merge? Ajpolino (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I added it, though I did not merge any content. Redirecting there seems like a good idea. TompaDompa (talk) 13:59, 26 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) 🐱 14:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sikka (1989 film)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. || Orbit Wharf 11:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. || Orbit Wharf 11:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. || Orbit Wharf 11:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not a huge fan of Indian movies, but this one is cited among most famous comic roles of Kader Khan. The rest of the cast looks notable to me as well. There must be more Hindu sources available to prove its importance. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment "is cited among most famous comic roles of Kader Khan", notability is WP:NOTINHERITED (Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. ... Notability requires verifiable evidence.). Platonk (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wanted to note that there was a previous AFD for this subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikka (film) closed as "Delete" in August 2020 and a version of this article was just deleted in June 2021. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the three citations in the article contribute towards notability. They are all passing mentions in articles about one of the actors. There is no 'significant coverage' of the film shown in the WP article or its citations. Wikipedia should not be used as an IMDb mirror. Platonk (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and is an effective recreation of previously deleted content (following consensus) without any significant improvements. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no significant coverage of the subject in searches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:41, 26 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) 🐱 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Anne Rothschild[edit]

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

No notability beyond being one of the survivors of the Titanic, and apparently insisting that her dog be saved along with her. While it is an interesting tidbit, there are no reliable sources that establish any notability, and the subject does not pass WP:NBIO. AryKun (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since I've been unable to make out any other conceivable claim to notability she might have, and what's there is obviously not enough. Also no objections to turning this into a redirect to Passengers of the Titanic, which already has a bunch of relatively random passenger names redirect to it, but I'm honestly fine with leaving it to whatever opinion the closer has of WP:CHEAP. AngryHarpy‍^talk 10:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no verifiable sources to prove Wikipedia:Notability (people). 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 18:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiable sources certainly exist for every claim in the article. They might not be WP:SIGCOV, but we have no reason to suspect anything in the article is false or original research. pburka (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no evidence of notability.Mwinog2777 (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to her 1943 obituary in the New York Times, Pius XII gave her a Papal Distinguished Merit Cross in 1941 (presumably a Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice). That may be sufficient for WP:ANYBIO. pburka (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found references to two museum exhibits related to the dog: Titanic dogs (National Museums Liverpool) and Remembering the 12 dogs aboard the Titanic (Today, discussing an exhibit at Widener University Art Gallery, in Chester, Pennsylvania). Beccaynr (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that counts as in-depth coverage, as both mention her only in passing as the owner of the dog. In any case, these sources don't seem like enough to make an individual dog notable, let alone the owner of one of them. AryKun (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletedoes not meet WP:GNG--Rrmmll22 (talk) 00:47, 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 redirect to Serpent Society as an alternative to deletion. Content can be merged to a character list at a later point if desired. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coachwhip (character)[edit]

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

No non-primary sources present in article. A google search finds no significant coverage of the subject from reliable, independent sources. – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 05:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 05:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 05:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find a single piece of coverage on this character in reliable sources. It definitely should not be kept, and with no reliable sources at all, the character is too non-notable to be merged to a character list. Rorshacma (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be fine with a Redirect to Serpent Society per below, as she is already listed there. Rorshacma (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serpent Society. I can't find sources which would make this pass GNG. The character already has an entry on that article (which is the primary team affiliation for the character), and I feel that's a better target than the list of minor characters, which is a long, unwieldy list. Rhino131 (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:NPLOT and WP:IN-U, and the topic lacks sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per policy WP:ATD-M Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serpent Society, I don't see anything that should be merged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: C in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:27, 25 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. This is a marginal case, but essentially the arguments put forward by scope_screep and others clarify why writing a significant encyclopedia article about this subject is not possible. However, I am happy to userfy or draftily the content on request. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Dayton[edit]

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

Tenuous notability. scope_creep^Talk 00:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His work being an AML finalist and being on the 2011 YALSA Top Ten list is the "critical attention" per WP:AUTHOR that qualifies his page as notable. The Utah Museum of Contemporary Art had an event spotlighting his work in Making Faces. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.[reply]

The note to closing admin was not mine, but after looking it up this is very significant. @Rachel Helps (BYU): would you mind clarifying your COI here? The article creator Cstickel(byu) literally says on their user User:Cstickel(byu) page that you are (or is it were) their boss. --- Possibly

Hi, User:Possibly, yes, that is accurate. One of my student employees created the page. I'm fine with taking some of the information and making a separate book page, but I thought I would try to argue for it not being deleted. I hoped our institutional affiliations would be easy to see via our usernames and talk pages. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)☎ 02:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. IMHO that's just not enough, niche awards/recognition all for one comic. Arguably his comic may be notable, but he himself isn't, WP:TOOSOON perhaps. Sadly we don't have an entry for Green Monk to redirect his article there; I'd suggest closing this as, hmmm, rewrite into a Green Monk article, IFF there consensus the comic itself is notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This is a borderline case and I could be satisfied by the rewrite-into-Green Monk strategy, but I lean towards keeping the author article. The rest of his career may be less pinnacley but it provides context for the more notable stuff. Thmazing (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references aren't there to support an article, and idea of being nominated as against winning, has never held sway in the particular industry in the subject is in. You see it with bands and actors all the time, putting up nomininated, nominated and so on, but the industry itself doesn't give it relevance, and we shouldn't either. The Utah Museum event was a collaborative effort with six others, again showing he doesn't have enough standalone weight. He's had quite a long career, and you would expect something to immediately stand out, but it isn't there. It tenuous. It would be ideal, if the comic was notable, to get rid and rewrite. scope_creep^Talk 12:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the current sourcing is terrible: e.g. "Cali Claptrap: Integral Conversations (Podcast)". It is also a patchwork of being shortlisted for a minor award, or appearing in an obscure comics magazine, or the aforementioned Cali Calptrap podcast. We need real coverage to prove notability. I did a search and found nothing of note in news, books or web. As Scope Creep says, The references aren't there to support an article. --- Possibly ☎ 02:48, 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NuWave Communications[edit]

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

Does not appear to have any sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Very little significant coverage to begin with. ––FormalDude talk 03:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 03:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 03:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With all due respect, FormalDude, while the sources are thin, where -- other than channel magazines -- would one find news for SIP-trunking and telephony providers? I presume your main issue with this entry would be that one of the company execs logged in and significantly edited an existing article; however, there have been other contributors, and NuWave is known within the telecom industry (see this article about a large Australian telco rolling out a service, where NuWave Communications is named as an example of an established player and first-wave partner in said service, ^[1] sixth paragraph). I get it. Telephony/UC is really unsexy, but that doesn't mean telco trades aren't a legitimate source. Will we also be turfing Verizon? Deutsche Telekom? RingCentral? Obviously the exec who edited his own company's Wikipedia entry should have followed protocol and noted his COI, so I propose that he be contacted and asked to note his connection to the company. But let's not pretend legitimate telecom trade rags aren't real sources (again, no normal news outlet cares about SIP-trunking; that's too boring even for regular tech rags!). Mamakaze1 (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mamakaze1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

References

^ https://telecoms.com/511623/telstra-connects-business-users-directly-to-azure-and-teams/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: I concur with FormalDude. This doesn't meet WP:ORGIND. Also web search only return PR articles, this article doesn't meets notability criteria.Advait (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews reveals mainly PR articles or one line mentions. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 21 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) 🐱 14:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrea–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There isn't really anything to these relations except diplomatic recognition. No embassies, no trade, no significant migration. The article refers to a travel warning to Eritrea... but Eritrea is labelled a dangerous country to travel to by numerous countries. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable in the absence of even the minimal diplomacy of embassies. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - topic appears to have failed to achieve WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:16, 27 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi (TV series)[edit]

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

Can't find anything of substance about it online. The series doesn't even appear in any of the actor's Wikipedia articles (except 1, where its uncited). Honestly not even sure its a real series. Aza24 (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or expand significantly with sources if any are found. Per the rules at WP:TVSHOW, if a show was broadcast on a national or regional network to a widespread audience, then it is notable. However I can find no sources on the existence of this show, nor any sources on the supposed award nomination. (That year's winners are easily found online.) Sources on these matters are sorely needed. Otherwise, removing the article from Wikipedia is no great loss because it tells us nothing except that the show possibly existed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:34, 20 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

42-01[edit]

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

No significant coverage. The band fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND and WP:SIGCOV. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 09:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, possibly eligible for CSD A7. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did a google search. Could not come up with anything. Fails WP:BAND. Boredathome101 (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has no references, which is a requirement for articles. Catfurball (talk) 17:13, 21 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. Withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Barker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A PROD was denied earlier without explanation, though a faculty page was added--well, that's not enough. NPROF says notability can come from a named chair at a major institution, but there is no doubt that any school in the Anglo world will claim to be major one way or another (shoutout to my homeboy who is a named chair at a university slightly less mediocre than mine), and there is nothing here to suggest the chair is notable--whoever Herbert S. Lamb was, he's not notable, and he's not even mentioned on Dalhousie University. Besides that, it's just another academic CV (written in precisely that style) that's been here for a decade, with no evidence that the person ever had an impact or published/researched something that was noticed by critics. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It doesn't matter whether the namesake of a named chair is notable. The reason holding such a position qualifies for NPROF C5 is because it demonstrates the university has deemed the recipient highly distinguished among his peers. Whether this reliably corresponds to externally-recognized academic prestige is a matter of discussion for the NPROF talk page, but the guideline as it currently stands indicates he is notable enough for a biography. JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And Dalhousie is definitely a "major university"--in fact, any one of these criteria would probably qualify it: in the top 20 research universities in Canada (and a member of the U15), 200 years old, has almost 20k students, has a medical school. JoelleJay (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep the faith in the university system, JoelleJay, and how a charitable foundation can bestow a name on a "chair". Drmies (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said I agreed with the reasoning behind C5 (almost more math profs at my university hold named or distinguished professorships than assistant, associate, and full profs combined...) or what constitutes a "major university". I'm just saying that you are not going to get far in deleting an article on someone who explicitly meets an NPROF criterion (maybe even two, depending on the prestige of his chief editorship). JoelleJay (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 and more. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I have the impression that business schools in particular have almost as many named chairs as law schools, out of proportion to the distinction of some of their holders, but in this case he also has heavily cited papers and an editor-in-chief position at a journal notable enough to have an article here. Unless we're going to deny the whole premise of having a separate notability criterion for professors, he easily passes multiple criteria. And the nomination statement more than hints at snobbiness rather than at being grounded in policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly passes WP:PROF #5 as holder of a named chair at a major university (which Dalhousie obviously is), whether you disagree with the criterion or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 20 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 1890 Buffalo Bisons season. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis (baseball)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Much like Jones (third baseman) and that AFD, this article fails WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV of him. There are few mentions outside of baseball statistical sites. All coverage from newspapers is routine. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, he does not seem to be discussed in an old 1980s copy of the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract I have lying around. Hog Farm _Talk 02:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~Especially with their comment of "Let the shitshow begin", I'm pretty sure the nominator is just trying to stir the pot with this nomination.~~ That said, while the subject does pass WP:NBASEBALL having played in the Players' League, the subject only appeared for 3 innings in a single game, which definitely skirts by the guideline. The article's successful FA nomination page may be of value to some participants. Curbon7 (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: I have removed that comment, that was in poor taste. What I was referring to was nominating something that's a featured article for deletion would cause some heads to explode. That's it. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.. since it's a featured article and in pretty good shape there is no reason to delete this.. Nominator is clearly trying to make some sort of point with this nomination. Spanneraol (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spanneraol: What is your policy reason how this passes WP:SIGCOV or the GNG? "Featured article" isn't a great reason to keep. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is well written and covers the subject in significant fashion. Passed NSPORTS and GNG. By the way, editing your own comments from your nomination after others have commented on them is bad form. Spanneraol (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I find it difficult to see any argument for passing GNG. There’s no significant coverage - all the references are in passing. And why wouldn’t they be? 3 innings in his sole career game - never heard of before or since!! (And in a league that lasted one season) This has got to be the definition of obscurity. It’s not a bio. It’s an article about an obscure occurrence over a few hours on July 12, 1890 and nothing is known about Lewis except for those few hours. I first noticed this article when it was on the main page and I noticed I couldn’t tell why it was notable, or even what it was really about, from the lead. I opened up a thread on the talk page (Talk:Lewis (baseball)#The Lead) and proposed, as best I could, an amendment to try to rectify this, which I implemented. As can be seen from that thread there’s some bafflement from editors about it’s notability. As an aside, I really don’t know how it got to be an FA, especially with the lead as it originally was. There’s plenty of problems with the article still (eg Background section). It’s an obscure topic written obscurely. DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season per Qwaiiplayer. That seems to be the appropriate home for it. DeCausa (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article per Spanneraol and close the case which is a poor advert for the AFD process. I think a sysop should consider the nominator's conduct. I would have no objection to a fresh nomination providing it is presented objectively, in the normal way, by an editor who respects the process. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season. After some deliberation and research, I think this topic is better covered in the article about the sports team rather than the person. While there's plenty of routine coverage about the game where Lewis gave up 20 earned runs, there's nothing about the player himself other than that he was born in Brooklyn and was a bad pitcher. There's also shockingly little non-routine (i.e. after June 1890) coverage of the game outside of blogs and databases. He has a brief mention in Connie Mack and the Early Years of Baseball (2007), but I couldn't verify how much was in The Players League: History, Clubs, Ballplayers and Statistics (2014) or Brooklyn!: An Illustrated History (1996) (I might stop by a different library to check before this AfD closes). I was disappointed to not find any mention whatsoever in The seasons of Buffalo baseball 1857-2020 (2020), even in the section on the 1890 Player's League Bisons. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that WP:NBASEBALL still requires subjects to meet GNG, and I cannot find enough significant, non-routine coverage on this player to justify a stand alone article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction with your last sentence; it's not that the criteria also needs WP:GNG to be met (as that would make SNGs redundant), it's that SNGs give the presumption of notability, but if a subject barely passes an SNG by playing just a few innings a single game, then we cannot presume that sources exist. Curbon7 (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwaiiplayer: I'd be interested to see if you can turn up anything. I can tell you as the person who wrote this article that there is no mention of Lewis as far as I know in Brooklyn!: An Illustrated History (that I believe was used to reference that the park was in Brooklyn). I remember he has a mention in The Great Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Major League Baseball, p. 977, but that is not part of the preview. He is mentioned with a biography in The Players League: History, Clubs, Ballplayers and Statistics too (that included some speculation on why he wasn't named). Those are two biographies. I wish he had more sources covering him, I really do. But it is what it is, I guess. So far no one of the "merges" has really dug deep into the sources except you, will these additional resources change your mind? Therapyisgood (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Addendum: He is also mentioned in The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball Biographies of 1,084 Players, Owners, Managers and Umpires on page 53, but that is also by same author as The Great Encyclopedia. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Therapyisgood: I'll see if I (or another editor) can look into the sources you suggested. Personally I would like to preserve this article as it's a fascinating piece of baseball trivia, but without significant coverage I can't find a policy justification for it. As others have said, this is a borderline case either way so a few sources can definitely change my mind. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season. Not only Lewis's "exploits", but also the background section would benefit the season article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a spurious, trollish nomination (removing snide comments about shitshows doesn't take them back). I've discussed before the question of borderline notable articles that have passed quality assessment processes, and I don't consider this article to be one of the edge cases that are inappropriate for inclusion at any status. This article is an unusual example of the borderlands of SNGs -- there are a few others, but not many quite as striking for the sports SNGs specifically. It ultimately clusters with other articles that have managed to find enough about a subject to write on it at decent length in contextually reasonable depth, which by definition are articles on which there is enough to justify inclusion barring extenuating circumstances; the purpose, as I outlined at the Moments AfD, of notability guidelines is to say whether a subject probably has enough on it to justify a quality article, not an entirely orthogonal standard intended to admit and exclude capriciously. Vaticidalprophet 04:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season, lacks independent notability. Fram (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the editors who were put-off by the "shitshow" comment, I believe it can be excused: the same editor who spent hours of time to bring the article to FA status, then nominated it as a FAC & had it pass the review, is the same editor who nominated it for deletion a little over a year later & called it a "shitshow." Seems to be a self-deprecating comment rather than trolling. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the context. It contributed towards my comment, not away from it. Vaticidalprophet 07:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really know why the main writer of an FA would nominate it for deletion, but it would not improve the encyclopedia to redirect this to another article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:POINT and WP:DELAFD. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, I see only one WP:POINT violation in this discussion, and that is your !vote here. Fram (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am echoing and endorsing comments made by other editors above such as "Nominator is clearly trying to make some sort of point with this nomination. ... spurious, trollish nomination". My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spanneraol and others. Solid, well-written and well-sourced article, no reason to delete. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge If someone played a third of one game and no one bothered to even record his first name, there's inherently a lack of notability. Zero sources in the article are significant coverage about Lewis in particular, utterly failing GNG and any "presumption" from NSPORT, but are rather routine coverage of the game itself and database entries that make this a WP:REFBOMB. The concept that playing a single game means automatic notability – significant coverage be damned – is misguided and antithetical to encyclopedic standards. While playing in Major League Baseball today may give a presumption of coverage, it's intellectually lazy to equate that level of skill and experience to an amateur who stood in once in 1885, and NBASE is irrelevant. "Well-written" is not a reason to keep, when the content is about the procedings of a single game, not a person. "Well-sourced" is complete bollocks, when those sources are not remotely substantively about this person. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 1890 Buffalo Bisons season per WP:Preserve (it's still a FA and the current revision is valuable enough not to be thrown away). His only claim to notability is his bad performance, and that wouldn't be out of place in the merge target instead of here. Much of the article deals with the context and not Lewis himself, and much of what is actually said of the player relies on his database entry as its source. Non-routine significant coverage is thus lacking. Avilich (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lewis is a well-written, informative article of FA standard. The proposed merge target 1890 Buffalo Bisons season has multiple issues, the most serious being that it fails WP:V and is otherwise a collection of statistics that mean little if anything to people who are unfamiliar with baseball. As other editors above, including Pawnkingthree and Andrew, have said, this nomination is a WP:POINT challenged by WP:IAR and WP:DELAFD. And it is now proposed that Lewis is merged into something that should itself be brought to AFD for breach of policy. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have 2 questions for you. Where in policy is it established that the quality or otherwise of the writing in an article is relevant to its existence? While the WP:POINTiness of your tagging of 1890 Buffalo Bisons season is obvious, what is the POINT that the nominator is trying to make by starting this AfD? DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The now-deleted remark by the nominator was obviously a point of some kind that showed a complete lack of due respect for the AFD process and probably intended as an insult to anyone who might disagree with them by wishing to keep the article. Your question about policy is irrelevant. I should have said above that to suggest merger of an FA into an article with multiple issues is a breach of WP:COMMONSENSE, which must always be used in AFD cases. You apparently don't like me tagging the target article – is that because I am wrong about WP:V and WP:NOSTATS or is it just that you don't like it because it harms your merger argument? No Great Shaker (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply struck by the irony of your tagging. Even if I shared your view of that article I wouldn’t have tagged it having just opposed the merge and raised WP:POINT. But that’s just me. I’m still unclear why WP:POINT applied to the ~~nominative~~ nominator. I believe they said the “shitshow” reference was to the hostility they expected for nominating an FA. And in fact that’s what I assumed they meant before they explained it. I genuinely don’t understand why some people seem to think it’s something else. DeCausa (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No irony intended. It makes sense to check the suitability of the target article when a merger is proposed and this one has issues that needed to be tagged, so I tagged them in the same way as I would for any article I read. All editors have a responsibility, regardless of circumstances like an AFD, to try and improve content. If an article has issues, they must be raised and hopefully resolved. I don't know anything about baseball so I can't resolve those issues personally but at least I have raised awareness.

The "shitshow" reference did indeed anticipate opposition, perhaps even hostility, and I believe it was stated in an attempt to deter opposition as many editors who use AFD will shy away from a case if they expect abuse. As I said in my first comment, the case should have been closed because of the lack of due respect shown for the process with a blatant attempt to deter participation – equally, though, I did add that I would have no objection to a fresh proposal being raised by an editor who does respect the process. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, which I get (even if don’t agree with). But it’s not WP:POINT. DeCausa (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another possible merge target is List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names, where the subject is already listed. Avilich (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NBASEBALL and enough material for a featured article. Even if not kept, deletion is a ridiculous option given that there is an appropriate redirect or merge target in List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. Rlendog (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, do we have any precedent for deleting an article that had been Today's featured article? Rlendog (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlendog: - Yes. Tropical Storm Erick (2007) was merged, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Depression Ten (2005) is another merge (TFA 2018). PaX was TFA in 2004, was delisted at FAR in 2007, and deleted earlier this year. Tropical Storm Erick was never TFA, but it's not out of the question for FAs to be merged. Hog Farm _Talk 18:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NBASEBALL is a ridiculous point. Someone who played in Major League Baseball today, or even somewhat more recently than 1890, is a highly covered and paid professional who had the talent to work their way there through college and minor league playing, giving rise to there presumably being significant coverage available. This is some random walk-on in the early very days who threw for three innings, and the "presumption" of notability from NBASE is easily rebutted by the fact that not a single source here is significant coverage about the individual and his first name wasn't even recorded.Reywas92^Talk 17:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This article differs from Jones (third baseman) and others like it in that this player's performance was so poor that the newspapers of the day specifically commented on it beyond the usual reporting of statistics, provided at least some biographical information, and later sources mention that finding out more is likely (and mercifully) impossible. This is coverage beyond statistics provided out of sense of completionism, and is evidence of actual notability. So if anyone were to try to use the likely "keep" result here to try and bestow notability on all single-game-first-name-unknown players they would not succeed because it isn't the same thing at all. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"local boy" with no full name is a laughable amount of biographical information, sheesh. Reywas92^Talk 17:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season. Perhaps some dusty archives will be found one day that give us more information on this guy, but as is, this is basically a funny answer to a pub trivia game. A bad record itself isn't innately notable and I don't believe significant coverage is presented as needed in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge to the season article. I'd really like to see this kept, but it looks like the subject is largely unknown and isn't discussed in-depth anywhere, really. As an aside: The statement Lewis is not listed as having played in any other major or minor-league games in the article is kinda spurious, as even if he had played in other major or minor league games, the lack of a known identity would prevent the connection from ever being made Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge lack of significant coverage of the subject to meet GNG. FA criteria does not consider notability so that is not a reason to !vote "keep". (t · c) buidhe 03:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, though the research seems to have been maximal, this is a clear non-topic for an article per User:Reywas92. After all, the infobox header and categories are misleading as he did not spend a significant/noteworthy part of his life as a baseball player. The only defining characteristic among the categories is "Unidentified people"... However I'm undecided on which merge target. Geschichte (talk) 19:24, 27 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. ✗plicit 03:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Your Face (TV series)[edit]

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

Cannot verify the show ever existed. Unsourced since 2008, no IMDb entry. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I checked NewsBank as well as conducting Google searches, and found nothing about the subject. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:18, 26 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] ttps://telecoms.com/511623/telstra-connects-business-users-directly-to-azure-and-teams/

[1]