Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 02	October 04 >

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Sustainable Communication[edit]

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

Non-notable company per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lots of online references and citations to this nonprofit that can be seen through Google Scholar and Google Books. I added some as references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: I looked at the sources you added and I see them as trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't identify anything that supplies the organization with substantial coverage. The occasional "according to the Institute for Sustainable Communication" is not enough to establish notability, particularly under NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent and reliable references. There's not any assertion of notability. here.Brayan ocaner (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DAGO (United States Army)[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2007; the article claims the term is rare. Apart from one extensive military glossary [1] I find no attestations for either claimed meaning of the acronym. A search for the general terms gives basically nothing as well, [2] uses the term as a description of various roles, not as a title in and of itself. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Due to the abbreviation's similarity to an ethnic slur, I would guess that if this abbreviation was ever in common use, it may have been discouraged from use since then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The acronym as I've usually seen it used refers to "Department of the Army General Orders," which appears on the Army's official publications site as AGO (Army General Order). This would have come into use after 1947 or so, and may have been an unofficial contraction (I've seen DA AGO used in some early General Orders). Intothat darkness 03:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or disambiguate unless sources showing notability are found. There is some potential for a disambiguation, per Intothat above, but we need sourcing first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per nom. Article cites no sources, and very few edits since creation. The linked wiktionary page doesn't even mention DAGO as an acronym. bop34 • talk • contribs 12:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because according to wikipedia guidelines, this article is not relevant enough and resources are definitely missing.--Chris VDR (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An example of the acronym in use (referring to Dept of the Army General Orders) can be found on the first page of the 1973 edition of the Army's Pamphlet 672-3. It's also used in a letter from 1969 relating to campaign awards for members of the 9th Infantry Division. A search in the TTU Vietnam archive for DAGO turned up 38 documents, although some are duplicates. Note these are all official sources and not shorthand created by clerks or field commanders. Intothat darkness 23:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be in subsection in an Army article somewhere here, not enough for an aritcle by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 13:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomery Pike[edit]

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

Article is uncited. Doesn't provide any clear reason why this road name is notable relative to any of the other millions of named roads. Bitmapped (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can't help you on the sources, but it's notable. Major (at least for the counties it serves) east/west route in two counties that barely has any. Sources shouldn't be too hard to find. Maybe, instead of AfD'ing, you should try looking for them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now 5 sources (not by me), so pretty sourced now. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources which have been added are mere passing mentions in articles about other topics, not significant coverage that would meet WP:GEOROAD. The route is covered by West Virginia Route 29 and West Virginia Route 127, the alternate name does not necessitate a duplicate article. –dlthewave ☎ 01:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources just passing a mentions and not significant coverage about the subject. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG. The five sources are passing mentions, and thus they don't establish notability. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrim Playground, Arizona[edit]

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

GNIS stub for a "populated place" that doesn't appear to be populated, let alone even exist. Nearby are a couple campgrounds but that's about it; no signs of a community here. There might be a former community here, but I've looked all over and can't find anything. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a lodge with some cabins, a "recreational-religious resort" of the Congregational Home Missionary Society [3]. I'm finding newspaper references from the mid 1930s to early 40s'. A 1970 articles says it is a camp owned by the United Church of Christ.[4]. As of 1981, it was a 4-H summer camp called Camp Mardecor [5]. Google Maps presently calls it Camp Mardear. Not a populated place and no evidence of notability for other reasons. MB 00:19, 4 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gunderson (actor)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. The article is currently an unreferenced BLP. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't able to find news sources. Fails wikipedia's criteria. Trakinwiki (talk)
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CREATIVE #3 as a playwright/composer as his plays/musicals/cabaret reviews (i.e Suds, Back to Bacharach and David, 24 Hours From Tulsa, etc.) have received critical reviews in significant publications. See below.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Legitimate: 'SUDS' AT LYCEUM SPOOFS '60s TUNES". 328 (12). October 14, 1987: 227. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)- first Variety review of Suds
Meyr (September 28, 1988). "Legitimate: 'OFF-B'WAY REVIEW - Suds". Variety. 332 (10): 81. 2nd Variety review of play Suds
Sander, Roy (April 30, 1993). "CABARET REVIEWS: Back to Bacharach And David". Back Stage. 34 (18): 11. review of Back to Bacharach and David
Sheward, David (January 2, 1987). "Reviews: BUTLEY". Back Stage. 28 (1): 12A. this is a review of a play he had a lead role in with the Arts Club Theatre Company
"Legitimate: 'TEA,' 'SUDS' FILL OUT OLD GLOBE'S LINEUP". Variety. 329 (5): 129. Nov 25, 1987. third Suds review in Variety
Scheck, Frank (October 14, 1988). "Theatre reviews: SUDS". Back Stage. 29 (42): 25A. another SUDS review
MADD (February 3, 1982). "Legitimate: Off-Broadway Reviews - Street Scene". Variety. 306 (1): 130. another review of a play he performed in
Kerensky, Oleg (Apr 8, 1993). "Foreign News: MACC awards highlight cabaret month in New York". The Stage and Television Today (5843): 6. review of his cabaret show "24 Hours From Tulsa" that he made with Lillias White
Nancy Churnin (31 Mar 1988). "Why the Old Globe Decided to Use 'Suds' on Its Boards". Los Angeles Times. p. AB1. 1rst review of Suds in LAT
Nancy Churnin (30 September 1988). "Critics Wash Out 'Suds': Hit San Diego Play Takes Drubbing Off Broadway". Los Angeles Times. p. SD_D1. 2nd review of Suds in LAT
Dan Sullivan (4 April 1988). "Suds' Foam Puts '60s Songs in Spin Cycle". Los Angeles Times. p. OC_D1. 3rd review of Suds in LAT
Nancy Churnin (18 January 1992). "Gaslamp's 'Heidi' Captures Everywoman With Ease". Los Angeles Times. p. SDF1. review of play Gunderson performed in
Mel Gussow (28 September 1988). "Life and Love at the Laundromat". The New York Times. p. C20. review of Suds
Stephen Holden (4 September 1992). "One Foot in Motown, The Other in Suburbia". The New York Times. p. C2. review of Back to Bacharach
Nancy Churnin (11 June 1994). "Ambitious 'Highway' Dead-Ends". Los Angeles Times. p. OCF2. critical review of Gunderson's musical "Dixie Highway" (composer)
Stephen Holden (2 September 1985). "GOING-OUT: The Melinda and Steve Show". The New York Times. p. 35. review of a cabaret show co-composed and co-performed by Gunderson and Melissa Gibbs
"SAN DIEGO ARTS; Forever Plaid Continues Successful Run". Los Angeles Times. 10 Apr 1997. p. OC44. review of his performance in Forever Plaid
Nancy Churnin (8 Dec 1994). "San Diego Rep's Staging of 'Carol'". Los Angeles Times. p. F11. review of a musical version of A Christmas Carol for which Gunderson composed the music

I'm not sure that this addresses the first part of #3, which is that the creative professional must have either created (or been a significant co-creator in) a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. I don't know that they are well known and I'm not sure of the works' significance. Do you have information that would suggest that at least some of these works are well-known and/or significant within his field? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With many reviews in internationally known publications with global readership ( Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Variety), I think its clear his works are well known. Additionally, the LAT coverage of the New York production of Suds stated their were reviews of the play in Newsweek, The New York Post, The New Yorker, among others. I didn't bother to dig them up, but its clear that Suds got a ton of critical press on the national stage. 4meter4 (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources listed above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with 4meter4 that multiple reviews in The New York Times and other national papers and magazines shows that his body of work is noteworthy. Gunderson's works have been produced at various off-Broadway and established professional regional theatres, which is another indication that they are notable or at least "significant". The news search at the top of this AfD is garbage in, garbage out, because of the word "actor". A news search for: "Steve Gunderson" theatre -wikipedia finds hundreds of results, and other searches with words like playwright, play, composer, etc. should turn up even more. Also, should the article be moved to Steve Gunderson (composer) or something other than actor? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He typically performs in his own musicals, plays, and cabaret reviews (although maybe less as he has aged?). He was one of the lead performers in Suds in LA and New York for example. Same for Back to Bacharach. I’m not mad at him being described as an actor, but he’s definitely more than just an actor. It looks like he has gotten press as a music director and composer more recently from the search you posted. 4meter4 (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4meter4 makes a good case for keep and presents a variety of RSs. I have also searched the individual and I have found sources. WP:N Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep per 4meter4. Masterhatch (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – concurring entirely with the keep comments above. Tim riley talk 22:00, 4 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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brie Rogers Lowery[edit]

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

Does not appear to have had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG Salimfadhley (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BASIC notability appears supported, e.g. Meet The 28-Year-Old Who's Taken On Ryanair, Paddy Power... Oh, And The Bank Of England Too (Grazia, 2014, includes a focus on her work), Women are using online petitions to fight their corner (Telegraph, 2013, quoted as an expert), How to set up and run a successful feminist campaign (Guardian, 2014, quoted as an expert), Entrepreneurs: Change.org's UK boss Brie Rogers Lowery on transforming the face of 'clicktivism' (Evening Standard, 2015, includes biographical and career information), How Change.org boss Brie Rogers Lowery is clicking up an activism storm (Evening Standard, 2016, includes biographical and career information), Change.org UK chief Brie Rogers Lowery on PR's crucial role in the age of 'clicktivism' (PR Week, 2016, includes career background), in addition to the awards and other honors/recognition in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person has sigcov. Thank you Beccayner. I thought the BBC article/list was a good source as well. Lightburst (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and there are more sources over the course of her career, e.g. Activism Vs. Slacktivism (Communications of the ACM, 2011, quoted as an expert/contributing strategist for FairSay, an eCampaign consultancy), Petition website change.org has revolutionised the way activists campaign (Independent, 2013, quoted as an expert), Donald Trump visit: What petitions say about your area (BBC News, 2017, quoted as an expert), Social media sees virus solidarity bloom in UK (AFP, 2020, quoted as Facebook Europe director of community partnerships). Beccaynr (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage and director of a notable company Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets GNG with sources listed above by Beccaynr and Lightburst — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:49, 9 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. Widespread coverage, includes a notable victim. No such user (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Milan airplane crash[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. General aviation crashes are very common, including ones crashing into buildings[6], and are rarely notable unless someone famous is on board. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:13, 3 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? 21:13, 3 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? 21:13, 3 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? 21:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well although he doesn't have an article here yet, the pilot was is described in this BBC report as being a billionaire property tycoon, and "one of Romania's richest man" [sic]. This suggests that he might be notable enough to deserve an article if someone is prepared to dig for sources (and distinguish mentions of him from the footballer with the similar name).Nigel Ish (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More about Petrescu here - in Romanian.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plane crashes like this happen commonly. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Pyramids09 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ample news coverage; one of the victims was the richest man in Romania.Itemirus (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Itemirus: Is it this Dan Petrescu that was a victim? Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the BBC reports that the man of that name who was killed was 68, whereas that WP article is about a 53-y-o. Jim Michael (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep incident covered by media of several countries, notable victim (Romanian businessman Dan Petrescu). Super Ψ Dro 12:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are reporting this even in Malta [7] and Vietnam [8]. See also some notable newspapers such as The Washington Post [9], Al Jazeera [10], Balkan Insight [11], Daily Mail [12], Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (not a local branch) [13], plus many of the most important newspaper in Romania. I am not sure of the situation in Italy, I don't know the most important newspapers there. Super Ψ Dro 13:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting on the fence How widely this was reported is irrelevant. See WP:NOTNEWS. Aircraft crashes, even minor ones, get wide coverage. Its a nine-minute wonder. Whether this article lives or dies is really down to the notability of one of the victims. I would inclined to think that the article should be merged to the plutocrat's biog, if it existed.TheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - If Dan Petrescu was a Wikinotable person with a stand-alone article, this would be a keep. From comments above, it is possible that he is a Wikinotable person, but doesn't have an article. Therefore this weak delete !vote is without prejudice to recreation should DP get an article. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - with the creation of Dan Petrescu (businessman), the accident has resulted in the death of a Wikinotable person, so qualifies for a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the prominence of one of the victims there will be sustained coverage of this event; it would not be appropriate to delete it under WP:NOTNEWS. Further, while Dan Petrescu doesn't currently have an article, he is certainly notable enough for one; Vanity Fair: article on who he was, 24ur: article on the crash with significant coverage of who he was, Ziarul Financiar: article on the crash with significant coverage of who he was.

I'm sure someone who speaks Romanian will be able to find more, despite him apparently being a recluse who avoided publicity. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment I have to say to keep this because the news coverage did extend to multiple countries. If it had only been one country reporting it, then I would have been on the delete !vote side due to the AFD for the Onesti attack which said high coverage in one country does not grant notability.

The ending of this Afd will set a precedent for Wikipedia, especially with airplane crashes, so if we don’t have a CLEAR majority consensus, I would highly recommend keeping this discussion over a while. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Incidents of aircraft crashing into buildings and killing eight people are extremely rare. Clearly a notable incident. There isn't a cat's chance in hell that an article on an incident like this in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, etc, would be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Airplane crashes into a building, in which the plane carries only a few people, are very rare. Even international news reports have covered this event like it were a breaking news. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 09:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment today I started writing a page for Dan Petrescu, it might be published in the weekend (maybe tomorrow). He is 100% notable, that's for sure, although he hid from media and never gave an interview, which makes it reasonable to think otherwise at first glance. Super Ψ Dro 20:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I published his page, see Dan Petrescu (businessman). I am pinging everyone who commented on his notability or on the possibility of him having a page, in the case it changes or confirms their vote: Nigel Ish, TheLongTone, Mjroots, BilledMammal, NemesisAT. I'm also pinging the only other person who voted oppose, Pyramids09. Super Ψ Dro 13:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now due to the likelyhood of at least one of the victims being notable. NemesisAT (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notable person on board. Cutlass ^Ciera 23:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Haywood[edit]

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

The only mentions of this person in reliable publications seem to be interview articles, and therefore not secondary sources. This subject does not seem to meet our notability guidelines. The article seems to be promotional in tone. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that Haywood is also an author, but the popular novel The Cactus was written by a different Sarah Haywood. pburka (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very nice marketing piece. Will look good in a marketing brochure, but not suitable as an article here. By the way, what does it mean for a wedding planner to be "influential" in any way? The only thing a wedding planner can influence is the brand of bubbly that gets popped at the event, and that last a day. The rest of the world does not even hear the pop. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Party planner for the stars. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 6 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 30 (Adele album). Title officially confirmed. (non-admin closure) — Kochas 15:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A4 (Adele album)[edit]

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

Unconfirmed album with an unconfirmed title. This is becoming a farm of sockpuppets as well (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Zhmailik). (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draftify Per crystal. Not ready for the encyclopedia. I see some hashtagging of A4 but we need to draftify until such time as the A4 materializes. Lightburst (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not see any reports that this album will be called A4, and the information from this article is already contained in the Adele article. I think it would be best to wait until there are more official announcements to create an article for this upcoming album. I do not see this as a useful redirect and I do not thin draftifying it is necessary either. Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has become a redirect to Upcoming Adele album, but I still think this should be deleted as there is no evidence of A4 being the album title (or even speculation that it would be). Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move speculation to the Adele article for now. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Should have never been moved to this made-up title. Needs to be kept for attribution purposes as a cut-and-paste move involved content from this page.--N Ø 13:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "30 (Adele album)" - Going to boldly vote keep after detailed interviews about the album in British Vogue and Vogue. It is clear from a Google search that 30 is the functional title for this album among reliable secondary sources, with virtually none opting for "A4".--N Ø 20:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify You all do that to Lil Nas X album, even when the album had official announcement, you still make it as draft, until it really released on music stores! Now, let's see if you all do that too to Adele (white + straight)'s album. -GogoLion (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no album title has actually been announced, and I highly doubt it'll be something like "A4" anyway. We've got nothing concrete to work with at the moment. Fails WP:FUTUREALBUMS for sure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity or keep – Clearly more and more information is going to come out about the album within the coming weeks or even days, so what's the point of removing when it's going to be recreated soon enough anyway? JE98 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whoever created this article knew damn well that this can't be the official title of this album as there has been no other official announcements by Adele herself and/or her management, record label, or any related entities other than a digital billboard with the number "30" being displayed across the world and a confirmed song title that was literally just announced almost 4 hours ago. mediafanatic17 talk 17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - The AfD template under discussion here has been manipulated with different titles and the album article was redirected to Adele's article. All of those actions messed up the internal bluelinks for the AfD discussion, and some of them were conducted by User:GogoLion who submitted a pointed and non-policy vote above. Everything has been restored to the previous state so the templates work properly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no use for an article with this title because there is no evidence yet of the album's true title, while this version merely repeats current events that are already covered in the history at Adele's page. That info is no great loss and the same stuff can be copy/pasted when there is enough info available for a true article on the album and its real title. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity or keep its coming out soon, no need to delete and then rewrite it again just in a few weeks Sokuya (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft till album is released. This is Paul (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. A Vogue interview of Adele just dropped, giving a lot of content/idea on the new album's background, conception and music. I think a draft would be convenient so that we can develop it further, while also sustaining the information that's already in the article. Ronherry (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Untitled Adele album – "Untitled" for now, because no title has been confirmed yet, still the article itself is already justified. While the "30" billboards weren't the most reliable excuse for the article yet, it has been clear the official announcement is going to drop any day (making this discussion irrelevant). With the Vogue coverage, it's now clear it's not too soon any more (per Wikipedia:FUTUREALBUM), and it's an exception within the TenPoundHammer's Law. Same goes with the likes of Untitled Los Angeles Lakers project, Untitled David O. Russell project, Untitled Mario film, Untitled Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse sequel, or Untitled fifth Indiana Jones film. — Kochas 00:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the part where this was copied without attribution by a sockpuppet [[[Adele#2018–present:_Upcoming_fourth_album|from here]]. Nothing here is relevant enough to maintain it solely because Adele's return is popular at the moment. Untitled Adele album should be redirected to Adele#2018–present:_Upcoming_fourth_album until it is something more than a "She's returning". (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adele#2018–present: Upcoming fourth album. Still fails WP:FUTUREALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adele#2018–present: Upcoming fourth album per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft it's an up coming album, it will be in draft space until the album be released. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admins - The article in question has been moved (re-titled) several times, first as "A4" then as "30" and currently as "Upcoming Adele album", as the voters here debated whether we know the album's true title. We still don't, and the current article title is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. All this page moving has probably messed up the history pages and relevant links. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doomsdayer520: Thank you for your vote. For the moment there I thought I'd have your point and move the article, however I've just studied WP:CRYSTAL, and it looks like its first rule describes just the case we're discussing here:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place [...]. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.

Since the beginning of this discussion, at least those two Vogue interviews were published with the singer herself describing the upcoming album in detail. So what more notable than unprecedented two cover stories at once? So as I mentioned earlier, I would move the article to Untitled Adele album, not "Upcoming," until the title is officially confirmed (per examples I've listed above). We don't need move the article to draft, we've got multiple paragraphs already, with sufficient amount of reliable, mainstream sources referenced. — Kochas 22:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect to "30 (Adele album)", since it has been officially confirmed by Adele herself, both the album and its name. himeros disc 14:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and move to 30 (Adele album), as User:Hímeros said above. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 15:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change this ridiculous title to its proper one. It's already been announced that this album is coming out. To sit here and act like after 19, 21, and 25, that this album wouldn't be called another age (it was already ostensible that would be 30, now it's confirmed) is really just quite stupid. Trillfendi (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahab Tiam[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE didn't show anything towards WP:MUSICBIO. The article itself describes the subject as a local singer having a few collaborations and some releases. The subject shouldn't have a page. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 3 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Township, Guthrie County, Iowa[edit]

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

Notability doubtful. Aalaa324 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe townships meet WP:GEOLAND, as they are formal and legally recognized functioning government districts. Hog Farm _Talk 20:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives no information about the township other than its existence. Aalaa324 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST. We don't judge an article simply by its existing content state. Hog Farm _Talk 20:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the suitable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalaa324 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a legally recognized government district with an official census count of 188. Meets WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."Firsfron of Ronchester 21:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by Hog Farm, WP:GEOLAND provides a presumption of notability for populated, legally recognized places. Yes, WP:NGEO allows for overriding the presumption, but given even a small amount of coverage (as here), I doubt that will happen. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is a legally recognized subdivision. Waddles 🗩 🖉* 23:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Guthrie County, Iowa Notability doesn't necessarily mean we need a dedicated page, and a list of townships in the County article might be more useful than a stub as it would put the subject in context per WP:PAGEDECIDE. I know I'm in the minority here and I'm not strongly opposed to keeping this one. –dlthewave ☎ 12:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the next larger entity. This is a standard survey township, which is a square of land that you could easily walk the perimeter of in one day (6 mi/10 km per side). Back in the 19th-century horse-farming era, you would have expected it to contain somewhere between 50 and 200 small farms, and to organize a few activities benefiting the neighborhood, such as a Volunteer fire department and possibly a school. I suspect it is of relatively little importance in the real world, which means that there are very few sources that speak of it beyond a passing mention as an address (e.g., "Abram Adams of Grant Township died last Sunday"). You can see a map of it at https://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui%3Ahixson_681
The main fact that makes me consider keeping it as a separate article at this time is the List of Iowa townships. IMO these townships should be treated the same. Whatever we do for one, we should do for (nearly) all of them. (Fun fact: There are 33 townships named Grant in Iowa.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about in Iowa, but in some states, townships do have some governmental responsibility over some local rural roads. Hog Farm _Talk 23:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the townships in Iowa are civil townships, not the original survey townships (which they are based upon). If you look at this early plat map of Guthrie County, you can see Grant Township closely follows the survey lines, but other civil townships in the county do not. Voting in rural Iowa is split out by the township (meaning elections outside official cities are run by townships), and histories of each county are normally done that way, as well; for example, here is Grant Township's entry in The Past and Present of Guthrie County, Iowa (1907). Firsfron of Ronchester 15:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legally recognized township, easily meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: first of all, this is a legally recognized township, and second of all, a few seconds of searching revealed 219 Matches · "grant township" in Guthrie County, Iowa. I've added a few sources from here to the article (as formatted cites). jp×g 00:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:GEOLAND. Java Hurricane 02:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is a legally recognized populated place.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- lomrjyo^{(✉ • 📝)} 21:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoson An[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Sources, here and elsewhere, are not sufficiently reliable or in-depth. Parts not significant enough. Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has he "had significant roles in multiple notable films [and] television shows". Multiple yes, significant Maybe. In Mulan, Dead Lucky and The Luminaries he seems to be a main actor. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just needs to be updated is all. Voicebox64 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above, and a total lack of WP:BEFORE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. IAR/DENY/SNOW. Take your pick. Consensus is clear Star Mississippi 14:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SobuJ Ahmed[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any reliable sources focusing on him. All of the Wikipedia articles for films that he supposedly starred in have been tampered with by the same WP:SPA and there are no reliable sources supporting a claim that he starred in any of them Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3/A7 Large parts of this article are a blatant hoax. The acting credits appear to be fake - I can't find any evidence whatsoever verifying them, the only results I get are about half a dozen Wikipedia mirrors and a Facebook page that seems to belong to the pages creator. Apart from the fake acting credits there seems to be nothing here which would imply any kind of notability 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to independently verify any of the claims made in the article.-KH-1 (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SobuJ Ahmed was listed in the cast of all those films BECAUSE, confirming what Spiderone wrote, above, starting in August, the creating editor of this article added SobuJ to the cast lists. Given year of birth given as 2002, would have been a child actor in all. David notMD (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a sockpuppet investigation of the creating editor: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BalPakna2021 David notMD (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No reliable sources I can find. While I wouldn't say the article is a hoax itself as he does seem to at least be somewhat real, he is most definitely a non-notable topic. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 16:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.best regards.Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, and snow close. The article is of a totally non-notable person and any article on this individual should be made to go through AfD rather than be left up to individuals who will copy-paste move it to the mainspace after their draft is declined. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aboveSeddiq Sabri 20:20, 7 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 00:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yanju[edit]

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

A biography that fails WP:BASIC and WP:BIO1E. A Nigerian musician who has recorded one album according to AllMusic[14]; I see no evidence that the album charted. I’ve reworked the article (before, after) but the biographical details are meagre, the sources are not the best and are centred around the release of the album meaning his notability rests on this one event. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Haider[edit]

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

This was originally a redirect to Ali Haidar, however, there have been continual attempts from one account and several IP addresses to restore this self-promotional version of the article. See also HeyAlihaider and Draft:HeyAlihaider for more attempts to get this published.

In searches, I can only find the social media pages that he has created about himself. No independent coverage at all. Clear WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG failure. Please also consider protecting this from being created again. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional rubbish. Mccapra (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the possible COI editing, I have no problem with a deletion. I was unable to identify any passing mentions anywhere, reliable or not, which is made more difficult by the commonness of the name. Suriname0 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ali Haidar: Subject fails GNG and I can't find any coverage and reliable sources. I propose restoring the original redirect to Ali Haidar and protecting the page to prevent future COI editing. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 23:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete An major google search, found no significant coverage.Seddiq Sabri 20:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Litbits[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The Samantha Ellis source is a WP:BLOG. The Guardian source is trivial. The ABC source might be the only source that is more than a trivial mention, but WP:GNG states that more than one source is generally expected.The remaining sources appear to all be permanently dead links to primary or unreliable sources. When searching there are some WP:GHITS because James Kidd wrote some articles for the South China Morning Post and a journalist named Ron Cerabona has a column at The Canberra Times called “Litbits”. Searching Google Books and Google Scholar yields a few sources discussing a blog by the same name, but full previews are not available for the books and it looks like the blog is by a guy named Bedford so I don’t think it’s related to the radio show. I also couldn’t find anything on newspapers.com related to the radio show. The article is also an orphan except for one of the guest’s pages links to it, but as far as I can tell there isn’t a real redirect target. It’s also worth noting that the article has been tagged for notability issues since 2015.

I previously nominated this for deletion here, but there was WP:NOQUORUM and no prejudice against a speedy renomination. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not familiar with this content area, so I'm a little unclear on what standards apply. Is a podcast covered more by WP:NMEDIA or by WP:NCORP? If I assume that a podcast is sort of like an unlicensed radio station, WP:NMEDIA says: "Stations that do not require a license to operate ... are not presumed notable just for existing, but may have notability conferred on them by meeting WP:CORP standards. Where verifiable, an unlicensed station ... is not eligible for its own standalone article unless it can be sourced over WP:GNG via reliable source coverage." I can't see the available sourcing meeting the high standards of WP:NCORP, so if this is the appropriate notability standard to apply, then it's probably a Delete. Suriname0 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriname0: the WP:PODCASTING WikiProject indicates that WP:WEB is often used for podcasts, which essentially means it needs to either have won an award or garnered WP:SIGCOV. It's also worth noting that WP:NMEDIA is an essay so even if that is the appropriate WP:SNG it's overrided by WP:N. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TipsyElephant. I scrolled through the last 5 years of the podcast's Twitter feed to see if there were obscure academic reviews of the podcast, but the only substantive external coverage they linked to was the Guardian article. I don't think the Guardian article + ABC article are enough to meet WP:GNG, as explained in the nom. Suriname0 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:13, 9 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. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School of thought[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable phrase. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well known concept. Some book references: [15],[16] (page 9, etc.), [17] (schools of architectural thought), [18]. That's why this page exist on other languages. In Russsian ru:Школа_(в_науке_и_искусстве) it has a similar, but a little wider meaning. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unsourced is a surmountable problem. Notable - well known, and colloquial. Lightburst (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the nomination fails to advance a coherent argument for deletion and is really just a WP:VAGUEWAVE (criteria no. 1); mostly because whatever issues it plausibly identifies were trivially fixed - so trivially fixed, it indicates the nominator didn't bother to do even a very basic WP:BEFORE. There are plenty of valid sources about "schools of thought" in all kinds of disciplines; ex. history; economics (has it's own WP page, ffs); philosophy; ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, odd nom to be frank. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gajaraja Manthram[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NFILM. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reviews or regular coverage found. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: May be this film is used to be cool, but now it surely fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Seddiq Sabri 21:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Article was sent to draftspace prior to conclusion of AfD. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gubbare TV[edit]

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

No reliable and in-depth sources cited or found. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NMEDIA. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This reference and others already in the article look good. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been moved to the Draft namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Wolfson[edit]

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

I don't believe that Wolfson is notable, either as a writer or activist. None of the cited sources are reliable and so none of the current article meets WP:V - they are IMDB and his own bio. The external links are not to significant coverage in reliable sources. I cannot find other significant, independent coverage in reliable sources - just some local news and unreliable puff pieces like https://luxurylaunches.com/other_stuff/roger-wolfson-more-than-a-television-writer-political-pundit-and-speechwriter.php Fences&Windows 14:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 14:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 14:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree article should be deleted due to lack of notability and poor sourcing. While a COI was disclosed, the sources are Wolfson's personal website or IMDB, which can be altered by the subject WP: PROMOTION. Oceans87 (talk) 20:28, 4 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) 04:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subrat Saurabh[edit]

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

Shallow coverage. citations are tweets or interview related. Venkat TL (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Nothing additional to say. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of sources are either passing mentions or press release or primary.Seddiq Sabri 21:09, 7 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. The challenge here is that GNG is not met. There is wide agreement that this is it is the case while the keep !vote does not address that. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hideaki Nishino[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable; fails WP:GNG. Article makes no biographical claim worthy of note by an encyclopedia. Intentions aside, the result here is an article that's basically WP:COVERT for the person and the product.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does make biographical claim worthy of note by an encyclopedia. "Nishino has been instrumental in many product development innovations of the PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 5." Nishino also has a senior vice president position at SIE and will probably get promoted in the future.-Artanisen (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't provide proof of notability. I didn't find proof of notability. Barring some hidden evidence, this one clearly fails WP:GNG. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no assertion of notability here.Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are no objections to including the three blue linked entries ("the notables") on List of African guitarists and List of Zimbabwean musicians and I will do so as an outcome of this discussion (in fact, a couple are already listed). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zimbabwean guitarists[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Geschichte (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Delete~~. [per indented comment] I agree with nom. FWIW, I found barely any lists of guitarists by geographical area (although I didn't spend much time searching). I didn't find any other lists of guitarists by country, and only one by continent (List of African guitarists). As a further aside, the list of African guitarists includes only those with articles. This would leave List of Zimbabwean guitarists with just three entries. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Reywas92 is correct. I hadn't thought to merge with List of African guitarists, since it was the only continent with a list - but perhaps it's merely the forerunner of what should be articles for each continent. In any case, that's a discussion for another time. I simply missed the existence of List of Zimbabwean musicians. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but trim to only include notable guitarists. There's an entire chapter about acoustic guitarists and guitar bands in Nationalists, Cosmopolitans, and Popular Music in Zimbabwe (Turino; 2008), Brown wrote about the importance of guitarists in Zimbabwe in The World of Music, 36(2), 73–117, and in 2013 The Herald (Harare) wrote about women guitarists in Zimbabwe. pburka (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the notables to List of African guitarists and List of Zimbabwean musicians. Other than the former, guitarists are not divided geographically, and this is not a large enough group of notable people to warrant its own list. Reywas92^Talk 18:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A long list of non-notables. The small number of blue linked names can be included in List of African guitarists. Ajf773 (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be a WP:DIRECTORY for every random non-notable guitarist in Zimbabwe. The article has no sources, so it fails WP:V and WP:LISTN. I found no evidence that this yellow pages type list exists anywhere in the real world outside Wikipedia, so it is WP:OR as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of mentioned people aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. Also there's no sources Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned, the list is a large collection of names that have no indication of notability or references. Only three have articles; as it stands it only looks like a way to avoid meeting a notability guide to get listed. Ifnord (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RENXE[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also fails WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:49, 3 October 201 (UTC)
Delete This is a remarkable attempt at self-promotion. The article is full of lies, none of the references seem to actually refer to the article's subject (aside from a website most likely of the subject's own making). The filmography is possibly all lies; example: they attempt to to take credit for a role in Four Sisters Before the Wedding but that role was credited to a Clarence Delgado in the actual film (I checked). Update: it seems the filmography was simply copy and pasted from the Clarence Delgado article. Koikefan (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Per WP:G3. Definitely a WP:HOAX. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3 as WP:HOAX. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the original author has moved the article to the draft namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 9 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirpichli, Turkmenistan[edit]

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

This doesn't seem notable and the citations seem bogus. Qwerfjkl talk 14:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment. All settlements are notable. This weather.com page and others like it suggest that GEOnet's people found something there, but it isn't clear what. Perhaps a Turkmenistan government gazeteer or census site is available online, or we could wait until GEOnet comes back up. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this looks like a directory of settlement names in Turkmenistan, but I don't want to deal with it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the time being, unsourced, and there is no evidence that this is a settlement. Created by a user now blocked for, well, creating hoaxes.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a hoax. A gas condensate field nearby is a source of natural gas. I added a reference to confirm this. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This [1] mentions Kirpichli as aul in 1931. At least it was a settlement in 1930s. Very likely it is a settlement now. -GorgonaJS (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has been shown not to be a hoax and meets GEOLAND as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it meets geolandJackattack1597 (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Clairvoyants[edit]

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

Little notability in the article to satisfy WP:BASIC - notability hinges on their involvement in one television program, without covering anything about other performances (a part of the Lead says they "have been performing together since 2011", but does not go into detail about this. Strangely, this article could have been put under a PROD, except its name clashes with an article about a band that bore the same name and was deleted following an AfD (as seen here), hence the "2nd nomination" of the article. GUtt01 (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any significant coverage other than the AGT pages themselves, and theatres etc promoting the appearance of the duo. — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously meets WP:GNG: 2020 interview Another 2020 interview 2017 interview 2016 interview. Also meets WP:ANYBIO in that they have won several significant awards, including the Mandrake d'Or, which has also been won by David Copperfield and Penn and Teller. None of those reasons even have anything to do with their runner-up finish on America's Got Talent. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Mandrake d'Or is a notable award. Passes WP:ANYBIO. It looks like there is press in foreign languages, so a competent BEFORE search would need to be done in German, French, etc.4meter4 (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the list of interviews provided by Sportsfan are not sufficient to meet GNG; since they are obviously not independent of the subject. As for the subject passing WP:ANYBIO; that is obviously not sufficient if the subject fails GNG/BASIC; as per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria : "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The interviews obviously are independent of the subjects, as the subjects of the article aren't affiliated with any newspapers. I don't know why you are saying they aren't independent. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: Wikipedia:Interviews goes into more depth; but the essential bit is that all of the information in an interview comes from the subject, and therefore an interview cannot, by definition, be a source that is independent from the subject. Interview are also commonly defined as primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY for a few university library definitions of this), and therefore don't qualify for GNG either. @Stalwart111: The only misunderstanding here is by those arguing that interviews are somewhat acceptable sources for the purposes of determining notability. As for ANYBIO, it is clear that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. [...] conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." If there are not sufficient sources to substantiate the required evidence for notability, then there's no reason to keep. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N says '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.' None of the sources I listed were produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Interviews is an essay, not a policy. Link the relevant policy or discussion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The overly legalistic interpretation of WP:N is clearly at odds with established precedent. I've already linked NOR (where interviews are clearly included as primary sources), and it's entirely logical that an interview is not independent of the subject no matter who produced it, as it the whole of the information within it comes from the subject themself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't buy it, but FWIW, the 2017 source above is not actually an interview. Here is a 2020 source that's not an interview. Here is a 2018 review. The AGT runner-up obviously yielded some sources, e.g. this one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second of these (2020, news.at) is an interview, it clearly contains material from the subject about themselves:"Vormittags zu Netflix, dann zu NBC und nachmittags zu CBS", beschreibt der gebürtige Kremser Thommy Ten, der eigentlich Thomas Höschele heißt, das hektische Treiben dort. Dass sie in ihrer alten Heimat sesshaft werden wollen, war ihm und der Niederösterreicherin Amélie van Tass, gebürtig Christina Gruber aus Hofstetten-Grünau, immer klar. "Wir sind durch unseren Beruf ohnehin auf der ganzen Welt zuhause. Deshalb wollten wir unseren Rückzugsort und die Lebensbasis hier haben", erklärt er an einem der ersten Tage des neuen Jahrs im gemütlichen Wohnzimmer des vor wenigen Wochen bezogenen Hauses. (translation not provided, since I assume you didn't cite sources without reading them or looking at google translate). The last one (noen.at), also: Viel Zeit, um zu feiern hatte der 29-Jährige allerdings nicht: „War leider nur eine kurze Party“, bestätigte der Magier, „wir sind schon wieder unterwegs, um Interviews zu geben und Shows aufzuzeichnen. Ganz Amerika ist an uns interessiert und möchte uns live erleben.“. Simply because something isn't marked "interview" or has been written up to not be in an obvious "question/answer" format does not mean it is not an interview. The other two seem fine on the surface of it, so that's maybe enough for a keep; although really these should have been presented much earlier. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is, I'm afraid, a misunderstanding of common journalistic practice, which is to interview a subject and then produce a written report based on that interview. That an article is in interview format, question-and-answer form, includes quotes (even block quotes), or includes the opinion of the subject does not make the content no longer independent, nor does it make the interviewer no longer independent, nor does it make the interviewee the "source" (which is still the independent interviewer), nor does it remove the sort of editorial oversight we expect from reliable sources. Arguing that an interview doesn't contribute to notability because it might potentially be covered by what is described in an essay (yes, essay) is the only "overly legalistic interpretation" here. WP:COMMONSENSE still applies. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That essay is an accurate reflection of usual practice (and NOR is not a mere essay, and basing articles on primary sources is discouraged, so there you go), and that interviews are not independent of their subject is a commonly accepted fact in practice, which probably needs to be explicited if it is causing confusion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think its only confusing for people who don't know how interviews work (or feign ignorance thereof). It's not difficult, in my view, for the average person to discern the difference between "meet our CEO" type interviews conducted by employees or PR consultants (that wouldn't be independent reliable sources, let alone acceptable for gauging notability here), and the sort of interviews which have been common journalistic practice since the invention of the printing press. That some people ignorantly or intentionally conflate the two is another matter entirely. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - can't see any reason why the subject wouldn't pass WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO based on the above. Misunderstandings of the independence of interviews aside, I'm not seeing a strong rationale for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sportsfan77777`s comment. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pravasi Nivasi Party[edit]

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

new party, no success. Venkat TL (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone who reads Malayalam language check Malayalam-language publications for possible references? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Soft) Delete; Due to lack of acceptable sourcing; might be a case of WP:TOOSOON; but notability requires verifiable evidence; which I fail to see or to find at this time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No useful sources were found which could save the article (including Malayalam publications) Fails WP:GNG. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 00:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG the party has won no seats in the Kerala assembly or Indian Parliament since 2015 at best a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:49, 7 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) 04:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Baton Rouge Parish Emergency Medical Services[edit]

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

I just do not see why the topic is notable even if the sources have been found (currently there are no sources in the article). Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in addition to no secondary sourcing for this topic being available from a search, the article is also heavily promotional currently. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:NOTDIRECTORY -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:04, 3 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) 04:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Power Koteshwara Rao (PKR)[edit]

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

This engineer does not appear to be notable. My searching on Google, Bing, and Yahoo! fails to return significant coverage of the individual with the search term "Power Koteshwara Rao". He certainly fails WP:NPOL.

There's some evidence in citation 3 that the individual briefly got news coverage when he went on Facebook live and criticized his employer. This looks to be a WP:BLP1E where the underlying event is not itself notable. I don't believe that he passes WP:ANYBIO and I propose that the page be deleted owing to the subject's non-notability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage beyond WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a CV and I've already speedy deleted it from his sandbox. Blatant self-promotion. Deb (talk) 08:36, 4 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 Laona and Northern Railway. Sorry to be overriding you, Explicit, but I simply fail to see a valid reason why this should be kept as is at this time, and deem it unlikely that relisting this will yield a change. The one person arguing for keeping is free to look up sources in their spare time, and if they think there is enough to write a proper article once that is done, then there's nothing that prevents them doing so, but the consensus of this discussion at this time is clear and is based on both analysis of at least some sources and other valid policy grounds. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laona Junction, Wisconsin[edit]

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

This was the point where the railroad tracks to Laona (CDP), Wisconsin departed from the main line, mislabeled as a populated place by GNIS. News coverage is not significant and does not indicate a separate community at this location. I would normally consider a redirect, but in this case the junction is several miles from the community. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article should be developed, not deleted. This article was unsuccessfully proposed for deletion in 2020, and several editors recommended keeping it. Doremo (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What content would you suggest adding? I looked over the previous discussion and searched the newspaper archives, but most of the coverage seems to be either trivial or actually about the nearby town of Laona. I'll consider withdrawing if significant coverage can be found. –dlthewave ☎ 04:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's content available at Newspapers.com (159 articles mentioning Laona Junction). However, I'm currently waiting for a subscription renewal, and so I cannot access the articles at this time. Doremo (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

obvious delete There are plenty of governmental references which make it quite clear that Laona Junction only existed as the place where the Laona and Northern Railway met up with the Soo Line, the other end of this short line being a factory in Laona itself, the only reason the line was built. Topos and aerials show a single building which is very obviously an isolated station or maybe just a tower. Mangoe (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Laona and Northern Railway. Djflem (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laona and Northern Railway, with no prejudice against recreation as a standalone article if sources are incorporated and one is actually written. Plenty of references talk about it, but always as a rail junction. jp×g 02:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services#Defunct Yahoo! services. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Next[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Reference is just a passing mention of it. Imcdc (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services#Defunct Yahoo! services where this is summarised in a bullet point. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to same article mentioned above, although "merge" may be a too generous a term. As the nom notes, there's currently only one skimpy source right now, but from looking at 2006-2008 wayback snapshots, it seems like it was something Yahooexclamationpoint was keen on at the time, so it's worth preserving mention of what it once was.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: with history to List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services#Defunct Yahoo! services per above. A better long term target would be redirect to Yahoo! Developer Network should that be split from its current use as a redirect, but that is beyond scope of this AfD. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:22, 8 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 08:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oum Ramatou[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references Imcdc (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 04:09, 3 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) gidonb (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Blade[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Single reference doesn't work. Orphan article. Very promotional tone. Article made by single use account that's most likely affiliated with subject matter. Imcdc (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually do better than this. I'm not an expert in assessing notability against WP:NACADEMIC, because it permits inclusion under some criteria that are completely unconcerned with whether the person actually has any reliable source coverage or not — but the tone here is so egregiously advertorialized that the WP:TNT treatment is warranted regardless of whether he would clear NACADEMIC or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. Passes WP:Prof on citation record. Agree with unfortunate tone of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This is a borderline WP:G11. This is a BLP with one source, and that source is a deadlink. The page was created by a user (SF Blade) that appears to have a connection to the article subject based upon their username. Another similarly named user (DRSFBLADE) has also edited the article. Wikipedia is not a place for adcruft: this needs WP:TNT. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 1500 sources to be found on GS, but I agree that the BLP has problems and TNT may be a solution. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:PROF as a fellow of the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry. I removed some of the promotional tone per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. TJMSmith (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The pass of WP:PROF#C1 was already anough, but the fellowship and #C3 (already in the article at nomination time) seals the deal. The article still needs some citations but the tone is now mostly neutral enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we have a pass of WP:PROF, and the content has been de-promotionalized, so we don't need to resort to blowing up the page completely. XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguably meets WP:PROF Eric Yurken (talk).
Keep meets NPROF per citation count and elected membership in scholarly societies. --hroest 19:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as comments above, passes NPROF.Brayan ocaner (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify in line with WP:ATD-I. He's likely notable, but, being that this is a WP:BLP, I have concerns about the article's current state. As is, the vast majority of the article content is unsourced. I could simply delete the content, which would be permitted by policy, but I feel that if this article were to be given significant work, the content could possibly be OK to include. But, it needs that significant work done before this article is ready for the mainspace—articles that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, even if the article's subject may be notable, should be moved to the Drafts namespace for incubation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of numerous citationsJackattack1597 (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; substantial improvement has been made over the old version, which was quite bad; I am not blown away by the subject's notability, but it does seem that he passes WP:NPROF (as an elected member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry). jp×g 20:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Savoy (restaurant)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This doesn't appear to be a particularly notable restaurant. On top of that, the history section appears to be largely based upon general references to an WP:SPS (although inline citations are not present). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: I had previously nominated this page for G6 deletion, though the creator of the article reverted my speedy deletion notice without contesting the notice on the article's talk page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have you done a BEFORE? Plenty of high-quality hits. Architectural Digest, Helsingin Sanomat Financial Times, Neue Zurcher Zeitung, Monocle, New York Times.... In a book about Alvar Aalto... JBchrch talk 04:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Architectural Digest source makes it clear that the restaurant is notable for its interior design and the New York Times source makes it clear that it is notable for its cuisine. Thanks to JBchrch. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG per sources provided by JBchrch.4meter4 (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn in light of the above sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:48, 4 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chikoo Ki Mummy Durr Kei[edit]

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

No in-depth discussion of the Television serial that would help with notability. Fails WP:GNG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news links above show presumably RS coverage. WP:TROUT to nominator for AfD'ing an article on a current topic less than 24 hours after its creation: Very WP:BITEy. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Several editing accounts have sought to create an article on this new TV show: see Draft:Chikoo Ki Mummy Durr Kei (rejected at AfC) and Draft:Chikoo Ki Mummy Durr Kei 2. The present instance appears to have originated as a copy of the rejected draft, with subsequent development by another editor, so a history merge may be appropriate? AllyD (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this is from a new editor, it has a long history. The existing rejected drafts exists and a new page coming up in mainspace most of the time stinks of SP. But yes, bity from definition. Sorry for that. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fixed the issue of WP:GNG with references to satisfy notability117.193.129.18 (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Please provide sources that you have added in this discussion for WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Seems to pass GNG based on the sources in the article and those that appear in the google news link above. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All sources given are announcements. There is no critical reception of the show. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per listed above. I think the discussion should be closed now. Shinnosuke15 (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Maybe improve the article with some of what was found? Geschichte (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Chamberlin[edit]

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

Non-notable audio engineer. The lede says he is most widely known as the author of the book Musical Applications of Microprocessors, a non-notable book. Mottezen (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep admit a very small niche, but the book is well known (at least by me, shows my age?). There will not be much on-line from that period, alas. W Nowicki (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the 1970s he was a pioneering author on microprocessor electronics. For example he is mentioned on page 144 of Apple II applications by Marvin L De Jong, Richard Krajewski, ISBN 0672220350 --Rob Kam (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect The previous keeps are unconvincing (a trivial mention? really?). However, the book mentioned by the nominator and one other, is notable (looking for its title on JSTOR yields up many reviews of the book itself; a trivial sample of which are the following three: [19] [20] [21]). I'm not a big fan of NPROF (since it often ends up with poor articles based only on primary sources), but, personal opinion aside, one could argue that the author meets no. 1 of the criteria there because of the book. The alternative ("redirect") would be to create an article on the book itself and redirect the author (especially if this is the only thing they are notable for) there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR per RandomCanadian.4meter4 (talk) 01:38, 4 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 with the usual WP:NPASR due to lack of participation. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Rotari[edit]

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

Promotional article about a minor musician, conspicuously lacking in independent evidence of notability, as defined by WP:MUSICBIO. A speedily deleted version was uploaded by the banned Tamer A.Al-Monim; the current iteration is the work of the equally dubious RoyalEdit. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Rotari is a well-known classical musician in Turkey, and she fulfilled the criteria defined by WP:MUSICBIO - see criteria no.9. she has participated and won several music competitions. — RoyalEdit 3:01, 20September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe keep. She does appear to have won some international piano competitions of note; but it's all cited to primary sources. Criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO does appear to be met. There is a decent interview in a Russian language magazine. The trouble with this particular person is that sources are not likely to be in English. Based on where she is active, I would think that the best RS would be in Turkish, French, German, and Russian language publications. I'm not savvy at searching in media in those languages, and any decent WP:BEFORE search would require those specialized skills.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly are the “major music competitions” the subject has won, and how do we know they’re major? — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just worth mentioning that as with many such bios, finding appropriate sourcing in other languages can be hard, especially for one like Moldovan. PK650 (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zafor Firoze[edit]

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

No significant coverage , only 1 notable film directed by him Breekup69 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Breekup69 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet the criteria WP:GNG or WP:BIO —MdsShakil (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There seems to be plenty of sources in the article, and sources for more than one film. Without a better source analysis of the foreign language references by the nominator or MdsShakil I am not seeing a strong case made for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Significant coverage about him that addresses him directly and in details or mentioned his award.Seddiq Sabri 20:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. No WP:SIGCOV. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks any WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG upcoming not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amoeba (album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS criteria. I could not find any significant coverage other than a short one in allmusic. Chrisfilip (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow this kind of music, but just for the record, these are the reviews I found:

Billboard magazine online (now lost? Announced here as "online exclusive")
Issue 190 of a magazine
Another magazine, a little less significant. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Aside from AllMusic, the sources indicated by Geschichte seem reliable. I also found a few reliable sources which talk about the album: [22], [23] and [24]. It is also briefly discussed here: [25] and [26]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NALBUM and GNG per sources provided above.4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Geschichte & Astig. SBKSPP (talk) 02:18, 9 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.