Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 20	October 22 >

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 23:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Ireland relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There has been no state visits, agreements, embassies nor significant migration. The level of trade is very low. The best interaction is ministers meeting at the side of a UN meeting. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no resident ambassadors nor substantial coverage of relations. Per WP:XY no possible redirect target. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–Ireland relations. And SIGCOV and NOTNEWS. (It seems that the article was created as part of a "completionist" goal to have articles covering Azerbaijan's relations with N countries. And all it seems to say is that "there are no reciprocal agreements, no resident ambassadors, no material trade (but some govt reps met once)". Absent reliable sources discussing the topic in depth, we are relying on fragmented and incidental passing-mentions to support the limited text that is in the article. In short: There are barely enough references to support the limited text - and none seeminly supporting notability.) Guliolopez (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough material to support an article. The previous AFD ended unanimously in delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:58, 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. ✗plicit 14:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Big Films[edit]

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

Passing mentions. Production houses don't become notable automatically by producing notable films. They should still fulfil WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the company name does get mentioned (for example "producers Suvin K Varkey and Prasobh Krishna of Little Big Films" [1]), this is brief coverage in relation to films in which they have been involved. My searches are not finding the substantial coverage of the company itself that is needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:51, 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 keep. Definitely no consensus to delete, and a merge to Wishram station looks like it would not have consensus due to WP:UNDUE, though the idea can still be discussed on article talk if people wish. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern 2507[edit]

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

This locomotive is not notable. I could not find any significant coverage of it in secondary sources to establish notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wishram station, its current resting place. Looks like someone went to a lot of effort for this, but I agree, absent any ongoing curation it's unlikely to pass WP:N, except maybe for the accident, but I don't know we have newspaper archives going back that far, and the sourcing is not entirely certain to touch on the locomotive in any meaningful way--the type of locomotive didn't affect the accident at all, per my reading of the article as it stands now. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the easiest thing to source, but I found newspaper articles that describe two notable incidents in the locomotive's life: its 1948 derailment (which injured two people) and its handover to Klickitat County in 1966 (which was attended by U.S. Representative Catherine Dean May, I have just discovered). Ackatsis (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've found a few more sources that mention the locomotive by number, and uploaded a free use image. I think this one is a keeper. Ackatsis (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficient history on this one to keep rather than merge to one of the two possible targets where a meaningful merge would result in WP:UNDUE. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wishram station. A "sufficient history" is not a valid reason to keep up an article that can be compressed and redirected. Sounder Bruce 23:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies GNG after Wikipedia:HEY. Agree, merge to one of the two possible targets would result in WP:UNDUE. Djflem (talk) 12:39, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Feliks[edit]

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

All I could find is this more complete bio. However, that doesn't show sufficient accomplishments to warrant an article, and it isn't a reliable source anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll try to find appropriate sources. I believe that person is notable. Just needs sources. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are quite a few sources in the Polish Wikipedia version, and there is an argument for an WP:NPOL pass as a member of the National Council for the Duchy of Cieszyn. Curbon7 (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As it stands, the article fails WP:V. I think a reasonable time – say, 14 days? – should be allowed for addition of reliable sources. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Slam dunk notable, having an entry in the Polish Biographical Dictionary: [2]. Other RS: PWN Encyklopedia [3]. And quite a few biographical sketches in Google Books. Sure, the article needs a source, being pretty much a substub, and sources are in Polish, but Google Translate is a thing and WP:AFDNOTACLEANUP. Which I don't say often, but, c'mon', WP:BEFORE clearly wasn't done here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:ANYBIO with the entry in the Polish biographical dictionary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I also read the Polish Bio Dict entry via Google Translate. It is clear that he was a leading figure supporting Polish identity in a part of Silesia that was incorporated in Czechoslovakia. Entry is a national bio dict is usually regarded as establishing WP notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per bio dictionary entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York Central 3001[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage of this specific locomotive exists in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. I can only find forums and other primary sources covering this locomotive. It does not justify a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nom. statement implies BEFORE not followed and existing article sources vaguewave dismissed and (The age of steam exhibit: Southwest Railroad Historical Society.; State Fair of Texas. , oclc=8092591) not found. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually looked at the sources, as I did, you'd see nearly all are railfan sites, online forums, or other self published sources which fail to establish notability. We have: 2 links to rrpicturearchives (SPS), a link to trainorders.com (SPS), a link to rgusrail (SPS), 2 links to texaspacific.org (another SPS), and the museum's own website (does not count towards notability), and finally, there is pocketsights.com, questionable at best. In conclusion, zero secondary sources to establish notability. Maybe do your own due diligence before accusing me of malpractice and blindly voting keep on everything I send to AfD.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings} I am clear enough of a lot of people's time have been wasted/disruptive by your recent nominations and the fact you'd not even found the book I have mentioned here, nor even bothered to mention that in your attacking response to discredit me means a sore spot may have been reached. I suggest the likely outcome will be that none of your current fives will end up deleted which would be a pretty poor statistics. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your problem is, or why you feel the need to target me and cast aspersions about me and call using a regular Wikipedia process "disruptive", but I suggest you cease doing so before I am forced to raise your conduct at ANI. You are the only one wanting to keep Rock Island 866 or Pennsylvania Railroad 4483. It seems to me that you are the one who has reached a sore spot, judging by your blind keep votes on everything I've nominated. One book is not enough to show that something meets notability guidelines, and you should know that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Feel free to raise at ANI. Be aware though my key point is I am monitoring Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts and you are dominating the AfD section. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficient information in the article specifically about this locomotive. It is too much to be merged into any article about the New York Central railroad, or a museum, or a manufacturer of the type of locomotive. It seems adequately sourced. Sure, it is more than I personally care to know about one given locomotive, but I am not a railroad fan and what matters for wikipedia is whether there is substantial coverage of the topic, and I think this meets the threshold. --Doncram (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how the sources in the article satisfy notability requirements. Based on my interpretation above, none of the article's sources count towards establishing notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. While bordering on fancruft, I think it just ducks in under the wire. I suggest keeping it for a while, and revisiting down the road to see if better sources can be found. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archives Wales[edit]

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

Non-notable website per WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: Sources were brought up in the first AfD, that I just noticed, but none of that was added to the article. SL93 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Chozheswarar Temple,Ilayangudi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. Lacks any sources at all and a google search found almost nothing. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This place exists at 9°37′41″N 78°37′36″E / 9.627922°N 78.626671°E / 9.627922; 78.626671. but could not find anything that makes it worthy of having an article. Such temples are in every street. Unsourced article about an insignificant temple. It lacks coverage. The article has been duplicated at Rajendra Choliswarar Temple,Ilayangudi. Both should be deleted.Venkat TL (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've tagged the article for a possible WP:COPYVIO problem. Narky Blert (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not finding any sources through Google (Books) or TWL, nor is there really anything worth keeping here (once the copyright is dealt with), even if a future editor were later to make a more substantial attempt to show that the topic meets WP:GNG. — Bilorv (talk) 21:50, 29 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 snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azizul Hakim Ashik[edit]

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

Article on a YouTuber, singer, DJ, journalist and businessperson that fails WP:BASIC, WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSICBIO. Vanity article on another 'Jack of all trades' aiming to use Wikipedia solely as a platform for promotion. Sources cited are not WP:RS and fail to address the subject in an appropriate level of depth. A search in his native language comes up with absolutely nothing suitable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO as well. Lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falis per nom. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to really discuss here. Needs to be gone. - Nemov (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all this above. Could probably have been done speedily. Politanvm ^talk 20:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatantly self-promotional and not notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cited sources are not reliable and this article lacks news/media coverage, won't pass notability guideline. Mommmyy (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given your rationale, I assume you meant to !vote to delete? --Kinu ^t/_c 06:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC) Mommmyy – adding ping, they may not notice otherwise. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all above. This should be WP:SNOWBALLed and deleted at this point. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and the above delete voter.Brayan ocaner (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too promotional to being with. Azuredivay (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:17, 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 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) 🐱 09:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McLean Greaves[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and entrepreneur, not properly sourced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear our inclusion standards for writers or businesspeople. This was created in draftspace and then moved to mainspace by its own creator without a proper WP:AFC review, but after reviewing the sources I'm not convinced that there's much point in redraftifying it.
The notability claim here is that he founded a website in the 1990s, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself in the absence of a properly demonstrated WP:GNG pass -- but the three best sources here all appear to establish the notability of the website much more strongly than they establish the notability of the person who launched the website, while the other five footnotes are not really support for notability at all: content on the self-published websites of his own former employers, a WordPress blog, a very short blurb that just briefly namechecks his existence in the process of also being fundamentally about the website, and a Q&A interview in which he's the person doing the talking rather than the subject being talked about. And even when the creator moved the page, they did so with an "I wish there were more sources about this person" comment in the edit summary -- but if this is the best they could do, then it's not enough, and bypassing AFC isn't appropriate Wikipedia process regardless.
So no prejudice against somebody starting an article about Cafe los Negroes if desired, but the sourcing here isn't solid enough to establish that McLean Greaves is independently notable enough for his own biographical article separately from being mentioned in an article about the website. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Middleton[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria as she has no fights in a top tier promotion. Also fails WP:GNG as her fight coverage is mainly through routine sports report. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under the top tier promotions and fails GNG for fight info is merely routine reports. Cassiopeia talk 00:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA and she was never close to being ranked in the world top 10. All of the coverage is routine sports reporting so WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not passed WP:NMMA. AriaTess (talk) 08:49, 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. After discounting the input by Mil Mi-888 (blocked for socking) and Username006 (no policy-based argument), consensus is clear. Sandstein 10:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra West Airlines Flight 887[edit]

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

Tragic but cargo plane crashes are very common and not usually notable. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Accidents happen; something unusual has to be present to warrant an article, and this one doesn't have it. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt appear to have any noteworthy features that would meet the requirements for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,Command

I think it's enough news already talked about this tragedy, when you search Falcon crash or Cargo crash. LIKE these news report. WRDW

And also aircraft totally destroyed and all occupants passed away, is not very common. Mil Mi-888 (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As seen above, it seems to be having several sources so it already has significant coverage. However, incidents are rather uncommon to see this. Not sure if it does or does not break the barrier for a notable article. Definetely not common but also not rare either. KlientNo.1 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Average Keep Looks Like this accident have some enough news, and seems like a few news talk about other falcon 20 problem.

~~And per above, seems like the accident not common, but also not rare, maybe can keep for some times.Nikolai Bochkareav (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)~~ — Nikolai Bochkareav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. struck sock vote Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources added are just WP:ROUTINE coverage that don't meet WP:NEVENT. Subject fails WP:NOTNEWS. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such a tragic incident with such coverage should be kept. This is not a private Cessna 152 which crashes into a forest. This is a twin-jet cargo aircraft gets broken apart with no survivors and with significant coverage so on. However, this article does need more information than what is provided. Username006 (talk) 16:03, 29 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) 18:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates by secondary school affiliation[edit]

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

This is a massive collection of original research that fails our notability requirements for lists. None of the sources treat this list as a group. Instead, they all discuss individual Nobel laurates or the universities that produced a few of them. That violates our policies regarding synthesis. Furthermore, I see no reason to keep this after the university lists were deleted. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also, this is an obvious WP:NOTDIRECTORY cross-categorisation of two entirely unrelated characteristics (high schools are entirely and completely irrelevant, since they are not the place where anything related to the Nobel was conducted) - unlike even the universities, which might in some cases actually be relevant as the location of the research which led to a Nobel... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN – see NY Post or BBC, for example. The data is simpler than that for universities because we're just considering alumni, rather than faculty too. And the university case is far from settled... Andrew🐉(talk) 16:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At best, your sources show this should be discussed on the pages of the individual high schools (and WP:NOPAGE would also suggest that if there is some content only about the few top achievers, this is something better discussed on the page of the top achievers). They additionally do not show that a grouping of high schools by number of Nobel laureates is notable, since they only cover individual elements of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Post is not a reliable source. The BBC is generally reliable, but that story looks like a pretty superficial fluff piece. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have been a weak keep on the university list, but this is much more of a stretch. University affiliation at least may have the relevance of being where they conducted research or worked when awarded, but high school is never connected to the award and this is not a notable cross-categorization. Reywas92^Talk 19:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree one hundred per cent with User:Reywas92. YTKJ (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep per WP:LISTN. The list is focussed and verifiable.
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.
Lightburst (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lists or articles which fail WP:NOT are also routinely deleted, whether they pass notability or not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much more than the recently-deleted list by university affiliation, this is a total pile of WP:SYNTH, a combination of two unrelated characteristics one of which isn't even defining and is frequently unavailable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above, particularly those by RandomCanadian and David Eppstein. There might arguably be less ambiguity with deciding what secondary school a laureate was "affiliated" with than there is when it comes to universities/employers, but there's also much less indication that the connection is significant. If there's a fan wiki for the Nobel Prize, this would go there; it doesn't fit here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing LISTN. There is the occasional article about outliers such as the Bronx High School of Science, but no lists per se. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:LISTN and coverage given above is just trivia and not extensive or serious coverage. Again the list doesn't do what it says on the tin. This is a list of high schools by number of affiliated Nobel laureates (am I the only one who is frustrated by this?). When will this Nobel listcruft end? List of Nobel laureates by brand of diapers used? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this clearly fails WP:LISTN. What high schools someone goes to has almost nothing to do with them being Nobel laureate. It's not like the high school the person attended can't be mentioned in the individual laureates articles either without the list. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and @RandomCanadian The list obviously fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR, as nothing like this list actually exists in the real world. It's just a WP:DIRECTORY of WP:TRIVIA cobbled together from a cross-categorization of two entirely unrelated characteristics (high school attendance and Nobel Prizes) via WP:SYNTH. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails LISTN - discussion in the New York City press of "which New York City high schools have the most Nobel-winning alumni" is insufficient. The fact that the lede needs to caveat it is "very incomplete" and "highly biased" is a sign there are severe problems with the list as-is, and there's no sign of sourcing to fix it (What high school in Germany has produced the most Nobel winners? Maybe there's coverage in German, but I find nothing in English). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some Gymnasium (school)s need to be added.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:SYNTH and a number of the refs don't even verify what the article claims they verify. OCNative (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NOR and NOTDIRECTORY, there's no direct relation between the award and the high school, as RandomCanadian and Reywas92 have pointed out Avilich (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article takes a poor idea and performs it badly. Not encyclopedic content. --Lockley (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn’t appear to satisfy WP:LISTN, not to mention this is a directory of WP:TRIVIA, arguably SYNTH. Universities would be marginally better, but I just don’t see a place for this on Wikipedia based on policy. Krillzyx (talk) 22:57, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hripsime Yelinyan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No evidence of notability. Only "references" were to the subject's own social media pages, which aren't actually references. Technically this is a WP:BLPPROD situation, but because a standard PROD was applied and subsequently removed, I'm sending it here. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Don't pass WP:N, WP:BARE or any other notability criteria. Only one non-reliable source. Also, doesn't meet WP:BLP. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 22:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I felt pleased to have found and linked her Armenian wiki page ... until I found that its only sources appear to be Facebook. No evidence of notability. Her husband Grigor Danielyan doesn't look a lot more notable. PamD 13:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or REDIRECT to Grigor Danielyan: there is not even any news in Armenian publications when doing a search in Armenian version of her name. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I proposed deletion for the article earlier, but author removed it, also the current afd template is continuosly getting removed. The article has no reliable source. Onmyway22 (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear the user removing the AFD tag and who is also the creator is a COI, the user ID is a give away and similar to the husband's name Grigor Danielyan, which is also up for deletion, but I voted keep on that one. Webmaster862 (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no evidence of notablility when conducting searches. I'm watchlisting this discussion in case new sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:22, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlimE![edit]

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

Lack of notability: sole source is self-published. A merge to Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation would be a solution; I would have redirected it it was mentioned on the page, TheLongTone (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blye Me! This is not serious, delete per WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Except for the press release from EBU, none of the sources are self-published. This is an important initiative that is increasingly being adopted by broadcasters in other countries. Henrikdv (talk)
Keep looks like a legitimate kindness campaign. With RS to verify. Lightburst (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 14 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) 🐱 14:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there are enough reliable sources to show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 00:11, 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 redirect to Family tree of Spanish monarchs. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of Juan Carlos I of Spain[edit]

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

Whole article unsourced. Important things from this article can be merged to Juan Carlos I. Peter Ormond 💬 04:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages per the same reason:

We already have Family tree of Spanish monarchs. What is the point of having these articles? They should be merged to their respective subjects, and the ancestry tables and charts should be moved to Family tree of Spanish monarchs. Also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. See a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of Elizabeth II. Peter Ormond 💬 04:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have a problem in that the creator and main editor is no longer active. It would be interesting to read their rationale for creating them. As they are unsourced, they could be deleted out of hand for failing WP:V ~~but I think we should first consider renaming them as list articles~~. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per other comments, the subject-matter is adequately covered elsewhere. Please ignore my above thoughts about listing. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They both already have ancestry sections in their articles.2601:241:300:B610:28FA:2DD8:F7CF:4C44 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Keep one of these; certainly not both. Linear descents may be useful, but these do not provide as much detail as the full descent tables. I would suggest keeping the article on the present king, and making the article on his father a redirect to it. WP:V requires that information should be verifable, not that full references should be provided, which would be onerous in cases such as this. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:37, 14 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) 🐱 14:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Juan Carlos article. Trillfendi (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Family tree of Spanish monarchs, which is sufficient coverage of the topic. I have no policy objections to include Juan Carlos' ancestry in that article, but editorially I feel it's unnecessary. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all of these ancestry type articles, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 'Genealogy of the Spanish royal family' to 'Family tree of Spanish monarchs'. It's essentially a content fork of either that article or 'Ancestry of Felipe VI' and the title is a closer match to the family tree. DrKay (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Sacha[edit]

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

any notability is derivative from his company, caracare--which its itself a promotional article of doubtful encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 10:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is not a condensed resume, then what is? Blatant attempt at promotion. Ode+Joy (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at this more than eight times. Can't see how the subject is notable. scope_creep^Talk 20:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the previous AFD closed as "no consensus" just three months ago with triple the amount of participants, further participation would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this nomination is based on a misreading: the person in question has founded three companies not one. He has all the requirement of notability as needed in WP:GNG. There are good references that talk about him in details. Last time Sjakkalle remarked this thing when concluding the consensus discussion. Saniorita (talk) 16:05, 19 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) 🐱 14:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just to add something to this, rohlik.cz has an article on cswiki and is probably notable. No opinion on the notability of this guy. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:30, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PFP Energy[edit]

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

The sources show it existed, but not significant coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Almost all the sources in the article are either just mentions of their name, or about the energy crisis in general. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My source evaluation:

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]- all just say they folded and how many customers, not significant coverage about them
[9], [10]- about the UK energy crisis in general, PFP not even mentioned in the articles
[11], [12]- local sites, both same website, so is at most 1 decent source
[13], [14]- shows they exist, but these websites cover facts for all energy companies, so doesn't show any notability
[15] - primary source about British Gas takeover

In summary, there aren't any good sources that clearly demonstrate it passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Significant coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG are not available & It does not meets WP:NCORP guidelines. Mommmyy (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sudden collapses of this and other energy firms may eventually merit coverage, for example as a new topic under Office_of_Gas_and_Electricity_Markets#Development_of_competition_in_the_UK_market, but the phenomenon does not confer individual notability on each firm concerned. I am not seeing evidence that the firm attained notability in its own right. AllyD (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although there are some news coverage, none are in-depth and mostly mention the failure of the firm. Webmaster862 (talk) 01:12, 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 snow keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Tarleton State Texans football team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is heavily unsourced and has terrible formatting. A lot of info is missing from its tables and the article dosen't meet WP:NOTE. The team only made D1 in 2021 and just isn’t notable enough to make an entire article talking about one season. Also see WP:NSEASONS for more information on why it should be deleted. Perfecnot (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC) list of Sports-related deletion discussions,list of American football-related deletion discussions[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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: It overwhelmingly survived a deletion discussion in early 2020 with a consensus that FCS seasons are notable under GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets GNG with coverage such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep previous consensus is to keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Tarleton State Texans football team which provided an abundance of sources that just need to be put in the article. I see no reason to overturn that prior AFD in the nomination. I don't understand the nominator's comment about information missing from the tables because they seem filled to me. As to "terrible formatting" it looks standard for other college football seasons. It passed WP:GNG before, it passes WP:GNG now. Any concerns are editing issues and not deletion issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the first AfD, and the sources provided by BeanieFan11. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the season was played in Spring 2021 (because COVID), should the article be renamed? On keep v. delete, while the article needs work, there's enough demonstrated coverage (and precedent for similar articles) this is an easy keep. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability guidelines, per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tarleton State actually was a D1 team in 2020. It competed at the Division I FCS level and later moved up to FBS. Division I teams (both FCS and FBS) receive abundant WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources, and it has long been accepted that season articles are appropriate for such programs. The sources presented by BeanieFan just scratch the surface in showing that the article satisfies WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the article is not in great shape and hope someone will take the article under their wing to improve, but Paulmcdonald is correct that this is an editing issue rather than a deletion issue. Cbl62 (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Perez[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON as well. 4 out 8 sources are not independent (since all of them are from ABS-CBN) while the other 3 are unreliable sources (the MSN source is a duplicate of the Kami one). This leaves the Manila Bulletin source the only independent reliable source available. Unfortunately, Ion Perez isn't the main focus of this source. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again to It's Showtime. — Ctrlwiki (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to It's Showtime (Philippine TV program). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person.TheHotwiki (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of It's Showtime cast members, not the main Showtime article. 96.5.241.153 (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vice Ganda; has been in order productions aside from It's Showtime, but is primarily known as Vice Ganda's boyfriend. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Generally, nobody thinks that it should be kept, but there's no consensus regarding a specific redirect target. With no prejudice towards the final outcome (whether it be keep, merge, redirect, or delete), editors who are supporting a redirect are encouraged to discuss an optimal redirect location out of those proposed so as to try to come to a consensus for the target of the redirect proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 different suggested redirect targets above, but - as Mike points out - little to no rationale as to why any would be more appropriate than any other. So, I'm going to blatantly canvass Ctrlwiki, SeanJ 2007, 96.5.241.153, and Howard the Duck to ask if they would like to substantiate their suggestions... St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be redirected to It's Showtime because this is where he became famous, he was famous before he became Vice Ganda's boyfriend, more information about him is attached in the It's Showtime article than the List of It's Showtime cast members article. — Ctrlwiki (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This guy has also starred in movies(!) Direct-to-stream, but still are full-length feature movies. Now, if that makes for him to be notable on some SNG, that's fine, but if we're redirecting him, his main claim to notoriety is being Vice Ganda's boyfriend; in fact most WP:RS of him don't mention the TV show, but the fact that he is in a movie/production where his role is a heterosexual, and if Vice Ganda has something to say about that, not if him showing up for It's Showtime will be affected. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issue is not whether there are enough sources about this individual. A cursory search on Google News of "Ion Perez" reveals numerous independent (i.e. not affiliated with ABS-CBN) articles about him: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. So the pertinent question is: does he have any roles to meet the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. In my opinion, he does, but barely. I looked at his IMDB credits and he starred in a handful of movies as a prominent supporting cast member. By prominent, I mean he is usually credited as amongst the first few cast members. Along with his appearances on It's Showtime, I think that meets the requirement: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Koikefan (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further analysis on the sources indicated above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: because some of notable information about him is mentioned in the It's Showtime article. And as I said, he is already popular in It's Showtime before he became Vice Ganda's boyfriend, and there is no information about him that mentioned in Vice Ganda's article except for the information mentioning that he is Vice Ganda's boyfriend. Ctrlwiki (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ENT with sources presented by Koikefan. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist. There's still no clear redirect target, but there's not enough consensus to keep the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the source is reliabe and this person is already notable before he met Vice Ganda. What need of this article is to improve it more and Meets WP:ENT with sources presented by Koikefan. Nyanda Barasa (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Koikefan, enough sources to meet WP:GNG NemesisAT (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Koikefan. Ctrlwiki (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Koikefan. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are now easily enough sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:12, 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 no consensus. This discussion was instated by a sockpuppet, and another sockpuppet interfered with the discussion. Reviewing the comments, there is little argument strong enough for the article to be deleted, but nor are "keep" commenters particularly confident in their conclusions. As such, no consensus was achieved, and there is no prejudice against an editor in good standing nominating this for deletion in the future if they perform a proper WP:BEFORE (this is NPASR, but not a NOQUORUM close). (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhika Sharma[edit]

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

Sharma didn't act in any notable film in a significant role yet. The best role that she had was the supporting role in Paisa (2014 film). Fails to qualify as a notable actor following Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER. Di xiku 15:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STRIKESOCK – The Grid (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Di xiku 15:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Di xiku 15:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Di xiku 15:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep my Google search finds multiple sources focusing on her acting career.[22], [23], [24]. Passes WP:GNG.Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a lot of reference but most of them are not reliable source. Only Times of India, Tribune and National Herald are found to be a reliable source. 007sak (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant role yet - WP:TOOSOON.Advait (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:STRIKESOCK — Bilorv (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note for closing admin: It looks like this was proposed by a sock that was banned on the same day. Given the votes are not a quorum, this article could be kept with the action taken similar to an expired PROD. – The Grid (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Times of India, amongst several other newspapers now come in Yellow in the Afc, NPP script indicating they may be unreliable. The reason for this I think is the Paid news in India article which exposes the fact of these jounalists have been accepting payments to put a positive spin on the story. The whole industry is corrupt. Apart from that, she seems to be a bit part actor, who has been going for almost a decade and doesn't quality for WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 14:33, 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 merge to Metcalfe Robinson. Per Agricolae. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson baronets of Newby (1660)[edit]

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

I redirected this to Metcalfe Robinson, the first and only person ever to have this minor title, but this was objected against by the article creator, User:Charles Matthews, for reasons they can best explain. Both the article at AfD and the target are very short, and 99% of the info in the baronets article was already present in the target anyway. There seems to be no good argument to have two separate articles here, and as the baronetcy is an aspect of the person (and not the other way around), redirecting the title to the person is the logical solution. Fram (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The situation with baronets and baronetcies is, as far as I can see, all baronetcies are notable (they occur in many reference works), while not all baronets are notable. The general argument seems to be, in case the baronetcy has only one holder, that we can either have an article about the person (when notable), or the title: but not both.

While that argument would make my life easier (I'm starting to apply the set index principle to aggregated baronet articles, and there would be less work), I'm suspicious of it from the encyclopedia's point of view. At list of baronetcies, there is a comment, about some lists, "only the first is complete; the other five do not at the moment list all extinct baronetcies". Plenty of people work in this area, which has been popular here from early on. Yet basic listings are not there. Fram's argument "the baronetcy is an aspect of the person" goes against what is needed.

If people think this is a straightforward debate, they could have a look at Template:Infobox hereditary title in its full glory. The implicit assertion is the article could not be "fixed by normal editing" under WP:CONRED. Fram has rejected the idea of a merge discussion, which is how I assumed this matter would be dealt with. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would having this as a redirect instead of a separate article make any list either complete or incomplete? All baronetcies are listed in the list, but some point to a separate article, some to a redirect, some perhaps to sections of a larger article... Keeping an article instead of a redirect because otherwise some list is not complete is not a convincing argument at all. I fail to see how redirecting this makes the encyclopedia any worse, or has a negative impact on either an editor or a reader. On the contrary, it avoids unnecessary duplication. A merge discussion makes little sense without anything that needs merging. (By the way, that List of baronetcies has had 5 edits since 2013, when the text about the completeness of lists was already there[25]; whether it is even still correct is not clear, but how it would ever steer a discussion like this is hard to imagine). Fram (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

minimal Merge with the transfer of three items - 1) the name (and blue-link) of the nephew-successor; 2) the use of Cokayne as a source for information on the baronetcy (Cokayne is a superior source to Burke and should replace Burke wherever possible - minus the 'access-date' field, which is inappropriate for a published book); and 3) the Baronet infobox with the coat of arms and blazon to replace the image of the same coat of arms and blazon. The idea that we need to maintain duplicate articles just so that we will have an entry so named for some list of extinct baronetcies is letting the tail wag the dog. Agricolae (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to data handling, the data can be the horse rather than the cart. You're right about Cokayne, and his Complete Baronetage is on my very short list of things to get into Wikisource. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Prettier lists' is not a good rationale for having duplicate pages, whatever animal analogy you prefer. Agricolae (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Agricolae. Robinson is notable and, as the sole holder of a defunct and obscure title, there is little point in keeping the baronetcy as a separate article because of inevitable duplication. We need to ensure, as Agricolae has itemised, that the essential points in the baronetcy piece are transferred to Robinson. We certainly need a merge, thoroughly done, and not a simple redirect. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marquesses of Rippon. The normal solution for a title that died with its first holder is to redirect the title article to the one holder (as nom). In this case it is not the best solution as his nephew was also 1st baronet, which suggests a disambiguation page, but a page covering both creations would be better still. However the target page (1690 baronets is one that should be redirected to my target, being the higher title held by subsequent baronets. This is not an inappropriate solution as the family estates of the 1660 baronet were left to his nephew the 1690 1st baronet. We frequently do this where the holders of successive or rival titles were wholly unrelated, e.g. Dukes of York, Marquesses of Bristol. I thus see no objection here. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept this argument had the proposed target been a single page dedicated to a generic Robertson of Newby baronetages that would cover both creations, but that is not what the proposed target is. There is no continuity between the 1660 creation and the Marqueses so a merge between the two seems artificial. (Even if one inherited the land of the other, we don't generally merge 'title' pages based solely on successive property ownership, only successive title ownership.) Agricolae (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Charles Matthews has split the former article Robinson baronets into separate articles for each baronetcy with that name. But that is not usually how we handle articles on baronetcies. See Category:Baronetcies in the Baronetage of England and Category:Baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom. Usually we group all baronetcies of a single name together. Since this was apparently done without discussion, the former article should be restored. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems some of our listmakers want individual entries for each grant. Looks like a broader discussion on how to handle synonymous baronetages is in order, but that is for another venue. At least two of the three changes I thought should be preformed in a 'minimal merge' are necessary improvements to Metcalfe Robinson anyhow: the heir should be explicitly named and linked, and Cokayne should be used instead of Burke wherever possible, and it wouldn't hurt to substitute the Baronetage infobox too. Thus, I don't see that restoration of this collective title page and 'minimal merge' of the current page to Metcalfe Robinson need be viewed as mutually exclusive (or to put it another way, we don't really have to resolve the larger question of synonymous Baronetages to close this AfD because the same content under discussion should be placed on the target page either way). Agricolae (talk) 14:34, 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suture (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND Onmyway22 (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onmyway22 (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This music group meets Wikipedia's notability criteria according to WP: Band. I added more references to make this clear. JamieT83 (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aside from discogs, a well-sourced stub/short article about an important musical movement, and two of the principals. I considered a redirect to Kathleen Hanna, but, again, the article is too reliably sourced--and well written--for that, as well as being unfair to Cheslow. There are also mentions in books by Dave Thompson, The Wire, Riot Grrrl Revolution Girl Style Now!, and possibly Girls to the Front and The Riot Grrrl Collection. This may end up being more a referendum on the value of short, reliably sourced articles. (edit conflict) Caro7200 (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Caro7200 I just added two of the books you mentioned. Thank you. JamieT83 (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to riot grrrl on the basis of how little Suture published. The reliable sources, which are fine, ensures that the information should be included in Wikipedia, but not automatically in its own article. Geschichte (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree on the value of short, reliably sourced articles. JamieT83 (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage to establish the significance of this group. --Michig (talk) 11:16, 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 redirect to Harikumar (director). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Udhyanapalakan[edit]

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

This page has been previously deleted by PROD for being non-notable. Like the PROD nominator, I can't find coverage of the film that would cover WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. I therefore propose that the article be deleted as non-notable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mammootty. The Actor is notable but the movie is clearly non-notable and there is lack of reliable sources.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harikumar (director). Typically non notable films are redirected to their notable directors rather than their notable lead actors. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Harikumar (director). DMySon (talk) 02:28, 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 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 14:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Vaish Federation[edit]

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

Lack of detailed coverage to justify notable organization criteria. Venkat TL (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to vaishya. Geschichte (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 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. This was a difficult AfD to parse through. On the surface, there are significantly more delete votes than keep votes (I count about 24 delete and 16 keep). There was some obvious rampant socking and votes by SPAs, and it seems like the majority of those voters were voting to keep the article. This was a very widely attended AfD, and the delete voters had a significant numerical advantage.

When we get down to the major policy arguments on both sides, the delete voters are mainly arguing that the subject of the article is an unremarkable government worker who is clearly not a public figure, the subject lacks significant coverage required by WP:GNG, and that the coverage that this individual has received is mostly surrounding a single event, which would invalidate his eligibility for an article per WP:BLP1E. The keep voters are primarily countering that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and that the subject has actually been a notable player in multiple notable events spanning a decade.

Reviewing these arguments, it is difficult to accept the argument that the subject has not received significant coverage. At least a few articles that were presented in this discussion demonstrate clear significant coverage. So, that only leaves us to determine whether BLP1E applies. The vast majority of sources in the article focus on the recent event that began in late 2020. While keep voters point to a few remaining sources from prior to 2020, several editors convincingly argue that these sources have reliability issues, and/or do not cover the subject in a significant way, and/or do not describe particularly notable events beyond everyday news stories.

While this is a borderline case, I believe there is sufficient consensus to delete the article primarily due to WP:BLP1E. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Wankhede[edit]

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

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

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

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

Officer covered for updates related to WP:1EVENT of alleged crime done by others. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There numerous officers part of UPSC and come to limelight only when celebrities are involved. User:Vinodmahalingam 16:57, 5 May 2024 UTC [refresh], 16:57, Sunday, May 5, 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Not a notable one. For such, there will be floods of IRC/IAS officers in Wikipedia. User:Arunudoy 07:03, 27 October 2021 (IST)

Keep I disagree that the officer just covered for WP:1EVENT, in the article the other events where the officer led the investigations are mentioned, same can also be found over the internet. Disclosure: I created the article but am not related to subject in any ways.Advait (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment creator User:Advait.kansal and his sock participating here have been blocked. Venkat TL (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this opinion. This page existed before the controversy; the subject was already a notable person with moderate amount of media coverage, especially with the actor Sushant Singh Rajput's case. To say they are known for WP:1EVENT is disingenious. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 16:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In addition to the references mentioned in the article, Times of India, has published an articles of some of his previous cases from 2011 onwards. https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/not-just-aryan-khan-shah-rukh-khan-these-bollywood-celebs-have-also-faced-sameer-wankhede-in-the-past/photostory/87310095.cms

~~Please note this article or content is currently not in the article. Advait (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Found some other cases where the officer made news. Added the news reference as well News18 hence WP:1EVENT won't stand Jehowahyereh (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is not known for these events. Though he received some coverage in the reporting of the recent event while acting as a spokesman for the reporters. The older incident is even more trivial. The detailed coverage requirement does not allow passing mentions. Venkat TL (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disruptive nomination. The subject got significant coverage before this year as well.[26][27][28] Mukt (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLP1E as the subject is an IRS officer of a city unit who got attention only during an ongoing drug investigation. 4 out of the present 7 sources talks about the drug case where 2 sources are from WP:TOI and WP:REPUBLICTV. I find the other coverage as only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. - SUN EYE 1 10:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Both sources from TOI and REPUBLIC are now replaced with better sources. Eevee01^(talk) 08:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is sufficient coverage in national media on the subject. He is the Zonal Director for Mumbai in NCB which has 13 zones. He was awarded by Home Ministry for Outstanding Investigation for the year 2021. Some article about him 1, 2, 3. Hence it is not WP:1EVENT.Vinod2608 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That award was given to 152 cops this year. So it is not a significant award. Would need to be given Padma award to be called a significant award. Venkat TL (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Some ocassional media coverages don't qualify someone as notable. TrendSPLEND^✉ 07:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not occasional if the coverage is happening for more than 2 years. 106.214.126.2 (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is definitely notable because of the great work he is doing and the threats he is receiving as a result. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. As of now, significant coverage can be easily found. PangolinPedia 14:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PangolinPedia (talk • contribs)
Comment Read all the discussions. Sameer is highlighted just because of superstar's son. Period. PangolinPedia (talk) PangolinPedia 14:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable and not enough WP:SIGCOV Equine-man (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E; no WP:SIGCOV beyond recent news. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; ample amount of media coverage and he is not a single event case. -Hatchens (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are enough to justify the notability of the subject. Notable for multiple events. Passes WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has already attracted significant coverage in reliable sources for years. 106.214.126.2 (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I asked the following question on the article's talk page which no one has answered yet: Genuine question, what makes this person so notable compared to others in the same type of job all around the world? He has led some investigations I see, so have 100's of others in his same position. Explain WHAT makes him different to others doing the same job as himself around the world. Equine-man (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very good question. This person has not done anything extraordinary to deserve an article. The case of this drug agency raid centered around few grams of weed is only getting coverage as an Indian film superstar's son is involved. All the characters in this incident have received some form of case dependent coverage. Remove the Superstar and no one will want to hear about these characters. This criminal case dependent coverage of the characters neither counts for GNG nor for WP:1EVENT. There is no way this article is going to pass WP:SUSTAINED This article is a fit case for deletion and should be deleted. Venkat TL (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than an 'official' of an agency, he has drawn significant news media coverage regarding his biography. Clearly, a Wikipedia-worthy person. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sameer Wankhede (full name Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede) is not a notable person. As per IRS Civil List, he is just a B. A. (History Hons.) and his rank is currently at Additional Director level which is not even the highest rank in the service or even Joint Secretary level in GOI. Just because he is a member of Indian Revenue Service is not a condition of notability. (BLP violation removed) Also, the total members in IRS are 4192 (Income Tax) and 5583 (Customs and Indirect Taxes). There are lots of raids every day happening in the world and not every constable and upper officer can have a Wikipedia encylopedia article. This article must be deleted and out. - Thanks, KU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.46.29 (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E; no WP:SIGCOV beyond recent kerfuffle. I caution the (would-be) closer to evaluate age of the participant accounts - this discussion is being canvassed. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - THIS IS NOT VOTE Whilst, I have voted for Keep but I agree with you that there appears to be some canvassing. This is drawing unusual attention in the article page, talk page and in this discussion. Some of the voters have only fewer edits. Advait (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note Advait.kansal is the article creator and this is his second vote on this page. Venkat TL (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL: I voted only on 21 October 2021. The above sentence is not my second vote - there I have just mentioned about the unusual canvassing activity - I agreed on canvassing part by a user who voted Delete.

~~Kindly re-read my sentence => Whilst, I have voted for Keep but I agree with you that there appears to be some canvassing. Advait (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
If you don't intend to vote multiple times or create an impression of voting multiple times, why are you bolding your words. Please read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Recommendations_and_outcomes. Venkat TL (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 'Comment - THIS IS NOT VOTE' tag and have made the text as normal. I only responded to that comment because I see a lot of users with few edits or IP users voting both / editing both ways. Advait (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.93.58 (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not independently notable. He has received coverage both now and in the past only because of investigating celebrities. See this news article. The majority of the coverage he received was because celebrities were involved. He has also investigated other cases, but they did not get this kind of coverage and probably are not notable. It is also to be noted that he himself was recently accused see this, this and this, so having an article on him might violate WP:BLP. Disclosure: I have edited the article in the past. Eevee01^(talk) 13:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not violated only because of the existence of a biographical article. It makes no sense in saying that a subject's coverage "was because celebrities were involved", because then you would also want to delete the Oscar-related pages. LearnIndology (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is currently accused of multiple things including trying to extort money for the release of the actor's son^[29] so having an article on him violates WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Wankhede is not notable, in 2020 the death of Sushant Singh Rajput was a notable event but Wankhede himself didn't receive significant coverage before that. Per the later policy, even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. In 2021, he is in news for arresting an actor's son, and interrogating other celebrities^[30]. Again celebrities are involved. It is not even a big case, no dugs was found from the actor's son and the drugs his friend was carrying was very little in quantity. The case is getting attention only because he is the son of Bollywood's biggest actor. I don't know what do you mean by deleting Oscar related pages. Oscar is an internationally recognized award and this is not a notable case. I suggest the closing admin to see this^[31]news article to understand the chronology of the events. Eevee01^(talk) 04:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not get deleted only because some particular parts of the person's events can't be included, see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Your personal reflection about Aryan Khan's arrest has nothing to do with WP:GNG. LearnIndology (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about violation of Wankhede's BLP. He is not a notable person and having an article on him violates BLP, because currently he is an accused. User Mukt has re-wrote the entire article and now most BLP related issues are solved, see this. But still it won't change the fact that Wankhede is not notable. He is getting attention only because of the involvement of the celebrities. Eevee01^(talk) 13:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No significance notability of the person in the past other than present controversy. Person will disappear from the news once matter is settled. Moreover, you would rarely find any mention of the person in news before October or September 2021.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is this? LearnIndology (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 2020 he got media coverage only because he was involved in investigating the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. Many people were covered by the media during this incident. There is no significant coverage of Mr. Wankhede before 2020. Eevee01^(talk) 15:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So delete all articles that got coverage by 2020? You are wrong even if you want others to believe in that. The article shows the subject had significant coverage since 2013.[32] LearnIndology (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LearnIndology I have found this on WP:RS noticeboard. Are there any major news outlets who have articles on him before 2020. Eevee01^(talk) 14:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Absolutely passes WP:GNG as reliable sources from 2020 and 2021 have provided significant coverage to the subject. WP:BLP1E is even less of a criteria at this stage thanks to the recent drug-related arrests and political mudslinging which has made the subject even more notable. LearnIndology (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Investigating or arresting someone does not make the investigator notable for Wikipedia.
- Political mudslinging does not make anyone notable for Wikipedia. In fact Political mudslinging is not even added here even though they find place in Newspaper.
- There is no such rule of notability based on arrests or mudslinging as you are claiming. If there is then please show. Please read WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Venkat TL (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I were to entertain your non-policy based opinion then you are ought to be aware that now there is a dispute about his caste certification which has nothing to do with any his crime-related investigation.[33] Your argument was "WP:1EVENT" which has been already punctured as reliable sources from 2020 and 2021 have provided significant coverage to the subject concerning issues different from each other. You need to only remember that as long as there are multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail, there is no need to worry about notability. LearnIndology (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That dispute is worthy material for newspapers not encyclopedia. Every garbage that gets published need not find its way into an online encyclopedia. Let this guy become chief of CBI or get a Padma or achieve something. Investigating someone does not make a person notable, even though the newspapers talk about him in their coverage of the crime investigation. Venkat TL (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is IRS would never be CBI chief. CBI Director is from IPS.122.161.64.114 (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is he should become chief of a major org, to become notable for an article. Chief investigator of few gms of weed related case doesn't cut it, to get a Wikipedia article. Venkat TL (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable personality per WP:BLP1E. Nenetarun (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No one will remember him once the matter is settled. 183.82.104.213 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources mentioned above. Has gained significant attention of reliable sources unrelated to arrest of Aryan Khan. -----Yoonadue (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm probably missing something but why are we even considering keeping this article? The "Personal life" section contains rather odd musings on this person's relationship with Muslims that looks more like an editor's obsession with things Islamic rather than with things encyclopedic. The rest: an IAS officer who detained an actor, who is investigating a case which appears to involve actors, and who is investigating a drug case that apparently doesn't even merit an article on Wikipedia. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Indian Revenue Service not Indian Administrative Service. Central Civil Service again not All India. The person is irrelevant and not notable. He is not a Nobel laureate or a revolutionary leader for anyone to preserve this article. The individual is just a government worker doing a job and getting media attention because the son of a major actor (not the arrest of the actor itself) did drugs and in jail. Arresting or investigating officers of other countries don't have Wikipedia encyclopedia article or biographies at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.53.153 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Similar to above, I can't see how this is anything beyond BLP1E at best. Ravensfire (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The India Today article published 11 months ago satisfies WP:SIGCOV [34] talks about his career since 2011. Agree with GreaterPoncence655 that WP:1EVENT/BLP1E is being grossly misrepresented. TolWol56 (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is an open platform of useful & notable events. Passes WP:GNG & WP:EVENT criterion as there have been multiple events surrounding Wankhade. He is himself subject to the investigation now. Passes WP:GOLDENRULE
Such important content should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Dhy.rjw (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic and WP:NOTNP. Simply some investigating officer who came in the news because he investigated some celebrities.LukeEmily (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Has received significant coverage for non-celebrities related incidents too.[35] Mukt (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNP ; also WP:BLP1E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.98.59.92 (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Hundreds (thousands? more than that?) law enforcement officers work on such cases. This would definitely not pass WP:SUSTAINED.ThisFeelsABitOff (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly complies with wp:GNG. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Given that there have been reports of his on cases from before 2020, this is clearly not an instance of WP:BLP1E. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable and meets WP:GNG. 122.161.72.152 (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear case of WP:BLP1E 115.97.187.217 (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So when I look at the sources in this article, a lot of them are terrible, and the article definitely needs revision. The basic problem with Indian sources is well summarized in our article on Paid news in India. But our redoubtable reliable sources analysts have (of course) formed views about which Indian sources are reliable. They've evaluated the Indian Express as a good one: see WP:INDIANEXP. And this article cites an Indian Express source here. They have not evaluated the Hindustan Times but it's been my experience that Wikipedians do accept the Hindustan Times as a reliable source in cases where it's also confirmed by The Indian Express (or The Hindu which is the other top-reliability news source native to India, see WP:THEHINDU). So on the basis of our normal custom and practice on Indian language sources, I'll buy those two a general notability guideline pass.
It's then claimed that Wankhede is only notable for one event, which would be the scheduled caste quota dispute. But I don't buy that either. The event was in 2021, but I can see other news sources here and here which pre-date the scheduled caste issue. They're reporting in one case that he's been attacked and threatened while at work -- hardly indicative of paid news or COI, in my view -- and in another case that he's refused security cover. So it's not coverage of one event.
After subtracting these two arguments from the debate, I don't see a convincing argument for deletion. The article definitely has problems but in my view they qualify as fixable. Keep.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall:, the 1event they are talking about precedes the caste quota event. I reached a slightly different conclusion here but decided to delete my neutral !vote after more RS were added. - hako9 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E does apply here, the one event being his drug related investigation against Aryan Khan, who is the son of Shah Rukh Khan. It also involves allegations against Wankhede for extortion in the same case, a related allegation of fraud on his part (i.e scheduled caste issue), an attack on him, etc. Parts of the event can't be picked out and considered separate events. There is some marginal coverage of him before this, in connection with investigations against other celebrities, although these are all arguably related as well. There is a lot of tabloid coverage, most of the focus is on the celebrities themselves, while the subject has no apparent claim of significance.

In any case this is borderline and we should err on the side of caution per WP:BLPCRIME which states that "[f]or individuals who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." If the article is kept, we will have to proportionally represent the topic in the manner covered by reliable sources and it will end up being predominantly composed of the allegations against Aryan Khan who is not a notable figure as well as all those against Wankhede who is not a public figure. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- If it is that one event causing all of this coverage, why are there sources from 2013?—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  There is one article from 2013 about a routine incident in the city (i.e local) newspaper Mumbai Mirror and nothing else anywhere till 2020. I don't think that's sufficient. What are the other sources? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Mumbai Mirror and Sunday Guardian.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Didn't see the Sunday Guardian one and I'm not sure whether that can be considered an RS. In any case, as I have already said this is borderline and we should not be building an article on a BLP which would almost entirely be about criminal allegations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, yes, I understand your concern about whether the Sunday Guardian is reliable. It's not one that the community has evaluated for reliability. I'm not clear where the burden of proof lies here. Do you feel it's for me to demonstrate the newspaper's reliability, or would you say that it's for you to demonstrate its unreliability?
        I do sort-of recognize the argument that the Mumbai Mirror is "local coverage", but in my view it founders on the fact that the "local" region, the city of Mumbai, is colossal. There are quite a few nations with smaller populations than Mumbai. When we're dealing with countries as populous as India, the criticism that a source is "local" loses some of its impact for me.
        I'm not convinced by the criticism that the Mumbai Mirror article is "routine coverage", either. To my British eyes, having never set foot in India, the story appears newsworthy and even somewhat remarkable.
        I do think there are sources that go some way beyond the criminal behaviour allegations.—S Marshall T/C 10:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I mean, I myself am not certain if SG should be considered outright unreliable although I can point to one obvious mistake in their article itself. It refers to him as an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer working for a Tax Department which doesn't make sense since that would fall under Indian Revenue Service (IRS), compare that with the contemporaneous Mumbai Mirror article which identifies him as a customs official. The latter is accurate as it's fairly clear in the recent coverage of him that he is posted at customs and is with the IRS.
        
        Yes, Mumbai Mirror does cover a populous region but it's not any different from any other major city elsewhere in the world, wouldn't you consider a single piece in say a London specific newspaper (if that exists) to be local coverage? And all that their article says is that a mid ranking official refused security after receiving death threats. It's peculiar but it just reads like any other human interest piece to me, I don't know what encyclopedic value it brings.
        
        Regarding the SG article, can't say if the rest of their material is accurate, a lot of it is just based on quoting him and even if it was to be considered reliable, it's hardly a mainstream newspaper i.e, it's a weekly with a very low circulation, the Mirror itself has exponentially more despite SG being published in three cities including both Mumbai and Delhi.
        
        In the end, I don't think it matters much, even if we somehow used both of the above, his predominant coverage is still indisputably the recent coverage. The two articles alone wouldn't have given him WP:BASIC notability, so it seems like a stretch to use them as additional coverage for WP:BLP1E to not apply. The primary issue I see is that while it may be possible to snip out information about the allegations, it would not be an accurate representation of the sources, since most of the information about the subject is contextualised with references to the allegations. So creating an article based on them doesn't seems consistent with the principle of taking additional care in article about living people. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        We certainly have London-specific newspapers, most prominently the Evening Standard. According to the most recent RSN discussion, there is no consensus as to its reliability, so that doesn't help us very much. I note wryly from that discussion that it doesn't even come up that the Evening Standard might be "local". Lots of English people doing the evaluation there, of course.
        
        It does seem to be widely believed that we need to delete negative articles about living people. I don't think that's quite what our rules say. WP:BLP is about unsourced negative information about living people. It doesn't require us to whitewash articles where the sources say negative things.
        
        You're clearly right to say that most of the coverage about this gentleman is recent and there are only a couple of examples of coverage from 2013. I think there are two matters that the sources talk about in any detail: the criminal investigation and the scheduled caste issue. My position is that these two things don't meet any reasonable definition of "one event". I also don't believe that they're routine. I'm not saying they're of earth-shattering importance, but I do feel that if similar events took place in New York, the newspapers there would cover them, and so would Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Our rules do say that we should avoid including accusations of crimes (without a conviction) when it concerns individuals who are not public figures. The criminal investigation and scheduled caste issue (which is the forgery allegation) are all framed as part of the same story by the newspapers; for instance see The Hindu overview, where it describes how the allegations against Wankhede rose out of his investigation ([36]), the Hindustan Times has consistently marked developments around the caste certificate under the "Aryan Khan case" ([37], [38], [39]), the Indian Express covers them simultaneously ([40]), etc. The recent coverage is not routine but it's part of a single event. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG as per the article that does not even include that "one event" in question for correct reasons. The !delete voters that are having issue with the subject's activities or Khan's arrest should sort it outside Wikipedia. desmay (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps, instead of misrepresenting the arguments of "!delete voter", you could take a look at the references in the article for a start? The criminal allegations were removed from the article, while the remaining material is entirely sourced from references that are about the allegations or are about details related to those allegations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No indication of significance. Seem to be a man doing his job. scope_creep^Talk 20:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:BASIC due to a lack of significant coverage. ––FormalDude talk 03:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing middle housing[edit]

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

The concept is notable -- it's known as Affordable housing. The particular term is used only by Parolek and his firm of designers.In WP, every time the term is found ,it's just a link to his work. Perhaps there's material here that could be used, but as a term used by a single design firm, I'm not sure it would otherwise be worth even a redirect. The other possibility is that he or his firm might be notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve seen this term used and discussed so widely I had no idea it was only coined in 2010, and we’d be sorely lacking not to cover it. Even if this architect crafted its meaning, it has been broadly used and acknowledged as a key component of urban design, with dozens of news articles in recent weeks describing it and consideration for zoning and development that includes it. Significant sources that don't mention Parolek include [41][42][43][44]. Nominator is mistaken if he believes it's just a synonym for affordable housing. While a city seeking affordable housing should include missing middle housing to provide a diversity of options beyond single-family and high-rise that include low-cost construction, such missing middle buildings can still be luxury and out of reach for those who need affordable housing, a concept that includes subsidization and large apartments. This is about much more than ensuring that buildings are accessible to the low-income, but forms of development that result in varied density in neighborhoods, with access to businesses and amenities. This writer even says "Missing middle housing is high-end, not affordable, housing"; though I strongly disagree with his arguments because it can in fact be both high-end and affordable, and MMH has goals and results beyond just costs. The missing middle is discussed in published books and reports like House Divided: How the Missing Middle Will Solve Toronto's Housing Crisis, Sustainable Nation: Urban Design Patterns for the Future, and Family-friendly City: Envisioning a "missing Middle" Density Bonus in Austin's Single-family Neighborhoods that do not focus on Parolek's work. Reywas92^Talk 20:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't looked extensively at the references, but my impression is that this term is getting use as a type/class of housing which can be introduced into neighborhoods with minimal "disruption"/"change of character" (NIMBY opposition) in which it was previously illegal (by single-family zoning) and lies between the only other option that was legal (large multi-family buildings). If the term is used in enough sources, I think it passes WP:GNG, just like two recent articles I came across which could be seen in a similar light Striketober and Great Resignation...they are just more strikes and a resumption of workers moving to new jobs which stalled in the COVID time, but both seem to have names now. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's something of a buzzword/slogan, and the article has POV concerns as a result. Possibly it should be renamed to just "Middle housing" or merged with Medium-density housing. But it's a common enough term to keep the article, and it's distinct from affordable housing. (I'd never heard this specific phrase for limited residential up-zoning, but Google search clearly shows it is common enough.) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe term "missing middle housing" is used widely within urban planning including by several government organizations, well known non-for-profits, academia, and urban planning discourse. For example, the City of Toronto is currently running a survey on "...The City is working to expand opportunities for “missing middle” housing forms in Toronto, ranging from duplexes to low-rise walk-up apartments..." with reports titled, for example, "Missing Middle – Summary of Advice from the Planning Review Panel". The City of Victoria British Columbia is currently running a "Missing Middle initiative" with an entire outreach campaign related to "missing middle housing" with its own graphics, videos, and data Arlington Virginia is still in the process of a major "Missing Middle Housing Study" with its own "missing middle" definitions, reports, and research documents. These major governmental organizations are not connected to Optics. It is very likely that residents living in these major cities may want to learn more about "missing middle housing" after seeing that exact terminology used by their local government and would benefit from the Wikipedia page. You can also find explicit use of the term by non-for-profits including the Canadian Urban Institute, the Sightline Institute, Alliance for Housing Solutions which aren't connected to Optics. The term is common within urban planning discourse with a very well populated tag on Planitzen. While there's not a lot of competition, the likely most watched urban planning YouTube channel Not Just Bikes has a video titled "The Houses that Can't be Built in America - The Missing Middle" with more than 800k views. The channel "About Here" has a video titled "Vancouver’s Missing Middle Mystery" with more than 100k views. The channel "Oh the Urbanity!" has a video titled "Five Dense "Missing Middle" Neighbourhoods in Montreal" with more than 50k views. You can also find videos using the exact term "missing middle" from the City of Ottawa and the City of Vancouver. State Nebraska State Senator Matt Hansen (D-Lincoln) introduced new legislation to kickoff the 2020 legislative session, proposing LB 794, or the "Missing Middle Housing Act". The term is widespread and any good faith search for the term will show that it is used widely by different organizations many of whom have produced their own graphics, data, and reports. As major cities and even States continue to discuss "missing middle housing" having this Wikipedia page available can help provide information to residents. --Joiedevivre123321 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn There's no point continuing -- possibly there is a difference in meaning. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 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. Notability is intentionally not the same standard as "famous" or "well known". So while Unzu may be will known in Spain, there has not yet been adequate sourcing to demonstrate that he is notable. Of course if more sourcing comes in the future this may change. But for now there is a consensus to delete this article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iker Unzu[edit]

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

Non-notable individual fails WP:GNG, Lacking significant coverage from reliable resources. Must be speedy. NarangD (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NarangD (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iker Unzu is very well known in Spanish-speaking countries. Although in Spain there is not much attention or awareness given to content creators (specifically YouTube or TikTok) based on how large his audience is worldwide, their notableness can be confirmed. There are not many articles that talk about him specifically for that reason and because he is a minor. 17:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.10.153.144 (talk)

Hello NarangD. It is normal, I will try to explain a little my reasons to prove relevance. I think we are facing a case similar to others we had in the past, such as "El Rubius" or "PewDiePie". They are celebrities, they do not have many more merits to their credit than being popular through new media that in many cases have nothing to do with traditional popularity. The article is brief, I limited myself in its day to creating something drinkable but with references, since I saw that it had been already deleted 3 times until my creation. Since then, this article has received lots of visits (although I know this does not credit any relevance, but it is the most visited article by far of those I have created).

I go on to list my reasons:

I have known of Iker's existence since last year as the main comedy content creator on the platform TikTok (the 25th most followed creator in Spain). Since 2020 there has been an explosion of comedy videos and the figure of Iker has been growing.
In 2021 its growth had exploded, as well as that of TikTok. He becomes a content creator for a new type of YouTube vlogs, skits and shorts and his unique editing style is copied by many.
As a result of this growth, he has already passed 7 million followers on TikTok and 1.3 million on YouTube. That does not prove anything, but these are huge figures for someone who is purely a celebrity on the internet, which is also the medium where he has become popular.

For all these reasons, I believe that we are facing a character who represents a comedian/content creator that is growing in popularity, who is spreading his presence to more and more areas and who is, pure and simple, an internet celebrity of whom it will be difficult to find testimonies or traces of fame at a traditional level, but that meets the requirements of relevance and arouses interest (and a lot, if we accept the criteria of visits of this article since it exists). He is also verified in all the previously mentioned social medias, I know that does not prove his relevance, but it shows his distinctions. Emmacham (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again NarangD, I made some edits and added some more references I found about Iker, these might help to prove his notability. Emmacham (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the reasons mentioned above, WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. – The Grid (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :I can see the references you provided, are not meeting the Wikipedia's notability criteria that they can justify the notability of the subject. For more please wait for other editor's comments here. NarangD (talk) 02:11, 15 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) 🐱 08:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG per nom. The two Heraldo de Aragón articles seem to be the only decent sources - one is a profile of him and the other has some sentences on him. All the others seem to either be his own posts or statistics on his social media, which obviously don't count towards proving his notability. Aranya (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, does having one decent source not count? It does prove notability, not every creator has an article written about them in an extremely visited website in Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.10.153.144 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So Wikipedia's notability guideline suggests multiple sources, but it's not a strict requirement and we usually look at each person's situation individually. Especially in Unzu's case, it would be helpful to have multiple articles that focus on him so we can see why his activities on TikTok and YouTube have become famous. We can't just blindly include Wikipedia articles for anyone who has had a newspaper article written about them, so we have this general standard for inclusion. Aranya (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will search for more sources/newspaper articles written about him. What does a source need to be decent or approved by Wikipedia, knowing that not all sources are validated? What does a source need to be approved?

They should be reliable sources - there is a good description of that on the page WP:SOURCE. A good strategy would be to look for websites like Heraldo de Aragón, well-known newspapers with wide circulation. You can look at our list of newspapers in Spain for some ideas too. Best regards, Aranya (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I searched and found this article (Iker Unzu, o cómo conquistar a la Generación Z con el humor), it is a well-known site with wide circulation, so is it valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.10.153.144 (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good! Flooxer is owned by Atresmedia - I've noticed they've covered a lot of Spanish YouTubers who haven't received much attention outside their home country (but might still be notable). If there is more in-depth coverage like this, I think a good case might be made for Unzu's article per WP:NBASIC. Aranya (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also found that Antena 3 and Flooxer have tweeted about Unzu and the article, do tweets count as a reference source? Antena 3 is owned by Atresmedia too and has over 1 million followers on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmacham (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmacham:: tweets probably don't count towards notability since they're so short. Do they link to complete news articles? Aranya (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tweets talked about the article from flooxer, but no new articles. They did talk about Unzu tho before adding the link to the article... I don't know if that prooves something. I'll search for more on the web in case it doesn't. Emmacham (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV due to lack of significant coverage in multiple independent sources.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no clear keep consensus here, particularly when the you factor in that the nomination is a !vote to delete. None the less, I don't think a third relist will help reach any clearer consensus. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vladas Šigauskas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:SPORTCRIT in that he has competed at the highest level of his sport, namely the 2011 and 2013 World Championships. Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS! By a quick searching on Google, WP:GNG will be established and according to his medals passes WP:NSPORTS.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 14 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) 🐱 08:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the relister; I don't see the lack of consensus on this one. Geschichte (talk) 21:20, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven D. Bennion[edit]

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

Non-notable academic/religious leader. None of the refs given are independent of the subject or reliable sources, and the other (from Deseret News - is it independent?) is an obituary of his father - not sufficient for the GNG. A search turned up nothing else of value. schetm (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He passes WP:NACADEMIC#6; he was President of Southern Utah University. Additionally, WP:CLERGY notes that The bishops of major denominations... are typically found to be notable.
In terms of possible WP:BASIC, the individual seems to have also had significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Newspapers.com returns quite a few articles giving in-depth coverage (such as this in-depth article on him and his family, this AP article describing his appointment to Southern Utah University, and this AP article describing his appointment to Rick's College), and others that mention him in trivial detail (for example, his student body president election in 1958 or his college freshman election as class president in 1960, or his work in the Midwest in the 70's). I'm also seeing evidence that there were additional AP wire stories about his appointment to Ricks. Per WP:RSP, Deseret News is considered to be generally reliable for local news and I don't think that coverage from Deseret would have independence problems for its coverage from before when he was a bishop, though I'm finding sources indicating that he became a Bishop no later than 1971 (where he officiated a wedding as a bishop). That being said, a family-written obit doesn't count towards notabililty.

Overall, I think that he's notable per WP:NACADEMIC#6 and WP:CLERGY. I can try to find additional WP:BASIC coverage if you'd like, though I think that he's likely to satisfy that notability guideline as well. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Mormon church, there are, as of 2002, "nearly 18,000 bishops" (see this source). There's no way that all 18,000 are notable - the guideline simply does not work with Mormon bishops. As to NACADEMIC, how are we defining a "major academic institution"? At the time Bennion served there, the then Ricks College was a two-year school - hardly major by any standard. And, as for SUU, I don't know that that qualifies as major either, unless we're going to call all public universities major. It all seems quite run-of-the-mill to me, as does the coverage you present. schetm (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was unfamiliar with the amount of Mormon bishops that there were, so I'll retract on WP:CLERGY. I can try to find additional coverage that would help us to agree on WP:BASIC, though I think that SUU seems to be a well-respected regional university. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bishops in Mormonism are essentially pastor-equivalents, and so he's not notable on that basis, but a couple of the other leadership positions held seem to be actually equivalent to the regional leadership associated with, for example, Roman Catholic diocesian bishops. Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 12 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) 03:44, 14 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) 🐱 08:24, 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 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfit[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:MUSIC. They released one album 20 years ago on a non-notable label, then disbanded two years later. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:17, 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 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JAE E[edit]

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

Long-forgotten autobiography of a non-notable rapper. The references are either dead or passing mentions that don't indicate notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 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 as the institute is not mentioned in the AKTU article. ✗plicit 07:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Engineering College[edit]

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

fails to meet notability, WP:NCORP Advait (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Advait (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect into AKTU. Some news articles mention it, could not find enough for WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect into AKTU. Since all I could find was some trivial name drops in school directly. Which isn't enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:39, 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 speedy keep. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and close this as unintentional. The nominator identified a series of articles created by single-purpose accounts and sought to unspin that web by nominating a couple of related articles for deletion. A valiant effort, but this article about an Officer of the Order of Australia should probably not have been caught up in that effort. (non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Assaf[edit]

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

Clear failure of WP:GNG and doesn't have a single source MaskedSinger (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Members of the Order of Australia are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:57, 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 speedy keep. Nvm, I withdraw the nom. (non-admin closure) AINH (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Xiaoyu Liu[edit]

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

Fails BIO, none of the sources can prove notability. Also please note that different accounts had created articles of this person in 4 different languages in the span of about a week. I have reason to believe this article is COI and paid contribution. AINH (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:28, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Patterson Dunlop[edit]

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

This article was created in 2009 and the only reference given was IMDB. It was marked as unreferenced then. It remains marked as unreferenced and has no new references.

I have attempted to find sources but can only find Wikipedia mirrors and database built pages. The only news hits I get are for other people with the same name.

I do not believe there are sufficient reliable sources upon which to base an article on. When Wikipedia is the main source of information about a topic we have an original research problem.

Notability may be borderline as well, playing small roles in movies and appearing in a scattering of episodes on tv shows. The article claims the actor died in 2009, though I have not been able to confirm this with a reliable source. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Evidence of notability is shaky. Unsourced. Gentleman wiki (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 1 WP:NACTOR. Notable stage actor with reviews in multiple significant publications, and a main cast member of Kung Fu: The Legend Continues; a TV show that ran for four seasons. I added reviews of his performances from The New York Times, Variety, Los Angeles Times, etc. See citations within the article. Articles were accessed through PROQUEST at my university so no urls are available. 4meter4 (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to determine if these reviews are about him or if there are just "mere mentions". I also am trying to determine if these references support the text of the article. I am having trouble because none of these references seem to be online. I don't see his name in any of the titles. May I ask where you are accessing these sources? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained above. ProQuest (https://www.proquest.com) which requires subscription access, which I have through the library at my university. Reviews of plays and films don’t typically have the names of actors in their titles. 4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both LA Times reviews just mentions his name in a cast list, and don't indicate a leading role. The New York Times review has a few details on his performance and background. I have ProQuest access and can check further. So far, I don't see anything sourcing the early life biographical details. 4meter4, did you find that in any ProQuest sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no biographical details. I have some potential leads on independent sources for cast lists for those productions but I can't access those until I get to the university drama library in person. I'll see what I can do to specify the exact roles in the shows later this week. The NYT review does have good details about his performance, and the Variety film review does as well.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cast lists don't help to support notability. We require sources that single him and his performance out for dedicated attention, not just sources that glancingly mention his name in a list. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is not just automatically passed by every actor who's had acting roles, because every actor who exists at all has always had acting roles. NACTOR is passed by actors who can show media coverage about them and their performances, and not by actors who can't — notability under that criterion vests not in the list of roles per se, but in the quality of the reliable sources that can be shown to verify the significance of his performances. Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets NACTOR with years as a regular on a TV series, and meets GNG as per WP:HEY. Nfitz (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the additional sources and roles that have been added, it seems like this should satisfy NACTOR. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the best sourcing that has been come up with basically simply a list of trivial mentions of "X played in Y" (judging by the actual content of the article, and by stuff like this, which indeed only has trivial mentions)? The only actually encyclopedic information (beyond the listing of which roles he played in theater, which seem unrelated to his main claim to notability) is a brief unsourced paragraph. If that's all that there is, then this should probably de deleted or redirected to Kung Fu: The Legend Continues. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify due to the challenges in meeting GNG. it's possible, maybe even likely, that reliable, secondary, in-depth coverage exists. The best source I can access is the 1986 NYT Shakespeare review, and I would describe it as falling just short of in-depth. @4meter4: I can't access the "Legit Chatter" Variety source; could you possibly pull a quote or two?
Important and relevant, but a bit of a digression: most experienced, active editors can get free basic access to ProQuest using the Wikipedia Library, along with other helpful resources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited don't constitute WP:SIGCOV - like Firefangledfeathers said, "X played in Y" is hardly commentary. If that's the best available sourcing, this guy simply doesn't meet our standards for notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to sources added by 4meter4. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BASIC states that several sources that are not substantial may indicate notablity, but that several trivial mentions usually does not. I do not yet see consensus regarding whether the coverage is "not substantial" or "trivial". Also, none of the biographical material is sourced at all, failing WP:V. If this is accordinly removed, are we able to create a worthwhile article per WP:WHYN? I think this should be re-listed and discussion focused on these questions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources consist of not substantial coverage, or trivial coverage? I.e. does the article pass WP:BASIC, or not? Note the WP:V issue as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude talk 06:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to 78.26, notability was never my primary concern. The complete lack of sourcing of biographical information is my main concern. We cannot verify his birthday, or if he is really dead, or really anything about him other than a filmography. I am concerned that most keep votes are only addressing notability. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on Nactor, as he was a recurring character in Kung Fu, however I have already taken out some of the article as claims he was lead in two Stratford productions was incorrect (provided refs at removal where it says he was a cast member) and the only place I can his death is here [45], so possible drafty.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those !voting Keep and citing NACTOR. With the paucity of RS coverage, is this not a case of "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria"? Is NACTOR typically used to support the retention of articles that fail GNG? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a note to those looking for refs, most sources do not use Patterson so searches should be for "William Dunlop". Here are a few more sources that can be used to improve the article: [46], [47] (this one has lots of details on his performances in Stratford), [48]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware that there are many William Dunlops that are not this actor. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the subject specific guideline for actors has been met. Dream Focus 01:21, 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. ✗plicit 07:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Taghizadeh[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Most of the coverage is of him saying statements in the media, rather than coverage of him as the subject. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:50, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator as new sources have been added that are adequate. ––FormalDude talk 05:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mountain View High School (Utah)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, and secondary schools are not inherently notable. ––FormalDude talk 03:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 03:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references currently in the article seem to be adequate. I would expect that most secondary schools in the United States and Canada are the topic of enough adequate references to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:38, 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 07:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lone wolf (trait)[edit]

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

Fifteen years after this article's creation, it is still more or less an extended dictionary definition. Fully three-fifths of the sources cited are dictionaries. Google Scholar results for "lone wolf" trait and "lone wolf" personality mainly deal with lone wolf terrorism, with a few studies of "lone wolf" behavior in salespeople and some accidental hits from trivial uses of the term in other contexts. The one academic source I found describing a general "lone wolf" behavior type in people is more than sixty years old,^[1] suggesting the topic is somewhat of a fringe concept. I'm not seeing sufficient material for either a single-topic or broad-concept article. Properly referenced information on actual wolf behavior can be included under Wolf; the rest can be handled via the disambiguation page Lone wolf. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wolf. As for the part about "Human lone wolves", all of the information there is covered in Loner already. Plutonical (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is weird, unnecessary synthesis to combine a trait describing people in the lead, then information about actual wolves in the section. Loner can cover the former and Wolf#Social_structure the latter. Reywas92^Talk 13:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Between the existing articles on "loners" and "lone wolf attacks", there is simply no need for this. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an attempt at a broad-concept article that is just dictionary definitions; perhaps a one-sentence definition is needed on the DAB page Lone Wolf but there is nothing else to keep. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no need for an overview on these topics. It's not a particularly applicable concept for overall animal behaviour because different species have wildly varying social structures. Further, similar behaviours in different species would have different terms. A "lone meerkat" (for instance) is a meerkat that has dispersed from their group - a "lone wolf meerkat" would be a very clunky construction and it would inadequately describe the behaviour. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Stott, Leland H. (1959). "The Indentification of Four Childhood Personality Traits as Expressed in the Social Interaction of Pre-school Children". Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development. 5 (4): 163–175. ISSN 0026-0150. JSTOR 23082680.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CyberCoders[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability guideline for organizations: lacks independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Though searching I've only found brief mentions in the context of job postings and blog-style reviews of their services; no substantive discussion of the company itself. The only sources in the article are routine coverage of an acquisition, an interview by the company who acquired them, and an inclusion in a list by Forbes. — The Earwig (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — The Earwig (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — The Earwig (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — The Earwig (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of meeting NCORP. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 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 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 07:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foster v. Wolkowitz[edit]

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

Apparently insignificant court case cited a grand total of 19 times according to Google. Couldn't find any real hits for either of the citations: 785 N.W.2d 59, 486 Mich. 356. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:20, 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 07:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Professional Training Institute[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD (oops), utterly non-notable, no significant coverage, only source is own website. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that three separate editors wanted to PROD this article signals to me that it is not a useful addition to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A primary-sourced article about an institute offering training towards vocational qualifications in accountancy, audit, HR, etc. No evidence that it has attained specific notability (WP:NCORP, WP:GNG). AllyD (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ziba Karamali[edit]

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

Here because I expect the PROD will be challenged. The sourcing does not make it clear that her work as an actor reaches the level needed for NACTOR, or the GNG and a BEFORE identifies no additional sourcing available.

(Deletion history: Not a G4 as the prior deletion was an A7, but the prior was created by a sock and full disclosure, I have filed an SPI on the author of this version due to overlap there and another article: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliasghar ghorbandokht Star Mississippi 01:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment creator is unlikely to be a sock per the SPI. My nomination concerns remain. Star Mississippi 13:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some research on Farsi sources and I did not find anything to guarantee she passes GNG Mardetanha (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & consider SALTing back again, and still not notable. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:34, 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) 🐱 09:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Santee Cessna 340 crash[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Small plane crashes are regular occurrences as are ones that crash into buildings. This is at least the third in the last month. Unless somebody notable is on board these events are not notable and not of any enduring significance. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The story is still developing as an investigation is due to take place. NemesisAT (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation accidents in the United States are routinely investigated by the FAA and/or the NTSB, and this inevitably creates a paper trail. This does not automatically qualify the accident for notability, because they would ALL qualify. Carguychris (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, I don't see that as a problem. NemesisAT (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is also WP:NOTEVERYTHING and is not a collection of indiscriminate or run-of-the-mill information. GA crashes are notorious magnets for sensational news coverage. Recognize the slippery slope; do we really need an article about the March 1961 Bumpkin County Airport Aeronca Champ groundloop? (Not to be confused with the June 1961 Bumpkin County Airport Luscombe 8C groundloop.) Carguychris (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per above, let the story develop and then you may delete or keep it. Please also keep a note of WP:IGNORINGATD KlientNo.1 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While tragic, the extensive San Diego Union-Tribune article says nothing to suggest that this crash has lasting significance. Information about this crash belongs in the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport article; minor aviation accidents on approach are generally best summarized in the article about the destination airport. Carguychris (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a routine occurrence. Current coverage does not support lasting significance. Saying the story is still developing is a tacit admission that it is not yet notable; Wikipedia doesn't include articles based on speculative future notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet notable? It appears to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is under possible deletion? Is there information in it that you don't want the public to know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.154.9.216 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or newswire service. KidAd • SPEAK 01:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This accident seems have noatable, and also have enough references, but unfortunately not have a notable fatalities.223.136.86.4 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical small plane crash which clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS and does not appear to have generated sustained coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I live in the area and the news coverage on this incident has definitely been dropped the day after. Nothing truly special here, as unfortunate as this was. Love of Corey (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. No indication that this is a significant event that had any lasting impact. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nattanid Leewattanavaragul[edit]

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

Article created by the fact that this driver participated in a round of an international motorsport championship, the TCR International Series. The driver does not have outstanding results in other series, not counting the Thailand Super Series which is amateur and does not even have an article on Wikipedia. Then I will nominate other similar articles created by the User: CGM 20. The list is as follows: Paritat Bulbon, Pasarit Promsombat, Rattanin Leenutaphong, Chariya Nuya, Nattachak Hanjitkasen, Grant Supaphongs, Kantadhee Kusiri, Narasak Ittiritpong, Jack Lemvard, Douglas Khoo, Chen Jian Hong, Munkong Sathienthirakul, Csaba Tóth (racing driver), István Bernula, Anett György, Márk Jedlóczky Nordschleife 00 (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added the AfD tag to all of the bundled articles and added relevant sort cats. No opinion on whether the articles should be deleted yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spiderone: I believe nom is saying they will nominate those other articles based on the results of this AfD; they didn't intend to bundle them with this nomination. Nordschleife 00, could you clarify? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that this does not appear to have been the nominator's intention, and have removed the AfD templates from the additional articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think it's a good idea to have so many articles (which are similar I suppose but looking through they are different enough to warrant individual consideration) in one nomination. Six was already too many. A7V2 (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received a considerable amount of media exposure, which should satisfy the GNG, including a 2015 profile piece in the print Thairath[49] and 2017 coverage in Than Settakij[50], Post Today[51] and Ban Muang[52]. Featured in a Channel 3 programme in 2018[53]. Interviews in several sporting/auto racing lifestyle magazines/websites[54][55][56]. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, i wouldnt have created it if it didn't. CGM 20 (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - All the drivers on the list are amateur drivers and have an article due to the fact of having participated in a race of an international championship of low relevance that in each race had more than one driver of this level (drivers who only stand out in championships such as the Thailand Super Series). The fact that establishes that it is considered relevant for Wikipedia is having participated in an event, which depends more on the economic aspect (having enough money to participate in the event) than the talent itself, which must be established if an article is relevant in any sportman. There must be thousands and thousands of objectively more outstanding and talented drivers than those on this list but having not participated in a round of the TCR International Series, they are not considered relevant.
- I took a random articule (Pasarit Promsombat) from the list and in googled in Images. A total of 27 images appeared, of which the majority are from the participation in the 2017 TCR International Series Thailand round and, of these, only five are news and only one of them mentions the driver in the title. It is true that he is a Thai driver, but this shows he has no international relevance.
- Maybe the problem is that the WP: MOTORSPORT is very lazy. What do these articles contribute to Wikipedia? At some point this looks like a database and not an encyclopedia.
- Answering the question above, my intention is that the listed items are evaluated in the same way as this one, because I consider that they are very similar. --Nordschleife 00 (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG per sources provided by Paul. No prejudice against any of the others being nominated for deletion in a separate AfD discussion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 31 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] Stott, Leland H. (1959). "The Indentification of Four Childhood Personality Traits as Expressed in the Social Interaction of Pre-school Children". Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development. 5 (4): 163–175. ISSN 0026-0150. JSTOR 23082680.

[1]