Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 08	October 10 >

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 no consensus. The "keep"s are all week, but have not really been refuted, and there is uncertainty whether the article can be sufficiently cleaned up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Hacmon[edit]

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

Seems to be hardly notable. Tabloid coverage of his relationship with Trisha Paytas and only minor coverage of his "Faces of Water" exhibition. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He appeared on the front page of the Sunday edition of the Los Angeles Times in an article on his work as project director for U2's The Edge (he was the featured picture; not the band). I accessed the print edition through ProQuest. There's significant coverage of him and that project in the article. See below. His work is also included in the The Routledge Companion to Butoh Performance My guess is there is probably enough coverage out there to pass GNG and NARTIST if one searches in languages other than English. I would imagine that most of the best sources on him are in Hebrew. @Throast Did your WP:BEFORE search include searching media in Israel? 4meter4 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Dolan (May 15, 2016). "Faith moved a mountain". Los Angeles Times. p. A1.

Comment - The sourcing is not impressive. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is quite promotional, but the sources suggest that the WP:NBIO threshold is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepPer above. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 04:24, 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 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 23:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garhi Dilawar[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. I can't find it in the 2011 census handbooks for either Raebareli or Sultanpur districts (Amethi district was not yet treated seperately for this census, so it would be listed in one of those two instead). I tried both names mentioned in the article ("Garhi Dilawar" or "Behrana") as well as a few possible variations but without success. Searching on GeoNames similarly turned up nothing. In any case, it doesn't have any official recognition and doesn't otherwise seem particularly noteworthy. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no references. Google search also doesn't return any result to show notability. Advait.kansal (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus to redirect, can tackled as an editorial process. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McAlister Field[edit]

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

A university soccer field is generally not notable, and I'm not seeing any indications that this should be an exception. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no evidence of independent coverage about the facility. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USC Trojans, as possible search term. Giant Snowman 13:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman, normally I'd support that, but there appears to be a McAlister Field House at another institution, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was more beyond that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes, my friend, hatnotes! Giant Snowman 18:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an option, but I'm not sure this title as a redirect would get enough hits to justify the minor clutter of a hatnote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it lacks in-depth coverage, and is not really notable because it's just a university soccer field, barely a stadium. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't appear to be any SIGCOV but I would happily reconsider if the location should have any non-sport notability, as can be the case. Not at all sure it's worth a redirect. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the home stadium for a two-time women's NCAA soccer champion. A quick Google search for "McAlister Field Los Angeles" results in 361,000 hits. SecretlyQuebecois (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC) SecretlyQuebecois is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument to avoid; see WP:GOOGLEHITS. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – as per GS, to USC Trojans. There's a lot of passing mentions for "McAlister Field" or "Sony McAlister Field", and coupled with a not-insignificant number of page views in the past 30 days this suggests that this would profile as a possible search term. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The daily average this year is three views per day. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability. I couldn't find. Brayan ocaner (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - outside of the websites for organisations directly connected with these facilities, there is very little coverage. Passing mentions in match reports do not count towards notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Fails WP:NBUILDING and ultimately WP:GNG. However, my opinion is that "McAlister Field" is a plausible search term and thus a WP:REDIR would be warranted. I also would not be opposed to delete. GauchoDude (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of any WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources or claim of notability in the article.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth and Main[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Non-notable film; I did a WP:BEFORE search and found a link from Patch. Needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christopher Cain - So far, I have found a few brief mentions of the movie (such as in this book and this other book), but so far not a whole lot that could be used to pass WP:NFILM. Even if no other sources can be found, straight deletion wouldn't be appropriate in this case, though, as it can at least be used a redirect to the director's filmography. Rorshacma (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per Rorshacma. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a few hits in google books [1] notable cast and director anyway.† Encyclopædius 20:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added links to three books that discuss the movie in some depth, showing notability. Given the director and cast it would be surprising if nobody had written anything about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newly added book citations. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because book citations establish notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion is fairly similar in numerical Keeps and delete/redirects. The keep !votes are primarily that it meets GNG - they don't argue that it meets NORG, but instead several !voters pointed out that NORG doesn't compulsarily apply to non for-profit schools.

Set against that are those arguing that it does need to meet NORG, but also that the sources present are insufficient (even for GNG).

A good case could be made for a close in any direction here, but I feel that it remains non clearcut at this point is a good indication of no consensus. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tilbury District High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Little coverage Imcdc (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG with references. Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG, as does pretty much every secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Necrothesp, even schools have to prove their notability, not their existence. That is already in 2017 decided in an RFC. The Banner talk 17:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references provide in-depth coverage of the school, and they're all local news anyway (see WP:AUD). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:NCORP is the appropriate guideline, according to comments below. NemesisAT (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AleatoryPonderings.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What is in dispute here is GNG, and mere assertions to failing it or passing it are not sufficient. I see there are sources in the article; but see overall little detailed discussion on the suitability (or lack thereof) of said sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG does not exclude local coverage. I've added three references which all focus on the school, establishing notability. I feel WP:GNG is now met. NemesisAT (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NemesisAT Actually it does for schools to a certain extent. Schools fall under WP:NORG which excludes local coverage per WP:AUD. While we can use some local coverage, these must be augmented by sources with a wider audience in order to prove notability. 4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, NORG mentions "for-profit schools", implying that public schools don't fall under the criteria. Please note I am not making an argument as to the notability of this school. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What I is see is mainly a collection of dead links (Chatham News), passing mentions and database info. The Banner talk 17:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An WP:ATD exists via a redirect/merge to either Tilbury, Ontario or Lambton Kent District School Board. As for the sources in the article, the Windsor Star articles seem good, but that's only one outlet, and the other ones feel too trivial to really impress me. Jumpytoo Talk 22:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet WP:GNG as sources in article show. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Little Prince. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B 612 (The Little Prince)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Information on this page is already on 46610_Bésixdouze#Naming, B612_Foundation#Foundation_name, and The_Little_Prince#Astronomy Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The work and setting are quite famous and so covered in works such as Literary Wonderlands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Little Prince. While there's certainly a lot of mentions of this in coverage of the story, I have a hard time seeing sources to justify a stand-alone article here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a matter of AfD policy-based outcome, on the basis of the sources I see in Google Scholar which appear to be plentiful and I'm going to assume that 2+ have detailed coverage on this plot element they clearly mention. Having said that, a merger or redirect to either of the ATD's listed by the nominator isn't a bad outcome at all, and we wouldn't be poorer for the lack of a standalone article on this plot element. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Little Prince - A reasonable redirect, but the entirety of the information here is already present on the main article for the book, and it is clearly not enough that a WP:SPLIT would be justified. Redirecting to the top of the main article on the book makes more sense than either of the proposed redirects in the nomination - someone searching for the term B 612 with the qualifier of "The Little Prince" after would very likely be looking for information on the fictional planetoid as it appears in the plot of the story, not on the real life organization that was named after it. Rorshacma (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The entry in B612 disambig is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to B612. This is plausible as a notable topic, but, unless expanded, there's currently so little information in the article that it's almost indistinguishable from the B612 disambiguation page. Note that there's even less information about this fictional planetoid in The Little Prince article, so it's a poor redirect target. pburka (talk) 00:32, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Somerset Football League[edit]

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

Similar case to Guildford and Woking Alliance League and other sub-county leagues that have been deleted in the past year or so for failing WP:GNG and because they are at a very low amateur level of the sport, played mostly on public pitches with very low attendances. Online searches reveal only very infrequent coverage in local papers such as this article in the Midsomer Norton, Radstock & District Journal. Similarly, a search of British newspapers yields little better than occasional results roundups in the Cheddar Valley Gazette and the Shepton Mallet Journal and other local papers with very limited audiences. As with the twenty or so other similar articles deleted recently with clear consensus, there is nothing here that establishes notability in the context of a general and global encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A local amateur league only and therefore not notable. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others mentioned it's a local league and doesn't qualify any Wikipedia's notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Lorenzo the great (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would concur with the views above that this league is not of the standard required to meet notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I feel this should be deleted similar to my reason for the 5. divisjon. Just cause it exists does not mean it needs an article. SecretlyQuebecois (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC) SecretlyQuebecois is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:08, 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. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Cockshott[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Being the designer of a former Olympic sailboat should be sufficiënt reason on it self to be notable in wikipedia. This fact is wel documented in the topic. Dragon Genoa (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dragon Genoa. The article as a whole needs more citations but notability is assured by the section on his boat design. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. Why does designing a former Olympic sailboat mean you qualify for an article? I do not see anyone writing any substantial biographical information about him anywhere. If he is only notable for the design, and no one is writing about him as a person, it seems as though the article should be redirected at best. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to 12 foot dinghy. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOLYMPICS. NOLYMPICS only applies to the athletes, not people that design equipment used in sporting events. The relevant guideline here is GNG. Subject lacks significant in depth independent coverage. Not a single source in a WP:BEFORE search or in the article matches the criteria needed to demonstrate the subject passess WP:GNG. A big clue to the inappropriateness of the article is the WP:Original research (interviews with family by the page's author) given as the main source in the listed references. Article clearly violated WP:No original research. There are plenty of sources on his boat though. So I would sugged a selective merge and redirect per WP:ATD. Note to closer please consider the absence of a policy driven argument by the keep voters.4meter4 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the keeps are unconvincing; so is the original rationale; so this essentially leaves one well argued comment in favour of merging; which by itself is not enough to establish there is a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO #2, and arguably #1. He won both sailing honours and design awards, and two of his designs are independently notable (the West Kirby Star and the 12 foot dinghy). Like authors of notable books, or directors of notable films, being the designer of multiple notable vessels strikes me as a significant contribution to the fields of sailing, boat design, and sport. That the article might have been written in an inappropriate manner is worth considering, but ultimately that's a fixable problem and we're talking about someone who died almost 70 years ago, not some living, self-promotional start-up CEO. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 I am not seeing any notable awards or sailing honors in the article. Certainly nothing that passes ANYBIO. What exactly are you referring to? Also, how do you justify the lack of sourcing? Most of the content is completely unreferenced beyond the boat design content. Lastly, the lack of coverage of him personally would seem to suggest that while his boats are notable, he is not. WP:Notability is not inherited.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1903 he won a trophy" / "In 1912 Cockshott won a design competition". While notability might not be inherited from famous relatives or because of association with singular events, the standard set by multiple notability guidelines is that the creators of notable things (books, films, buildings, etc) are notable for having made said notable contribution. Its the basis of guidelines like WP:CREATIVE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

stalwart111 I see that. But who awarded it? What competition? The trophy could have been given by a completely unknown organization. Likewise the competition could have been trivial. There are no sources or details for these. As such, how in the world could you argue these as significant? Likewise, we don’t have enough sources citing his work as significant to make a CREATIVE claim. Where is the significant coverage on Cockshott to support your argument? 4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 Agree, absolutely. We don't know, except that the trophy was awarded by Cambridge University and was thereafter named in his honour (and subsequently presented by Cockshott to later winners). Thus he "arguably" meets #1. But, conversely, arguably not. It's sort of moot anyway, because I believe he passes #2. His designs were recognised by peers, having been "granted informal international status in 1914 and full international status was confirmed by the IYRU (now World Sailing) in 1919". That design was later recognised as an Olympic standard. And then you have the fact that the George Cockshott Cup is still presented today; recognition of his contribution to the sport, whether you consider his having won it originally or not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might be inclined to agree with you if the award itself is notable. However, the award was not awarded by Cambridge University but a student club at the university. Those are two very different things. If the award itself is notable (as in it gets significant coverage in independent sources) then I would agree with this logic. However, I am not seeing any independent coverage of this award. So I still don’t think it counts towards ANYBIO. As for the other rationale, given the lack of sources on Cockshot and the design for the 12 foot dinghy being the Olympic standard, a merge/redirect to the article on the boat seems like a better choice given the lack of sources.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, inclusion at the Olympics seems adequate as a source to verify it was considered an Olympic standard, but I take your point. And I think a "student club" that was giving out silver cups in 1903 probably have a more substantive history than we might consider their modern "student club" equivalents to have. My concern with a redirect is that he's notable (in my view) for having designed two independently notable things. Other than being small sailing boats, they don't seem to have a lot in common (thought admittedly my knowledge of such things is limited). He is referenced in the lede of both articles. Though one vessel design is arguably more notable that the other, I don't think it serves any encyclopedic value to include biographical information in the article of one of his creations and not the other. And if we accept that he was responsible for creating both notable things, I'm inclined to believe he meets our inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cockshott Trophy Series", by the way, continues to this day and the cup was this year presented to the winner by George's grandson. It's now a four-event international series. I also found this magazine article which would seem to constitute significant coverage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also brief mentions in modern media as a result, here, here, and here. The latter is particularly helpful in establishing the lasting impact his design work had on sailing and the fact that there is ongoing enthusiasm for his designs among modern sailors. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, thinking about it a bit more, the fact that his namesake trophy is now an international event and that winning said event might be enough for someone to be considered notable in their own right (given its significance far beyond its original boundaries as a Cambridge University event), I would argue that constitutes his having had a lasting impact on the sport of sailing on its own. Its perhaps not on the same level as the Ryder Cup (Samuel Ryder), Stanley Cup (Fred Stanley), or Heisman Trophy (John Heisman), but it is significant nonetheless. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 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 delete. Extraordinary Writ's argument was very persusive and, in 13 days, unrefuted. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Hubbard[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Only one significant role and was only a supporting role. The rest are all tiny bit parts. ♟♙ (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 95 episodes of Tribes and several other roles is enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. KidAd • SPEAK 00:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite apart from a cult roll in Hill Street Blues, and multiple other parts (albeit lesser ones), he provided a prolific (95 episodes) and innovative roll in Tribes, an innovation in soap opera for teenagers. Seems clearly to satisfy WP:ENT. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 01:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long history of Work in meets WP:NACTOR. Lightburst (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only source provided in the article was IMDB, which fails WP:RS, particularly for a WP:BLP. Performing WP:BEFORE turns up little else in the way of reliable sources covering him in any kind of detail. ♟♙ (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find nothing but trivial mentions in a WP:BEFORE search. Tribes is his only significant role. Not clear from any sources that his appearances in Hill Street Blues constitute a significant roles as he played different parts and was not a main cast member. As such fails all criteria at WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With his role in tribes, seems notable to me, since he appeared in perhaps all the episodes (seemed liked a significant role). I think the problem with this article was that its only attribution was originally to imdb. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is lack of coverage. There isn't enough to establish GNG or even to provide any significant content. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments for keeping are rather weak, in that no SNG is absolute and that they do not seem to counter-act the apparent lack of GNG. This needs further discussion to determine whether GNG is indeed failed or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NACTOR tends to be more of a "likely to be notable" than "is definitely notable" type of SNG, so I'm not comfortable leaning too heavily on it, particularly since (as 4meter4 notes) it's at best ambiguous whether he even meets it at all. Since there's no real argument that Hubbard passes the GNG (my searches of Google, Google Books, Proquest, and Newspapers.com don't find anything beyond textbook trivial mentions), Hubbard is in my view not notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page. His role on Hill Street Blues was exceptional and he is a piece of Black History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.108.174 (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Particularly per Extraordinary Writ's argument that meeting NACTOR is not a guarantee of inclusion, but merely an indication of potential notability. In this case, exhaustive searches on multiple databases including historical records like Newspapers.com have turned up no sources. The argument that his role had a cult following or was historically significant seems to not be borne out by the coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Broekhuizen[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. A Google search does not bring up any secondary sources showing birth, education, or career. Broekhuizen has one of her works in the Low Parks Museum that is listed on ArtUK. Not much else. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only source is a personal web page. Could not see other major coverage. It is in fact a resume, not an article. Delete per WP:PROMO WP:N, etc. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the artist's CV (http://www.josephinebroekhuizen.com/about/) lists an exhibition in a Coffeeshop (Netherlands) in 1988 as a solo exhibit; this is not a notable artist. Vexations (talk) 22:10, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tuneful Teachers[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE check yielded only the Free Lance-Star article cited in the stub. Have yet to find more coverage other than an announcement of their performance in a concert or a passing mention, usually part of a bio of a former member. If I missed some guideline, policy, or existing consensus that overrides WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, or if evidence exists that the subject could meet inclusion criteria in six months, please let me know; I would be open to moving the page back to draftspace in that case. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also can find nothing useful beyond the one newspaper article already cited on the page. Otherwise they appear in brief gig announcements and their own self-created websites. The article's bizarre formatting indicates to me that it was directly copy/pasted from somewhere else, and no Wikipedia article on any band lists every single one of their songs and every single one of their performances. Also, the article says that it came from the Articles for Creation process, but it appears that nobody on that team reviewed it, as indicated by its many style errors. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The creator moved the draft without going through AfC. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "bizarre formatting" mentioned in my vote has been fixed, though we do have an admission below about text being "transferred" from elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the information on [Tuneful Teachers' official site] is being transferred here (emphasis added). Neither Earwig nor my brief skim of the official site pages found copied text. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Below, the article creator said that the singing group's current site is being deleted and "the information on it is being transferred here for purposes of being archived". The difference between text and information is irrelevant; transferred and archived are the terms to discuss. Wikipedia is not an archive for dead/dying websites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the main point is that we have yet to find sources showing the subject meets criteria for a standalone article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "the bizarre formatting" -- this is because the author is amateur at coding. The tone of this notion to delete comes off as an attack to the author rather than any breach of Wiki standards. There are no copyright violations as the creator of the media is the director of this publication. The flagged wordpress site is in process of deletion and the information on it is being transferred here for purposes of being archived. This page is still being edited. --Jared — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaredVPurcell (talk • contribs) 03:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This debate isn't about you and your skill level, it's about Tuneful Teachers. The issue is their notability, and the article really does breach several Wikipedia standards for formatting and content. Wikipedia is also not a place to archive material from a different website. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with DOOMSDAYER520's comments. Peter303x (talk) 17:25, 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 12:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Rawls[edit]

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

It is a promotional article and person is not meeting WP:GNG. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree with the nominator. This is subject to WP:PROMO. And not enough independent coverage. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources I have found are interviews or trying to sell his book. There's little to write about here, subject is the author of one book. NemesisAT (talk) 15:02, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mainsail (company)[edit]

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

Very borderline A7 eligible article on a non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore a before search turns up nothing concrete. Needless to say WP:ORGDEPTH is absent Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Lack of WP:SIGCOV Estopedist1 (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability.Misasory (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Imcdc (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General Richard Butler Vagabonds Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Wholly unsourced, not even to DCI. Fails WP:BAND. No assertion of notability, no placement first, second or third in national competition. Significant independent sources do not appear to exist outside the walled-garden Drum Corps International ecosystem, other incidental mentions are insufficient to establish notability. Acroterion (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well spotted. This has been in wikipedia for over 10 years with not a single source. --Bduke (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator--yet another non-notable organization from the DCI walled garden, lacking secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article created in 2013 with a maintenance tag from 2009 and no sources. Has no sources even now. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find independent coverage that goes in-depth about the subject matter. Imcdc (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Deb, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance; CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Dom[edit]

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

Autobiography on a YouTuber with no WP:RS cited and nothing better found in a search of 'Dark Dom' or 'domsoepic'. He is very popular but that doesn't necessarily guarantee notability. I can't find anything to show a passing of WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any coverage from my own google search and therefore fails WP:GNG. However, I don't think that this is an autobiography and it was probably made by a fan impersonating him. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 19:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Feels especially squicky that this is a high school student. — Ghost River 04:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is a WP:G11 issue, and the individual is clearly non-notable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Deb (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alvix[edit]

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

Lack of Citations and Unsourced Citations Shoo Mila (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Promo page for a less than notable person. Fails WP:GNG. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any coverage, Lack of citations, Fails WP:GNG·Misasory (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. He doesn't have an article on the Swedish or Persian Wikis either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Orphan page. Imcdc (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Article has been moved to draftspace. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aalaap mein girah[edit]

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

The article doesn't pass GNG nor WP:NBOOKS. Gazal world (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was moved to the draft namespace by User:Advait.kansal. This has been in the article namespace since 2010, but WP:DRAFTIFY suggests that you should try AfD instead of moving to the draft namespace if the page has been around for a long time. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2, Thanks for correcting me. I shall keep a note of this going forward. Advait (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dogbert's New Ruling Class[edit]

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

Very old short stub about a minor defunct newsletter with no significant coverage. Should be a redirect to a section within the main Dilbert article like how Induhviduals from around the same time became. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the mailing list fails WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:53, 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. ✗plicit 00:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani ethnic groups[edit]

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

The entire article, being basically nothing more than a few Wikipedia links, is a duplicate of content which can already be found at Azerbaijanis#Subgroups and Iranian Azerbaijanis#Ethnic groups. In addition to WP:POVFORK, the article contains serious violations of WP:RS, as almost every listed "source" was published in the Soviet Union and/or the Republic of Azerbaijan, political entities known for having no freedom of press (see; Censorship in the Soviet Union, Media freedom in Azerbaijan) and being major proponents of historical negationism (see; Historical negationism#Soviet history, Historical negationism#Azerbaijan). - LouisAragon (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per WP:OVERLAP and WP:POVFORK. Pahlevun (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious content fork per above. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT reason #1. No rationale advanced and no one else recommends deletion. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike coaching bug scandal[edit]

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

عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Why? ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - nominator has failed to provide a reason as to why the article should be deleted Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Non-existent rationale aside, there's some truly awful writing and sourcing going on in the article. Probably not in the projects best interest to simply close this out and forget about it just because they didn't write up a nom. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not all the sources are great, but there are sources from ESPN and the BBC that discuss this specific incident. ApLundell (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per ApLundell, sources in the article provide for notability as the event has been covered by multiple reliable sources. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 20:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where is the rationale?! The topic is notable. For example, See these PC Gamer articles[2][3][4]. However the article needs improvement. Mann Mann (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this is definitely a documentable event from RSes for the VG project, given that no one involved is a notable individual, I don't know if we need to list the names here, and without that table this seems like something that can be merged into a more comprehensive article. --Masem (t) 04:57, 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 speedy keep per WP:CSK #4: nominator is globally locked as an LTA, and no one else has commented. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korhan Başaran[edit]

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

I can't see any notability for this person عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Chipchase[edit]

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

Chipchase fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played for or managed a club in a WP:FPL or a senior national team. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies as this was created 7 days after her death and the bulk of the sources are post death/not independent/unreliable. Dougal18 (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Chipchase is an important figure in the historical development of English women's football. Although more recent sources were generated after her death, their content go beyond mere obituary and describe in detail her accomplishments (primarily as the manager of Donny Belles, one of the dominant clubs in the previous era). She was also discussed in several scholarly works on the history of English women's football, therefore more than satisfies WP:GNG. Seany91 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think this meets GNG. Evidently a significant figure in women's football. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Giant Snowman 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as my reading of sources, I can conclude that, passes WP:GNG.Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has been improved substantially since nomination and evidently meets the minimum standard. Likely warrants a WP:DYK Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has now been spammed with sources that barely mention her - if they mention her at all. Good to know that dying and having local press write about it now ensures a GNG pass. Dougal18 (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to her death, there is an entire magazine page here, which is completely about her. A lot of the post-death coverage is quite strong and that's why we're able to build a biography from it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The post death coverage is a few lines of biographical info padded out with a bunch of quotes from people that have some connection to Chipchase . I was under the impression that didn't count for notability purposes. She wouldn't pass GNG alive so why does dying make this any different? Dougal18 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are smart enough you withdrawal the nomination. Post-death sources count as long as the sources are in dept coverage in reliable secondary sources sources. Secondly, you don’t have to distinguish between local sources as GNG doesn’t distinguish between local and national sources. Third, go out and see there is coverage of her in off line sources (as she was notable before the internet era). And last, if you read her importance, this is defenately an article the Reader wants per Wikipedia:Readers first. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How rude. Just because your former colleagues claim you are a "pioneer" does not make you so. Chipchase wasn't notable in life despite the post death hagiography in the town/county newspaper. Dougal18 (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks seem somewhat personal – I suggest you follow the good advice you were given and back off by withdrawing the nomination. While I would not readily use a word like pioneer in Julie Chipchase's case, there is no doubt from the online coverage alone that she was a significant figure in the growth of ladies' football. The magazine article cited above is evidence of her notability in terms of offline coverage. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After Bring back Daz Sampson improvements the article is in a much better state. Showing she clearly passes GNG. Someone should give Bring back Daz Sampson a barnster and trout Dougal18 at the same time. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gosh, look at those references - always did pass GNG, as the test is notability of the person, not how well the article is listed. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be ok now based on the improvements made by Bring back Daz Sampson. Imcdc (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Blue Devils Drum and Bugle Corps. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Devils C Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability, no placement first, second or third in national competition. Significant independent sources do not appear to exist outside the walled-garden Drum Corps International ecosystem. This is a feeder organization for a higher-level band, and could be mentioned there. Acroterion (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Blue Devils Drum and Bugle Corps: Non-notable as few sources exist outside of the DCI-sphere. Would be a solid section in the BD page. Curbon7 (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --Bduke (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've been meaning to propose merging all the Open Class members into a single Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists article and lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:09, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richardson International[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP Salimfadhley (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the best sourced article but being one of the largest private corps in Canada, I think it does meet WP:NCORP. Masterhatch (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question do you think we'd be better off draftifying it and allowing editors time to improve the sourcing?

We could allow for improving the article or possibly merge relevant info with the parent company James Richardson & Sons. (There's already some info on this article there) Masterhatch (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Masterhatch (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question did you vote twice?

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 25 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) 04:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 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 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 13:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Trainer[edit]

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

Created without sources in 2010 (Special:Permalink/351674872), and I couldn't find any that cover him in-depth or verify any biographical information. His name is mentioned in several sources with relation to his 1966 book The Lolita Complex (specifically a 1969 translation) as the source of the Japanese usage, but that is about all I can find (and I don't think the book is notable enough for an article either; I added Stapleton 2016, which gives a very brief description, and apparently there was a very short review, or perhaps just an ad, in The NYT Book Review in 1966 [5]). I was unable to find any information about his other books, which based on the titles and what the article says appear to be erotic pulp paperbacks and faux "case studies" in the vein of The Lolita Complex.

"None of his publishers is known to have ever supplied a biography, but Russell Trainer's family states..." from the first revision makes me think that the editor who wrote this was perhaps a family friend conducting original research. — Goszei (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Supply shooting[edit]

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

This event has failed to demonstrate any WP:LASTING effect, almost three years after the fact. Many of the sources used for this article are local ones, and the national news outlets used as sources here have clearly dropped the story after about a day or two. Love of Corey (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was some controversy surrounding the death penalty in this case but reports from 2019 say the prosecutor won't be pursuing the death penalty. Once the trial concludes I don't expect lasting coverage. Spudlace (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete, per nominator's correct assessment of fleeting non-local coverage. The world is full of somewhat bizarre murders. BD2412 T 15:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just another, all-too-common incident in the shooting range that is the gun-mad US. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:06, 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. ✗plicit 12:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnology Innovation Organization[edit]

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

Relatively small lobbying organization. References are from its own publications, and from mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looking at the BEFORE news results at least, I don't think it's fair to say that this is a "small lobbying organization." They seem to be a fairly significant trade group for this industry. Reasonable minds can differ about the sufficiency of the coverage but, at least to me, I think the relevant notability guidelines are met. DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WSJ has in-depth coverage of the organization in 2020 that begins with the CEO but also includes board members: The Advice That Gave a Biotech Exec a Shot in the Arm. Beccaynr (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Also: Biotech Industry Pushes Trump Administration to Release New Vaccine Guidelines (NYT, 2020, "BIO’s members include many of the major pharmaceutical companies, including all of the coronavirus vaccine makers except AstraZeneca."), ABC11, 2020, describes BIO as "the largest trade group representing pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions". Beccaynr (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC) "In early 2020 BIO debuted the Coronavirus Collaboration Initiative" (Forbes, 2021), Change is messy’: Inside the tumultuous efforts to stabilize BIO, the biotech lobby (STAT, 2021), Exclusive: Top drug lobbyist to depart next year (Politico, 2019), Paul Hastings' journey from patient to one of biotech's leading voices (SF Business Times, 2021) - I am updating my comment to a keep !vote, because there are multiple WP:SIRS, with WP:CORPDEPTH that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization, and per WP:AUD, there is significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media that is independent. Beccaynr (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing the AfD Looking further, it seems Beccaynr has it right. I've perhaps been influenced by working too much on clearly promotional corporate articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qualia (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Almost all the referencces are routine notices about funding and the like, DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oppose/keep I've noticed that this company is either not tagged or tagged incorrectly as qualia on existing pages. I can look to add addtional information if that would help notability, thanks. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions, thanks! — Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - present references are all fundraising, and a quick WP:BEFORE shows a sea of press releases and press release churnalism. This just doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Best I can say is WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails SIGCOV. Sources are not independent but paid PR campaigns. ^Ramaswar _(discuss) 16:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is many of the sources are press releases or they are just routine mentions. It also doesn't help the article is heavily promotional. Imcdc (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. There is consensus here that this is not viable as a standalone article. The arguments to keep are quite weak, with no evidence of notability being provided. The arguments to delete based on NOTDATABASE are stronger, but at the moment there is not consensus for outright deletion; the notability of the broader topic was only mentioned in a couple of comments. There were some suggestions that this be closed as "no consensus" to allow a merger discussion, but I think weak consensus for a merger exists; it only remains to determine the scope of this merger. Once that has occurred, if the notability of the broader topic remains in doubt, a new AfD would be necessary, and so I see no prejudice against renomination here. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masters M85 triple jump world record progression[edit]

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

We should have a discussion about this. Masters W85 weight throw world record progression was prod-deleted today, having been nominated with the rationale: "Unsourced article which lacks notability. The progression of this record (and most such Masters records) is not a subject that gets enough attention[1] to warrant an article, which also explains why it is so incomplete."

Personally I would like to see this go, because it violates WP:NOTDATABASE. Master's athletics, though it has its connaisseurs, gets very little coverage even on world-championship level. Even more so when it comes to world records - although there is the occasional press profile on a master's athlete here and there. Master's athletes don't become notable in the enclopedic sense through holding these world records, so the list is not a navigational tool between the athletes. Therefore I believe this list should be confined to another, statistical website. Geschichte (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Data like this can be found nowhere, so it's a very good addition. I once started to make a combined page for all ages, but after the high jump I've stopped. See Masters_women_high_jump_world_record_progression. Someone able to do this for all disciplines can await my applause. WeiaR (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant: the data can be found, but not organised like this. That's what an encyclopedia is good for. The governing body by the way is World Masters Association, not World Athletics. WeiaR (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Weia, the organization is World Masters Athletics. This same information could also be derived from a chronological breakdown of their records over the years. That would actually be the most accurate source since they are the official world governing body.Trackinfo (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that the data can be found nowhere else, it constitutes WP:Original research or WP:Synthesis and fails Wikipedias WP:V policy... Geschichte (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no official position over this but there is a whole category of masters track and field records here: Category:Masters athletics world record progressions, so we will have to apply the name rationale to all other records articles in this category. And if they are certified by World Athletics, the official governing body of the sport, then there is good reason for them to remain. Ajf773 (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The assertion that this is unsourced is unfounded. The source from Mastersathletics.net has always been on the page. Other record progressions contain multiple sources, the one you chose to pick on, a lesser event in the M85 division is based only on the one source though if you push it, I can probably find some mentions in the historical archive of National Masters News reporting on mastershistory.org. The point Weia made is this is the only place and the appropriate place the progression has been put into coherent chronological order, an improvement over the original source. World record progressions, the historical sequence of world record achievements, is a common presentation for not only track and field records but for other sports as well. Every record is a unique achievement, to that point in time, nobody had ever achieved it before. Such an achievement WP:NTEMP is notable in itself even after it has been surpassed. Roger Bannister's 4 minute mile has been surpassed now well over a thousand times, but when he did it, he became legend. These world records with the age qualifier are noticed by fewer people certainly but are still equivalent.Trackinfo (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDATABASE.4meter4 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any reason this article is more or less notable than the other record lists at Category:Masters athletics world record progressions; I'm not sure how to bulk-handle 400 possible follow-up deletion discussions if there is consensus to delete. This does seem to violate WP:NOTDATABASE; there isn't even a hint that these progressions are discussed anywhere else. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the 12 small age group pages Masters M35 triple jump world record progression, M40, M45, M50, M55, M60, M65, M70, M75, M80, M85, M90 to a new Masters men triple jump world record progression with a section per age group, like Masters women high jump world record progression by WeiaR. I suggested this for all Masters athletics events at User talk:Trackinfo/Archive 3#Masters world record progressions. Trackinfo made the articles and opposed like here. I didn't pursue it. If it's not merged then delete as not individually notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have created User:PrimeHunter/Masters men triple jump world record progression to show how a merger of the 12 articles could look. It's still a small article. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass articles with internal links makes the editing process and linking process more difficult. Those were my grounds on the previous objection. The size of the small articles doesn't seem relevant. Obviously you have an objection to it. If it will save the content, I'll concede that point. Trackinfo (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed by PrimeHunter. The progressions themselves are permastubs, and have a better claim to notbility as a single article collecting all subsets. BD2412 T 04:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: The records are kept by an official governing body. WMA has an official Records Chairperson, hence the records going through an official channel before they are ratified. Masters Track and Field is one of the first Masters sports. Masters competitions are held world wide. Official record keeping of Masters Track and Field started in the late 1960s. Masters Track and Field is officially recognized by World Athletics and USATF. Including the records in Wiki makes sense. PlainDonut (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere, possibly as proposed by PrimeHunter (with sweet sandboxing). This discussion deserves broader attention, the outcome potentially affecting hundreds of current pages as pointed out above. Trackinfo has created a large number of accurate single-sourced stubs. Trackinfo has had a large say in how this material was organized because, well, they organized it. I appreciate that accomplished user's enormous contributions. These stubs are not about routine sports outcomes; they represent certified historic world records which will never change but always will be improved (until the limits of the human body are reached). I'm inclined to want to keep such data on Wikipedia. A reasonable argument could be made they belong at Triple jump world record progression#Men or Masters triple jump world record progression#Men. Looking at List of world records in masters athletics I can see something of why Trackinfo wants to keep them as they are. The (progression) link is a handy way of getting to the material from the overall list. However, if the age-grouping pages could be unified somewhere, anywhere, those links could be appropriately redirected. I'd like to see Trackinfo's concerns addressed, possibly in a more generic discussion elsewhere. BusterD (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After due consideration and looking at other sports groupings, I'd like to see all these (already created) progression by age group articles to be merged by individual discipline like the existing high jump page and the suggested triple jump sandbox. Redirects to appropriate subheads inside the new page. I'm interested in discussion from Trackinfo about why this has been suggested to them for several years (by folks here in this discussion) and never agreed to. I'd be interested in hearing the arguments against because they are not readily apparent to me. BusterD (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the age classes to Masters triple jump world record progression with an individual table for each class. All these tables are quite short and are highly unlikely to grow significantly any time soon. Together they make a substantial page and I cannot see any argument for a navigation problem when all the information is right there on the same page. SpinningSpark 17:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The women's records can go on the same page also with sections for men and women. No need for a separate page there either. SpinningSpark 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Masters triple jump world record progression, as per SpinningSpark. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't look like there will be consensus to delete. A merge will involve at least 12 articles for men's triple jump, 22 if women are included, 19+ if all M85 events are merged instead of triple jump, 28+ if all M85 and W85 are merged, and 400+ if the whole Category:Masters athletics world record progressions is treated similarly as I think should, no matter which way that is. Only one article was tagged for this AfD, and it had a total of 3 page views [6] in the month before, 0 in the two weeks before. I suggest a close as no consensus to delete. Then we can have a centralized merge discussion about all 400+ articles with tags on all, and notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics and Talk:List of world records in masters athletics. I suggest holding the discussion at the latter. I'm willing to set up the discussion with all the tags, and make all the merges (maybe spread over days or weeks) if there is consensus for a system. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason to wait on this one given local consensus on the specific topics addressed. I would keep separate pages for men's and women's records (which is a common point of separation throughout the encyclopedia), but otherwise merge all triple jump world record progressions into two gendered articles. We can separately discuss which other records also merit such treatment. BD2412 T 05:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed my concerns about article size at User talk:BusterD#Masters world records progressions, but I'll make that more public here and expand: The Masters world record progressions are a direct adjunct of List of world records in masters athletics. As in every other world record page that has progressions, the link is event specific, or in better wikipedia terms "subject specific," rather than a hodge podge of sublinks. When editing, you go directly to the article in question rather than a mass article and then needing to find the correct section to edit. For each sublink, all the targeting must be perfect or the user is taken to the wrong place. The user will be confused. Editing to articles is not limited to people who know what they are doing, anybody can edit meaning, in the process of adding new, relevant information, the linkage can be destroyed by someone who doesn't understand all this code. Yes it can be fixed once somebody notices, but that means somebody needs to notice. I'm monitoring 16,000 pages. Stuff slips by me sometimes.

In the case of the article under attack, yes the number of instances of improvement have been few. There are very few athletes qualified to attempt such a record, the requirements being male, 85+ years old and still capable of jumping in the very specific fashion required for triple jump. I've got decades before I can attempt it.

Let me ask you, why the concern about the size of the article. Yes the server has size limitations on large articles because it slows things down. On the List of world records in athletics we had to pare things down to make spacing work and its still slow to load. Another one I'm involved in is List of deaths due to COVID-19 which has been revamped multiple times to reduce size and its still huge. On the List of high schools in California, it used to include Los Angeles County and even Los Angeles City Schools in the master list (same for San Diego County) through sublinks. That got so screwed up repeatedly, we've just given up and post a link to the county list and it then links further to List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools.

Small articles do not cause the same problem. We use small templates constantly in our articles to make repetitive functions work. Mixed 4 × 400 metres relay world record progression is a small article because it has a short history. I don't see that under attack. Small articles only look like low hanging fruit to deletionists who want a new something to target. Deletionists are the cancer that will destroy wikipedia from the inside.Trackinfo (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Commentary aside, the technical point is intriguing and if I read your evaluation correctly, unavoidable. Why have you not raised this point in the discussion, where knowledgeable folks are engaged? For my part, I'm not sure of the limitations of the software. When I see a wikipedian with lots of years and loads of essential page creations in an important content arena, I presume they know why they do things, so I'm here to help. Is there some diff in the examples you've provided here which helps make your case? BusterD (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

More simply put, we have unexperienced editors making contributions to these articles. [7] was this week to a related records article. Yes, I noticed and fixed it. Other like [8] languish for years until they were essentially bypassed with less efficient displays of information [9]. By keeping the editing simpler, without the complex links, this requires less editing technique from the freelance editors. And stub articles don't hurt anything.Trackinfo (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You created List of world records in masters athletics which is 267 kB with 66 sections but you think User:PrimeHunter/Masters men triple jump world record progression with 8 kB and 12 sections is too large and should be 12 separate articles to be manageable. I don't quite understand that. If section links like Men 85 break in the future due to renamed sections then readers are taken to the top with a TOC where it should take seconds to click the age group they were looking for. If section headings are removed then it's a little harder but easily reverted, and it's easier to watch one article than 12. List of world records in masters athletics has bigger problems with section navigation because 31 section headings are duplicated against MOS:SECTION. For this and size reasons it should be split by gender. We write for the readers. I think it's interesting to follow the decline with age in User:PrimeHunter/Masters men triple jump world record progression and see the same people often setting smaller and smaller records. Masters M85 triple jump world record progression gives no context and as mentioned, had three page views in a month. It's difficult for readers to navigate to the other age groups from it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm glad User:Trackinfo has reposted this quote here (aside from the deletionist commentary which I find distracting and wish was struck). In a case where an article is massive like List of world records in masters athletics (a case where splitting isn't yet being discussed and seems impractical), does the article benefit more from smaller linked articles like the nominee here or from adding almost 400 lengthy more complex redirects from our imagined "merged by discipline" targets? Is this a criterion appropriate to apply in a deletion discussion? This is a baby/bathwater situation; I have no reason to doubt Trackinfo's good faith expression of experiences with similar situations. Is this an issue? Should we urge close as "no consensus" as User:PrimeHunter suggests and then have a more centralized discussion? Where would we raise such a discussion? BusterD (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 12:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Primehunter and Spinningspark. Agletarang (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Britannic-class ocean liner[edit]

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

None of the sources in the article that I can access refer to a “Britannic class” and a search does not produce anything else that does either. I think the article creator just made it up. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abyssinia-class ocean liner. Mccapra (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The news that there is no Britannic class came too late for the December 1929 edition of The Shipbuilder (page 874) which said, concerning Harland and Wolff at Belfast: "the adjoining berth is being reserved for the second motorship of the Britannic class for the White Star line which will be begun immediately".[10] Thincat (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good find. Are there any other sources that use the term? The instance in “The Shipbuilder” sounds to me like possibly a bit of journalistic free writing rather than an authoritative statement. Significantly the article creator didn’t appear to have found and usage of the term either. Mccapra (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks authoritative to me but it is on Google as an ebook (link above) so decide for yourself. I know nothing about ships so I won't give any further opinion. Thincat (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that "Britannic class" had any official usage or that there has been any widespread use of the term - it is not surprising that through the use of normal English, occasionally a journalist will come up with that phrase - but that does not come anywhere near meeting WP:GNG. Davidships (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Davidships and none of the usual RS describe these ships as a class Lyndaship (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddler: A Miracle of Miracles[edit]

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

~~Documentary does not meet WP:FILM- coverage consists of routine announcements. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film has been the subject of full-length reviews in major outlets like The New York Times and Rolling Stone, establishing notability. I've added references to some of these reviews to the article. AJD (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AJD's additions. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry, but this appears to be a WP:BEFORE failure. There's a world of difference between "routine announcements" and full-length reviews in major publications. gidonb (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Staurogyne[edit]

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

No source since its creation over a decade. Fade258 (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found this source which I believe is notable:

https://www.biotaxa.org/Phytotaxa/article/view/phytotaxa.296.1.1

It is an academic journal article that addresses the topic in detail. The source is reliable because it was published in the peer-reviewed journal Phytotaxa, and the authors are affiliated with universities in Brazil. You can download the PDF and read the article in its entirety. I plan to add the source to the page and expand the article. Bwmdjeff (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD isn't clean-up. Sources clearly exist. Staurogyne_bicolor, linking from the genus-article, is referenced. Staurogyne_elegans and Staurogyne_hirsuta also linking from this article, while not formally referenced, give a citation. Staurogyne_minarum has external links that might be helpful, while Staurogyne_sichuanica, also linked from this article, is referenced. None of the species articles are much more than stubs. A google search for Staurogyne produces an enormous number of hits for Staurogyne repens, which is apparently widely used in aquariums; so many hits it's hard to find anything else. But here is a reference to the genus in general [11] in efloras.org; here's the entry in theplantlist.org [12]; here's Kew's reference [13] it's rather hard to imagine that no "serious" textbooky references are available; there's certainly primary stuff too [14]. It'd be plain weird to delete this one with reference. Elemimele (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:DINC and WP:HEY. Skeptical the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE check. Curbon7 (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Fade258: maybe read up on {{More citations needed}} and try that next time. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Awkwafaba:, Hi, Before I nominated this article for AFD there is no any refrences were present. All the refrences were added after the nomination for AFD. Don't worry wait for the closing of this discussion. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: then you could use {{Unreferenced}}. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Awkwafaba:, sure for next time. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Formula One constructors. I don't see a consensus to keep. I am going to redirect to List of Formula One constructors post-deletion; since there's a lot of discussion about how this is duplicative of that, I think it's useful to retain a redirect to catch any searchers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Formula One Constructors[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:SIGCOV - sources that cover this are exclusively WP:SPS. Also note that Wikipedia has a template which does a constructor timeline. (I had done a WP:PROD but the article creater removed the tag making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.) SSSB (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SSSB (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Care to link to the template that provides a constructor timeline? I can't immediately find it. SpinningSpark 10:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SpinningSpark: Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1950–1979) and Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present). It's not exactly the same - but close enough. SSSB (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that these templates are not transcluded anywhere into article space. Have they ever been? It's not so surprising then, that a timeline has been recreated on a standalone page. SpinningSpark 18:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom gives two reasons for delete. The first is lack of SIGCOV. The book Formula 1: the Official History is not previewable but its blurb includes "This book charts the... arrival and departure of manufacturers". That's a synonym for timeline. There is also Formula 1: Car by Car also not previewable but a publication that covers all cars in a period is going to cover the constructor of each car. I'm pretty sure there are more, but not online accessible. The second reason given is that timeline templates already exist. They do, but they are not transcluded into article space so they may as well not exist. Some kind of merge may be in order though. SpinningSpark 19:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SpinningSpark: that is all well and good, but the what those books contain is present in List of Formula One constructors. As far as I can therefore tell, this arguement at best supports merging this visual timeline into that list. SSSB (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinningSpark: I have the 1950-59 book in the same series ("Formula 1: Car by car") and it is not written as a timeline of constructors in anything resembling this article. It is divided into "superchapters" by season, with "subchapters" discussing the season from the perspective of each entrant. This kind of thing belongs in season and constructor/team articles. A7V2 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect/Merge - There is nothing meaningful in this article that isn't already in List of Formula One constructors, in particular List of Formula One constructors#2021 constructors. I think create an anchor there (eg something like "current constructors") and redirect there. Perhaps some of the text can be carried over too, so perhaps this could be considered a merge. I also agree with the nom regarding significant coverage: there are many books which give a kind of overview/timeline of the cars used in Formula 1, but not really the constructors, and not in the way that this article does. But this is a moot point if we redirect. A7V2 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: I noticed looking at the history of List of Formula One constructors that the duplicate of the visual timeline from this article was added to List of Formula One constructors less than 24 hours before this nom was made [15], and likely you didn't notice it/know about it. That edit probably should be tagged as copying within wikipedia, and so the article being discussed here probably needs to be kept (at least as a redirect) for attribution purposes. A7V2 (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As both are done by the same editor (based on the page history) this doesn't need to be kept per WP:NOATT (If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary.) SSSB (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there is one other contributor to the page with one edit besides editors adding deletion templates. So as it stands at the moment WP:ATTSIT, WP:PROMERGE, and WP:MAD apply and the page history must be kept for attribution purposes even if redirected. SpinningSpark 09:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only a segment of the page was copied over, none of the content of the edit from the other used were carried over (with the exception of the removal of spaces which was effectily a Help:Dummy edit change), or doesn't that matter? SSSB (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, the contributions of the second editor came after the content was copied over ( 23:22, 8 October 2021 and 18:09, 8 October 2021‎ respectively). So the second editors contributions aren't transcluded onto List of Formula One constructors in any case. SSSB (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably if we aren't sure then better to err on the side of putting a dummy edit or something acknowledging it. And I definitely stand by my suggestion to redirect this rather than outright delete. A7V2 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article really has no purpose, everything is covered in List of Formula One constructors. BMB YT 500000(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have edited the page since this discussion began, users here may want to review these changes. I implemented Spinningspark's suggestion to include the constructor history templates, so they are now in article space. Vanteloop (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not exactly what I had in mind. You now have two timelines in the same article covering the same ground with possibly contradictory information. SpinningSpark 22:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I understand your point, bringing those into the page actually makes it less useful as it is showing related by distinct data. I will revert my edit Vanteloop (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The information isn't contradictary at all. The timeline is more accuratly described as a timeline of the constructor names that teams used. i.e. the Alpine F1 Team have existed since 1981. From 1981-'85 they were the consturctor Toleman, from 1986-'01 they were the constructor Renault,..., from 2021 they were the constructor Alpine. As shown by the "Antecedent teams" column in the list. SSSB (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first reason given is SIGCOV. This has been adressed already so I will not retread that ground. The second is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, but the the content in question is distinct. They are showing two seperate things. Vanteloop (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Vanteloop (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
WP:OTHERCONTENT was the argument you made when you removed {{PROD}} - I haven't made that argument, you did.
The content in Timeline of Formula One Constructors isn't distinct to the content at List of Formula One constructors at all. It's just represented in a different way. SSSB (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's simply not true. For just one example List of Formula One constructors shows the Mercedes team as being in F1 in 1950. This is different to Timeline of Formula One Constructors, which doesn't show any Mercedes involvement until 2010. Neither are incorrect , but the pages are showing two distinct sets of information. One is showing a sporting entity as recognised by the sport's governing body, the other is showing a self-identifying (albeit widely recognised) identity. It is correct to say Mercedes did not exist before 2010 in the first context, and incorrect in the second. Just because there is WP:OTHERCONTENT related to F1 manufacturers doesn't mean this page isn't distinct, and notable (as covered above) Vanteloop (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it simply is true.
If you look at List of Formula One constructors you will see that it shows both Mercedes as "sporting entity as recognised by the sport's governing body" and Mercedes as "a self-identifying (albeit widely recognised) identity." (the latter through the "Antecedent teams" column of the table and the various footnotes). So there is nothing in the timeline which isn't already in the list (espically given you put the timeline in the list anyway) SSSB (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult here or go round in circles but if you look at that page, the team listed as Mercedes is shown to have competed in the 1954 season. This is true for the information on that page, but not true for the other page. As mentioned in my previous comment, this is because they are showing two similar (but distinct!) sets of information. Furthermore, Mercedes is not considered a 'former constructor' on that page etc etc. I agree that by adding the timeline into the List of Formula One constructors page it may have muddied the waters by including two contradictory data sets on the same page as Spinningspark noted so maybe that should be removed. Again I apologise if i'm being difficult (I am new) but its just plainly not true that the two articles are discussing the same thing (although they are very similar I agree!) Vanteloop (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...adding the timeline into the List of Formula One constructors page[,] it may have muddied the waters by including two contradictory data sets on the same page... - on the contrary. It makes more sense to put them in the same article - because then we can clearly explain why there is a contradiction. Otherwise readers have a different impression depending on which article they happen to be looking at. Putting them into different articles makes the water muddier.
The team listed as Mercedes did compete in F1 in 1954-55. Mercedes is not a former constructor by any definition. They are both discussing the same thing - which constructors/teams competed and when - they just take different approaches. So it makes more sense to bundle them together - where we can properly explain the difference. SSSB (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merecedes is a former team as defined by Formula One itself ^[1]. The history of the Mercedes team begins with Tyrell as shown there, therefore the Mercedes team of 1954 is no longer on the grid. Again I'm sorry if this is just me being a pedant but I feel we're not making much progress here so I will wait for other contributions Vanteloop (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merecedes is a former team as defined by Formula One itself - that's not what the source says at all. It just points out that the only similarity between the 1950s Mercedes and the 2010-present Mercedes is the ownership and name and that the current Mercecdes team has origins with Tyrrell. Saying that this makes the 1950's Mercedes a "former" team is then your WP:OR. It only proves that there may be justification in WP:MERGEing the articles, rather than an out-and-out deletion. SSSB (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above i dont feel we're making progress so I will wait for other contributors. Please stop reverting the edits on the page which quote the official Formula 1 source there is no need to take to editing the page for disagreements here. Please bear in mind WP:BLUDGEON Vanteloop (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://f1experiences.com/blog/f1-history-tracing-the-roots-of-the-mercedes-f1-team

CommentI've seen mention of the templates (Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1950–1979), Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present)) and see that they were added then removed from this article. There was a discussion last year with clear consensus that these templates aren't suitable for use, and I think they should be deleted but that is a separate discussion. In any case, they contain too many issues to use as they are now. A7V2 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I wasn't aware of this, as you say the templates have been removed and won't be re-added based on the linked discussion. Vanteloop (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a content fork. There is nothing meaningful here that isn’t already presented elsewhere.T v x1 02:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as information contained in this article already exists at List of Formula One constructors GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, we don't need a standalone article dedicated just to a timeline. Arguably a case of WP:NOSTATS.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson (scientist)[edit]

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

Science blogger. no signifcant publication so does not meet WP:PROF. I don't think there;s evidence here for WP:GNG either. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Re WP:NPROF: assistant professor with reasonable but unexceptional cites. Re WP:GNG: no substantial outside coverage (that I can find) aside from the one blog article-let. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've only found the SciAm item already included and this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, saw the latter, but I'd characterize it as a plain CV copy that is listed only because Johnson is an African American. Not a great source. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GNG doesn't appear to be met, and certainly not NPROF unless someone can demonstrate C7. Just an early-career researcher with early-career Scopus citations. Compared to his 94 coauthors with 5+ (a very low number in this field; some undergrads have that many papers!) papers: Total citations: average: 6597, median: 1795, Johnson: 547. Total papers: avg: 79, med: 38, J: 22. h-index: avg: 29, med: 20, J: 13. Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 677, med: 344, J: 105. 2nd: avg: 428, med: 176, J: 94. 3rd: avg: 303, med: 148, J: 52. 4th: avg: 255, med: 113, J: 42. 5th: avg: 221, med: 105, J: 38. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely interested in which undergrads you know with 5 papers JoelleJay. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full disclosure, I made this page. Johnson may be a relatively early career scientist, but he's making waves nationally and internationally; e.g. he delivered the 2021 NIH Director's Early Career Investigator Lecture (https://www.nigms.nih.gov/News/meetings/Pages/2020-nigms-directors-early-career-investigator-lecture.aspx), given by one researcher across the states each year. Citation metrics are not a good estimate of who is / isn't a good scientist. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too early. Giving an early career lecture is by no means sufficient for notability here. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF#C1 does mention invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof on citations. I note that he has a large number of coauthors so it is hard to attribute independent achievement. Try again in ten years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Above. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 04:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, maybe in 10 years. --Bduke (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as a biochemist or biophysicist. With a name like M Johnson he's not easy to search for without getting a huge amount of irrelevant hits. However, he has published mainly as MDL Johnson, which is much easier. He seems to have h = 11: not bad for a young assistant professor, but not wonderful. As Xxanthippe and Bduke say, maybe we should check back in ten years. Athel cb (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Not convinced meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR either. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Johnson is well known for his science outreach advocacy in the minority in STEM community, including developing NSURP (summer research programs for Black and Latin students interested in science). The article needs substantial updating, though. eyoste (talk) 5:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Ajpolino (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Ajpolino (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle McMurry-Heath[edit]

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

executive of an organizartion also nominated for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biotechnology Innovation Organization there is certainly no justifcation for two articles; this is a typical PR technique, and good evidence that neither is actually notable DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is the subject of in-depth coverage focused on her in The Wall Street Journal, The Advice That Gave a Biotech Exec a Shot in the Arm (2020), and STATNews Biotech’s new chief lobbyist says she’s a social justice advocate. Will the industry walk the walk? (2020), coverage in BloombergLaw (2020), as well as recent coverage in STATNews, BIO’s chief on the FDA commissioner rumors, drug pricing, and IP rights (2021, "Everyone wants to know whether Michelle McMurry-Heath, the newly minted president of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, will be President Biden’s pick to lead the Food and Drug Administration. And whether, quite frankly, she wants the job."), the NYT, a brief mention in Biden closes in on pick to lead Food and Drug Administration (Politico, October 6, 2021), and she appears to have been featured as a public health expert, e.g. WTKR3, 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing the AfD request--Beccaynr, I think you are correct. I was over-influenced by the corporate article connection. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summer House (album)[edit]

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

Fail to show WP:NALBUM and I didn't find any sources for verification as I only find external link. Fade258 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG WP:PROMO etc. 1st album by a small group.Ode+Joy (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This album has a robust review from the reliable Paste magazine: [16]; and another that seems pretty useful but I am unfamiliar with the publication's reliability: [17]. These weren't too hard to find and I wonder about the strength of the searches conducted by the previous participants above. I have no dispute if anyone wants more evidence of notability, but it is not true that the album was totally unnoticed. Anyone who wants more evidence could suggest redirecting to the band's page and quoting the reviews there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources indicated by Doomsdayer520 are reliable. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] and [23]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are almost all blogs, user reviews and student newspapers, none of which are reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Doomsdayer and Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Baral[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Fade258 (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant roles in Tandav (film), Kagbeni (film) (per this and this) and Damaru Ko Dandibiyo (best supporting actor nom in "one of the recognized award functions") take him comfortably past WP:NACTOR. Plus, he appears to be a giant of Nepali theatre.[24] He directed Mahabhoj which we could write an article on, with this and this (one would think there's more). Guru to multiple notable stars[25][26]. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep — He has won various awards like the NEFTA Film Award for the Best Actor in a Supporting Role [27], the National Film Award for the Best Actor in a Supporting Role [28] to name a few. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 13:35, 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 09:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australian International School Dhaka[edit]

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

Non-notable school. DOESN’T meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL guideline. || Tajwar.thesuperman ^💬 07:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. || Tajwar.thesuperman ^💬 07:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. || Tajwar.thesuperman ^💬 07:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable as indicated above. --Bduke (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches of the usual Google types found nothing deeper than passing mentions. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global University Bangladesh[edit]

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

The school is non-notable. DOESN'T meet with WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG guideline. || Tajwar.thesuperman ^💬 07:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. || Tajwar.thesuperman ^💬 07:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Degree-granting institutions are deemed notable. --Zayeem ^(talk) 21:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve based on sources found by a basic WP:BEFORE: [29][30][31][32][33][34] --Worldbruce (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Came across another source today that has a couple more paragraphs about the deficiencies of this university and the political connections of its board of trustees.[35] --Worldbruce (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are many sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is not consensus in this discussion to move the article but there is substantial support for a move (with the most support for List of Mario video games); feel free to start an immediate follow-up RM proposal. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games featuring Mario[edit]

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

I'm not really sure why an article contains only about list, but incomplete needed an article. Isn't this what you call WP:Gamecruft? GeeJay24 (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are loads of list articles on WP. (Just type in "List of" into the search box. Why should this one be deleted? Fieryninja (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one is entirely unsourced and incomplete. Seeing how popular Mario is, the list wont be completed sooner than we thought. GeeJay24 (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well considering the popularity of Mario, it is reasonable to say that this list has notability. I think the list should be kept, expanded and citations added. There is no deadline for when this needs to be completed. All content on WP is incomplete to a certain extent. If you think it is incomplete, you could add the missing the games with the citations. Fieryninja (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename back to List of Mario video games and tighten inclusion criteria. This is currently gamecruft but it doesn't have to be._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Mario video games and remove all entries that aren't in the actual Mario series. Nothing more to add, a whole list of Mario games is certainly notable, but as it is right now...a pure WP:GAMECRUFT. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a reason it is no longer called List of Mario video games. What constitutes the Mario franchise is not at all clear-cut and attempting to define this is subjective and non-neutral. The most objective approach is to list the works character has appeared in. There are already articles on the Super Mario, Mario Kart, and Mario Party series, etc. Ozdarka (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

move and restrict to List of Mario games. Is there any sources talking about this list of games? Fails WP:LISTN Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Something more finite, like a series list of games like List of Super Mario games, could be created in the vein of List of Sonic the Hedgehog games, but merely listing every game Mario has ever made an appearance in is too close to WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Ozdarka,but remove the games that only have Mario as a cameo like this list's two versions of Minecraft and add sources. Imma admit though that I don't know enough about WP:GAMECRUFT even after reading it to say a solid "keep", which is why I said weak keep. Rexh17 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't mind if this article was incubated as well Rexh17 (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's objectively not ready for mainspace if it's unsourced. Sergecross73 msg me 22:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Mario video games and remove games that aren't part of the franchise.2601:241:300:B610:A416:59B2:7C25:2FF (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deciding what is a Mario game is kinda muddy. If we go with just "List of Mario games" we're gonna argue forever about whether to list Yoshi's Island games, Super Princess Peach, etc. DemonDays64 (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually very easy to set up inclusion criteria like for situations like this. Something as simple as "Mario must be in the game's title" would cut out a majority if these trivial entries on the list. Sergecross73 msg me 03:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but they'd also cut games that should arguably be on this list like some of the Donkey Kong games and like @DemonDays64 said, the Yoshi Island games. it's not quite that simple to come up with a criteria. Rexh17 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I would support a merge. Azuredivay (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move As many others have stated, I believe that this article should be kept due to the significance of the Mario franchise, but moved to List of Mario games as to only include games where Mario has a major appearance (main protagonist, main antagonist) and get rid of smaller appearances and cameos that feel more like trivia. It could be a little messy, but it could obviously be discussed in the future, if this article is moved. ArojamDharkon (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from list creator (merger) - I haven't made up my mind if this should even exist in the 10 or so years since I made it; for some context, there were originally three lists: "List of Mario games by year / by genre / by console". This was unecessarily confusing for readers and unmanageable so I took a weekend and merged it all into a single list with a sortable table so that any of the criteria can be used to sort the games. The reasons why it's "List of games featuring Mario" instead of "List of Mario games" is specifically, as DemonDays64 & Ozdarka highlighted, the difficulty in narrowing what is "a Mario game", what is a "significant appearance". Sergecross73's idea to restrict to games with Mario in the title is not a terrible idea, but Isn't Donkey Kong (video game) a Mario game? Yoshi's Safari? What about SSX On Tour or Luigi's Mansion 3? Golf (1984 video game), Wrecking Crew (video game), Famicom Grand Prix II: 3D Hot Rally (peep that coverart)? And moreover, do you think it's a net improvement to invite these debates and arguments to become a recurring thing around this list article? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but pare down to only those significant appearances (so, no SSX On Tour or things like that); this is, after all, a list of video games featuring Mario. And games like the Luigi's Mansion series, the Yoshi's Island games, Super Princess Peach, and the Donkey Kong games would be left out if the list were only pared to "Mario games," as folks have said above. If we want a literal list of "Mario games," we could separate those out within this article: have one section on literal Mario games, one section on significant appearance in spinoffs/other games, and one on lesser (but non-cameo) appearances in other games. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 20:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either rename and tighten the inclusion criteria per ZXCVBNM or delete as too broad list of trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Showing how many games this notable character has been in, and linking to the articles for those games, is a valid navigational list and also just a valid stand alone list as reliable sources cover this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2020/05/06/every-mario-game-ranked/ Dream Focus 21:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman's Gazette[edit]

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

I can’t see how this topic passes WP:NCORP. I am unable to find any in depth coverage in reliable sources at all. The article reports that the website itself claims to have “been in” a whole series of publications, but I can only find passing mentions or nothing. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete It is a "blog" with an online store. Quite a long way from passing WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, etc. Ode+Joy (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced unambiguous promotion. Vexations (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsoursed context. Non-notable magazine. It doesn't meet any notability guideline.Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wasn't able to find any third-party significant coverage of the company (doesn't mean it doesn't exist), but I did locate a few published interviews which I noted on the Talk page. My searching also discovered that the GG articles and their content about men's fashions were quoted all across the internet. I also edited the article to clean it up some. Platonk (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Silly Wizard. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live Again (album)[edit]

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

Rerelease of a previous album, entire (unsourced) article seems to be based on the original album with zero analysis of the rerelease CiphriusKane (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Silly Wizard. I don't think this is actually a straight re-release of a previous album; instead it is an expanded version of a previous live album that had been shortened. Regardless, this one still didn't receive much reliable notice, beyond the fanzine-like review already used in the article plus a few listings at specialty folk music sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Silly Wizard. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM – there's nothing to suggest this was anything more than a low-key, effectively self-released album of a live show, sold only through the record label's website, and the album went unnoticed by the music press. Richard3120 (talk) 16:40, 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King's Cathedral and Chapels[edit]

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

I didn't find any reliable resources... All of the reference based on self-Publishing website... Books citation that has provided in this article, it hasn't any ISBN code.. Please check that is it really notable or not? Thanks! --Limited Idea4me (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Limited Idea4me (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - no deletion rationale provided. If you think something isn't notable, it's your job to check. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nominator should attempt to check if the subject is notable prior to nominating for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from asking users to check or not, this article doesn't meet GNG as there are no independent sources. The church does exist but not notable enough for it to have it's own article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking comedy of errors if I ever saw one — A user who started editing eight days ago is an expert on deletion processes? I suppose this means by next week, they'll be ready to submit themselves to RFA! To those arguing "speedy keep", the correct vote in this case would be "procedural keep". As to the subject's notability, List of megachurches in the United States contains a sourced mention of this church having 20,000 members. This is where the arguments of WP:BEFORE come into play, as churches with a tenth as many members typically receive pretty substantial coverage, even if it's mostly local. Is anyone helping this new user with their choice of sourcing or are you predisposed to try to kill this? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, speedy close as procedural keep; shorthanded as speedy keep. Otherwise, yes, you're right. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. — The thing is, the church is extremely notable in Hawaii, with even the State's Governor recognizing them and their work. The issue is that, as their Senior Pastor has joked about before during one of their extension campuses services, there hasn't been any notable news coverage of the church, at least prior to April 2021. The only organization doing any presentation of their history are them themselves. And again, I doubt that the church is "not notable" when international Pentecostal leaders such as Dr. George Wood (he wrote the foreword for this book), General Superintendent Doug Clay (AG USA; he preached at one of their conferences), and the late Dr. David Yonggi Cho (he was a friend in ministry to their Senior Pastor) having honored their church for their influence. But also notice that none of the links were to places like news organizations. There also is no other source except themselves that is giving an updated record on their statistics. That article citing a congregation of 20,000 congregants on the List of megachurches in the United States wiki page is outdated by three years. In one of their staff meetings, they've reported over 70,000 congregants. Other news organizations simply do not provide that much information. Much of the information about what's happening in their church globally comes from their own published material and personal testimony. But the church itself is notable and is known in Hawaii for its influence. Checed Domingcil (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A church of 70,000 people (if true) is certainly notable, as a megachurch. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the nominator would have done a google search to indicate notability. I found coverage from reliable sources such as the Associated Press [36] and USA Today (It is the news story for Hawaii) [37].I also found coverage in local news outlets [38] [39] [40]. Although most of these sources are related to the church's COVID-19 outbreak, these should be enough to satisfy GNG. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 21:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shilah Phillips[edit]

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

Only state beauty pageant participant. Not even title holder. GNC failed because no major coverage. Reason Rrmmll22 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable for being the first Black woman to hold the Miss Texas title, which got national coverage at the time. Washington Post: "Shilah Phillips, the first black Miss Texas, was named first runner-up...Phillips, a singer and choir director's daughter, was the fan favorite in the talent competition." NY Daily News: "Some of the loudest applause for a surviving finalist was for 24-year-old Shilah Phillips, the first black Miss Texas." In addition to being first runner-up in the 2006 national pageant, she was (according to Slate) the "centerpiece" of a "Pageant School" film. Slate: "The centerpiece of this inaugural Pageant School was Miss Texas. She’s tall, bright, and powerfully glamorous, with that intimidating Lone Star star quality. Her tears welled up sincerely when she talked about how proud she was to be 'the first African-American Miss Texas.'" Clearly, RS considered her achievement notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: I found first African-American who crowned Miss Texas is another person.21 years ago: First African-American crowned Miss Texas Misasory (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Misasory: The source you list describes a "Miss Texas" title in the Miss USA pageant. Phillips was the first "Miss Texas" in the Miss America pageant. Therefore the multiple RS describing Phillips as the first Black Miss Texas in the context of talking about the Miss American pageant series are not mistaken. Chelsi Smith's notability does not invalidate the many RS treating Shilah Phillips as notableHouseOfChange (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and the extensive sources in the article as noted above, and e.g. JBHE 2006, Dallas News 2010, and additional sources, e.g. People 2007, and there is more information available that could help expand the article, e.g. Collin College 2006. Beccaynr (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Beccaynr she does not meet WP:BASIC because she is only notable for one event. All the publicity was about this one incident. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BLP1E does not appear to apply because reliable sources cover Phillips for more than one event, i.e. her Miss Texas win, her participation in Miss America 2007, and her participation in Pageant School: Becoming Miss America. The sources also support the significance of her Miss Texas win, and her substantial/well-documented role in Miss America 2007, and the high-profile nature of these events. Beccaynr (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie anak Deli[edit]

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

Another non-notable and run-of-the-mill police officer from a batch created by the same user. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:BASIC, There is only one article, and multiple are needed in order to establish notability. Bwmdjeff (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recipient of the Grand Knight of Valour, Malaysia's highest award for valour, only thirty of which have ever been awarded. Clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp: receiving a nation's highest gallantry award (akin to the Medal of Honor) is going to carry a pretty heavy presumption of notability under ANYBIO #1. Additionally, there's already one GNG-qualifying source, and per WP:NEXIST more likely exist offline and/or in foreign languages. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he received a major awardJackattack1597 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nazaruddin Mohd Zain[edit]

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

PROD contested. Literally just a run-of-the-mill police officer. Completely non-notable. Curbon7 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging DGG as the original PROD tagger. Curbon7 (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , as I thought when I prodded it. I distinguish those at the head of a state force, or those central to major events; he was neither. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete One more former police officer who wants a page! Far from passing WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 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 merge to Journal of Transpersonal Psychology. czar 06:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Transpersonal Psychology[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NORG. I can't find any mention of it other than fleeting ones (e.g. "person, a member of the Association for Transpersonal Psychology" (not significant), and some in the journal they run (not independent). Xurizuri (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of documentation about the organization as an organization. Moreover, it's a fringe-y subject area, where studies of meditation practices and spiritual belief systems spill over into credulous acceptance of "psi" and "psychoenergetics". One of the ATP's past presidents was a senior editor at the Journal of Things Which, If They Worked, Would Just Be Called "Medicine". Another was also a director of a parapsychology outfit. None of that rules out our having an article on the group, but it does mean we need sources outside their bubble to write a properly encyclopedic page. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like se see rather more non primary sources.15:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)
Comment - A possible merge or redirect target may be Sofia University (California) where Journal of Transpersonal Psychology links for "Transpersonal Institute", that this is apparently a division of, —Paleo Neonate – 21:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, the most appropriate target (although I'm a bit surprised fringeophobes haven't tried to delete that as well). The ATP seems somewhat significant in the transpersonal psychology field, and while I haven't found enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, scant coverage of the formation of the ATP exists in reliable sources and merging/redirecting is preferable to outright deletion per WP:ATD-M. The Board of Directors list can be purged entirely as unencyclopedic trivia. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Usually we merge obscure or gray-area journals to the organizations that publish them, rather than vice versa, since publishing the journal is usually only one of the organization's activities, and so it's easier to establish wiki-notability of the organization. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology doesn't appear to be indexed in Scopus, and finding anything in-depth and independent about its history is something of a challenge, so if it came to AfD it might have a rough time. We do have Transpersonal psychology#Organizations, publications and locations, which seems like a good enough spot to merge/redirect any organization or publication in the area whose wiki-notability is not clear-cut. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with merge. I think there's some info in the article that may be able to provide context if it was in another article - but their structure is pretty wiggly so it's a bit unclear where to merge to:
- From the ATP article: Both ATP and JTP are divisions of the Transpersonal Institute, a nonprofit organization. With considering the Association for Transpersonal Psychology as a Non-profit organisation. Sourced. I'm pretty sure the first time it says nonprofit, they meant for-profit - otherwise the 2nd sentence breaks Grice's maxims, and it'd be wrong based on the other things I've gathered.
- From the JTP article: [JTP] is ... published by the Association for Transpersonal Psychology. ... In the mid-1970s the journal was published by Transpersonal Institute. (with TI linking to Sofia Uni; both statements unsourced)
- From the Sofia Uni article: Sofia University is a private for-profit university in Palo Alto, California. It was originally founded as the California Institute of Transpersonal Psychology by Robert Frager and James Fadiman in 1975. This one was... oversourced. The article also says it was the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology for a few decades.
- The Sofia Uni website confirms that it's for-profit. The "About" page of their site otherwise broadly confirms the information about on the Sofia Uni article. I know that Californian law doesn't love companies lying about their for-profit status, so that's probably true. The rest of the stuff, who knows. JTP and ATP didn't come up when I searched on their site.
- The ATP website doesn't mention Sofia Uni as far as I can tell, although it is also in Palo Alto. It does talk about the journal: Transpersonal psychology was first announced and defined with the publication of The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, in 1969. ... In 1972 the Association for Transpersonal Psychology was established ...

I genuinely am not sure if it is actually related to Sofia Uni, but I think it's probably the best place to redirect the article to as it is (maybe) the parent organisation. Also, I'm pretty sure JTP is actually notable - it seems to have been one of the first journals in transpersonal psych and is mentioned as significant to the history of the field in some journal articles. It is weird for a journal but not an organisation to be notable, but that is the case here as far as I can tell. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Journal of Transpersonal Psychology per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Journal of Transpersonal Psychology is fine. In the future, we can revisit whether that particular journal deserves inclusion in WP, but in the meantime it seems reasonable to redirect users to that article if they happen to google the association, for whatever reason. jps (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria da Glória, Duchess of Segorbe[edit]

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

Deproded by IP. I think this subject is lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. I tried searching for her under various combinations of her name in the databases I have access to and all I can find is mentions relating to her peerage. VocalIndia (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. VocalIndia (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability made, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site and the titles she claims were abolished well before she was even born. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is former wife of currently claimant to throne of Serbia and mother of the Hereditary Prince. As wife of a claimant she is important. -89.116.55.7 (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike titles, notability can not be inherited. Not enough coverage to pass WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks any real importance and is well short of GNG. I wasn't sure when I looked at this earlier today but I fully agree with Ivar's point about defunct titles and can't see any good reason to keep or even draftify. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what 89.116.55.7 said. Relevant as a claimant. Cf. interwiki links, too.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is not a claimant. The subject isn't even married to a claimaint (anymore). Even were some strange twist of history to reconstitute the dead nation of Yugoslavia, and even were it to reinstitute a monarchy, and name her former husband as king, the subject would still not be queen. Any notability cannot be based on her former husband's delusions of grandeur. Agricolae (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fancy title but completely not notable. --Bduke (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content other than genealogy. DrKay (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone wants to improve or found more sources I'll happy to withdraw my nomination. VocalIndia (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not eligible for being in Wikipedia.Misasory (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I can conceive that the pretender to a throne is notable. NOTINHERITED says to me that a person notable for being married to a pretender is NN, unless notable for other reasons, which clearly she is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Gaylor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Contributions seem minor and scattered to qualify for any single WP:SNG. Also worth considering, this is a WP:BLP without reliable sources. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:09, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Ghose[edit]

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

Spam; clearly non-notable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep??? if the sources are correct, even if promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
If? Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, everyone! I am the creator of the nominated article. First of all, I want to thank Usedtobecool for pointing out the supposed flaws. I understand that you have some concerns over the notability and I want to address it. The person in the article was heading multiple multi-million dollar companies such as Unilever and LafargeHolcimand he's a columnist on multiple main stream Indian news outlets (He also launched multiple important newspapers in our country). His articles are putting out a significant impact on Indian politics. Please refer the references if you want to fact check my statements. I personally think he's a notable person but I want what's best for Wikipedia. I know the admins are trying to do their job and I sincerely respect it. If there are any suggestions or questions then please feel free to reach out to me. Thank you and have a great day ahead! - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I completely agree with what Call me Karthik 😉🤞 has said. He is a notable columnist. He has contributed a lot in media outlets. just check the facts cited and short research to be done.Divineplus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to mention a source and explain how it supports notability, or provide WP:THREE that need no explanation. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: I will link a bunch of sources, please have a look. As I said before, he was heading multiple multi-million dollar companies such as Unilever, LafargeHolcim, Birla Corporation, etcetera. Source #1, Source #2, Source #3. He gives interviews and shares his opinions on biggest news outlets in India. Sources: Source #1, Source #2, Source #3. He's also a columist in multiple outlets who has authored hundreds of articles. Source #1, Source #2, Source #3. You can use Muck Rack to see all the articles he has authored. I hope the above sources assists you to take a right decision. If you still have any questions then please feel free to ping me. Regards - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED. Not WP:SIGCOV, Not WP:INDEPENDENT, neither SIGCOV nor INDEPENDENT. It's not what he does, it's what other's write about what he does (in this case, nothing). Ridiculous, Ridiculous, Ridiculous. Again, doesn't matter what he's written, when others haven't written about his writing. Ridiculous, Ridiculous, Ridiculous. No I can not use Muck Rack for anything; neither can you or anyone else, not on Wikipedia. My opinion is you should stay far away from writing WP:BLPs for a considerable length of time. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non of the secondary sources give in-depth coverage on the subject, in some cases the source is just an article he has written himself. Fails WP:SIGCOV DEFCON5 (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject appears to be notable.Advait.kansal (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances can be deceiving. For example, to an untrained eye, WP:AFDs can look like a vote. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a common confusion with journalists I feel. People may perceive that a journalist writing for reliable sources would count as sources but they don't. The subject is writing about something else. For notability, the source should be about them and not written by them. If we want to look from WP:Creative point of view, a journalist would become notable if any of their story itself becomes a news of other stories or at least is referred to frequently by other reliable sources (a bit of WP:NMEDIA here in my view). Sources here are not discussing him or talking about his journey except the usual announcements which have no merit at all. And now that there is a business angle, I would further exercise caution and wouldn't even want to propose evaluation under WP:BASIC and would restrict myself to evaluate with WP:GNG which is clearly being failed here. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – seems like the sort of person who should be notable, but having looked fairly thoroughly for sources I'm pretty confident that there's nothing here. As Nomadic notes, we need coverage of him, not coverage by him, and I'm seeing little of that. The remainder of the sourcing seems unreliable; my searches find nothing substantial. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:NBIO, and the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person is notable but there is a lack of coverage about the person. The references cited are mostly about articles published by him. More reliable sources mentioning about him is required for notability 007sak (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While this discussion is fairly even in terms of sheer numerical votes, the policy backing for delete is significantly stronger. Specifically that NSPORTS articles must ultimately meet GNG, and keep !voters did not significantly defend that the sources being utilised were reliable/independent/secondary/in-depth. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Raghav[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to qualify WP:NSPORTS. There is an old AFD where it was deleted too. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page should not be deleted because this page meets the WP:GNG notable criteria of WP:NSPORTS required for an article. I know the fact, this page was deleted earlier due to lack of independent sources because it's hard and takes a lot to show a 17 year old notable and a significant personality. Taekwondo is not much highlighted in India. Also,Please keep in mind that except Olympics and open tournaments, no other games have been conducted since almost 2 years due to covid. Instead of deletion, you can site this article to improve it further.Divineplus (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article pass WP:GNG because it has significant coverage of different events and also pass WP:NSPORTS. Yes, this is the fact it was deleted earlier in 2020 due to lack of independent sources, but this year he won some tournaments more according to new reliable sources added. So, if an article receives significant coverage from independent media sources and passes WP: GNG, it is not appropriate to delete it. Rather than tagging it for future improvements if needed. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, appears to be enough references here focusing on the subject for it to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the tournaments that subject has played or participated in would work under WP:NSPORTS. Sources are very routine announcements are either not in-depth or are not written independently. And what about WP:RS? Most of these sources don't look reliable at all. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non of the tournaments mentioned are notable. The article still lacks independent reliable sources.DEFCON5 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article passes WP:GNG because it has reliable coverage of different events and also pass WP:NSPORTS as there's no special criteria given for Taekwondo. Also, go through the article of Aruna Singh Tanwar and check the tournaments record. She also participated in G Ranked tournaments at first and then qualified for Asian, World Championships and for Olympics. NOTE: No athlete can compete in Asian, World or Olympics without winning a medal in G-Ranking tournaments. However, you won't find much Indian news article covering G Ranking championships but you'll find the results of the matches and as well as articles with extra efforts. I'm linking those for you all.
[/ 8th Fujairah by World Taekwondo]
[/ fujairah-all-set-to-host-the-biggest-international-taekwondo-championship-in-the-region-1.69304050]
[/ 8th Fujairah]
[/ Pakistan Taekwondo]
[/ Taekwondo Nepal]
[/fujairah-g2-international-taekwondo-championship-ends-on-a-high-note ]

There are many more coverage on the internet and here is the SGFI profile of the subject. [/ Atul Raghav(Player)] Now, I believe that SGFI do not need any introduction and notability. (For editors of other countries, SGFI is an government body which stands for School Games Federation Of India)

Delete There are no significant changes to his notability since the article was deleted last December. He has not competed in any major tournaments as an adult that would show WP:NSPORT is met. He's not come close to competing at the Olympics or world championships. There's also nothing that shows he meets any martial arts notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. The fact that other athletes have started at G2 tournaments and become notable does not mean that all G2 competitors are notable. I did not find him listed among the thousands of competitors listed at taekwondodata.com or at the world taekwondo rankings. Junior and school championships do not show WP notability. Coverage of lots of events is, by definition, routine sports reporting and does not show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt it is clear subject fails WP:NSPORT for not competition in notable tournament and also fail GNG as records are merely routine report. Cassiopeia talk 23:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tournaments mentioned are not notable.Advait.kansal (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person is notable and also won a gold medal in Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations. As it is mentioned in the article. Successfully passes WP:NSPORTS. Abhisekh Raj (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:*Comment: won a gold medal in Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations doesnt not meet Wikipedia notability guidlines and also the subject fails NSPORT.

KEEP TAEKWONDO is not listed in WP:NSPORT so the notability still depend on Editor's mercy. He has won multiple Gold and represented India in another country. It's notable among Indian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:2102:7241:0:0:161E:40A5 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:*Comment: Any sport that is not listed in Sport specific guidelines will deter to NSPOR and this is Wikipedia so the notability guidelines are per Wikipedia and not subject to a particular race or nation or continent. Again subject fails all notabilities listed in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 23:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with @Cassiopeia. My reasons for DELETE:

Winning gold medal in Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations doesn't establish notability as per Wikipedia guidelines.
All references provided in the article are not reliable with exception to Dainik jagran which is a leading national daily. Advait (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted above. I disagree with the idea that all sources are unreliable, I see nothing wrong with articles like this and this. NemesisAT (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldspot itself is a not notable portal. You can search about it. It can at max be considered to be a blog, it's not even RNI registered. Advait (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about Newstrack,Apn news, Dainik Jagran, Navbharat Times and English Newstrack? They are reliable sources right? They are the national newspapers. Do you still think these 5 news sources are not enough to be notable?Divineplus (talk). — Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Divineplus Please note there is no reference of Navbharat Times in the article. And others sources except Dainik Jagran are not notable / reliable sources. Advait (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I am not mistaken, both sources is the same source, again, to pass GNG subject need to have significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. 1/2 sources is not enough, we are looking for at least 5-7. Subject at this moment is till fails to meet any notabilities in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 19:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject has 6 reliable articles including Newstrack,Apn news, Dainik Jagran, Navbharat Times and English Newstrack. You said, it need 5-7 article to be notable. Then on what grounds can you say that the subject is not notable? However I have provided you the data of CISCE and SGFI also. Government tournaments cannot be fake even the G2 Fujairah Dubai. All the results and participation player's are listed there on their websites and I have attached them also but you are not counting it. Now, I'm assuming that you are not a giving a fair chance to the editors. 5-6 national news + official results + blogs,biography and youtube interviews are itself enough to be notable.Divineplus (talk). — Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divineplus, I read the your posts on my talk page, where you asked me not to be hard on junior athletes because they should not be held to the same standards as senior athletes. On the contrary, age is not a determining factor of WP notability. You also mentioned the Youth Olympics, but gold medal winners at the youth olympics have been deleted as not notable. In general, junior athletes are not considered notable, and that has always been especially true of martial artists. Martial artists who win a division limited by age (high or low) have almost always been considered not notable--whether it's an under 18 or an over 35 division means the field has been limited and is not considered "at the highest level", which is what WP:NSPORT requires. Papaursa (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Newstrack is not a reliable source. Neither is APN. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Divineplus, YouTube, blog, official sites are not considered either reliable or independent. Cassiopeia talk 23:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW, WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erynn Chambers[edit]

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

a fun article but this TikTok user fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Most of the links are just a peripheral mention. There are no big reviews of the TikTok's users one song. Sorry. Charliestalnaker (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - funny article but a minor TikTok user is not notable per Wikipedia and even that one little song does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER for notability. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliestalnaker (talk • contribs) 00:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note At the time this was put up for deletion, the article featured on the main page in the DYK section. I've pulled that hook for the time being. Schwede 66 00:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep—I'm the author of this article. Chambers pretty clearly passes WP:GNG. And your interpretation of the sources being peripheral doesn't match up with the... y'know, sources. Also, you can't vote in your own deletion discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[41], [42], [43]. That's my WP:THREE, although there are plenty more I could pick from.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Not covered by reliable sources in depth. KidAd • SPEAK 02:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KidAd: chambers can still pass gng even though she doesn't pass anybio, right? as a genuine question, how does chambers not pass gng? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states, in part, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Something like this really doesn't establish notability. KidAd • SPEAK 02:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd: fine, but what about an article like this? That seems to be pretty in-depth. this doesn't seem like a trivial mention either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First source isn't in English, so I really wouldn't know. #2 looks like a blurb. The subject of this page is only 1/10th of that article. KidAd • SPEAK 02:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC, there is also: From the renegade to Black Lives Matter: How Black creators are changing TikTok culture (NBC News, 2020), Body neutrality: What if you don't really love or hate your body? (BBC, 2020), A TikTok Influencer Poked Fun at Country Music - So George Birge Wrote a Song That May Make Them Stars (People, 2021), Online activism: a year in review (MIT Technology Review, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ENT#3 as made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The Today Show for instance. People. Even NPR wrote about her. One million Tik Tok followers. The nomination seems wrong - perhaps a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lightburst (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to me that it meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:HEY, the article has been expanded with information from sources that were in the article about the multiple works and collective body of work by Chambers, and with additional sources, and I think the expansion helps emphasize, at minimum, how the sources support the WP:BASIC criteria for notability of people, including but not limited to how If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering where to find that second clause, thanks. It shouldn't be about how much any one source gives you, it's how much you can get out of all the sources without original resource. The article meets WP:BASIC either way, but the combination of sources seems like more than enough, given the quality and quantity of the article's content. (thanks to Beccaynr for the tune-up, i do appreciate it) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a note to @Charliestalnaker: As Joseph2302 and Kusma pointed out at WT:DYK, per WP:SK, an article qualifies for speedy keep if The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page. In such cases, please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating. If the problem is urgent, consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link before nominating for deletion. It's already been six hours since the article was taken off the main page, so it's a bit late to go back. That is something to note for next time, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. Maybe put back in the DYK queue and suspend this AFD? Charliestalnaker (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Charliestalnaker: Not a problem, I know you were trying to do what's best. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage of this person in reliable sources has been found. Dream Focus 12:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not many TikTok "stars" make it to NPR or even... MIT studies. On top of that, she is now whether anyone likes it or not a professional songwriter (ASCAP is a performing rights organization that makes sure people get paid from airplay and what not). That's notable enough for me. Trillfendi (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Temporary Keep, Withdraw AFD, I am the AFD nominator. I did not know that it would cause problems as a DYK. So sorry. Charliestalnaker (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all! I really appreciate your trying to help, but unfortunately, an AfD nomination can only be withdrawn if there are no !votes to delete. Because KidAd !voted to delete, the nomination has to run until an uninvolved editor closes it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it. It looks like we're headed to a keep close anyway, and we may put it back on DYK when this is over. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:57, 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. Geschichte (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssinia-class ocean liner[edit]

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

Not a class of ships but rather three ships which were ordered at about the same time. Abyssinia and Algeria were similar but Parthia was very different. No source provided to state that either the owners or any RS considers them a class. Duncan Haws a RS authority in his book listing all Cunard vessels makes no such statement. Only source provided does not support the idea they were a class and indeed does not support the descriptive claims in the article Lyndaship (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no justification for the claim they formed a class. It is an anachronism projecting late 20th century ideas on the 19th century. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article creator appears to have also invented the Britannic-class ocean liner which I will put up for AfD shortly. Likewise no sources I can find describe these ships as a class. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article just does not float. Far from WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the single (non-RS) ref nor the content provide any basis for this being a known ship class. Davidships (talk) 09:19, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosine[edit]

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

None of the linked articles mention 'Gosine' and I can't find any other articles with notable mentions. Gosain and Goswami are name pages that don't include any of the entries on Gosine. Leschnei (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's debatable whether Blavatsky is a reliable source - she was basically a crank/charlatan, and you can't be sure whether her writings are honest attempts at getting to the truth, or simply things she made up. RomanSpa (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anglicized spelling of Gosain. Nobody uses this word anymore. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 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. The sources and analysis provided by Eastmain swayed consensus towards the assertion that the subject meets GNG. While some editors questioned this analysis, a well argued rebuttal with sufficient details to prove it was not made. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Bucaram[edit]

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

I prodded this page (after removing a lot of unsourced content) with the rationale "No indication here that she might meet WP:NBIO, no solid reliable sources actually about her identified in either Spanish or English". The prod was removed, so this is the next step (the rationale is the same). Perhaps someone cleverer than me can find enough WP:RS to establish notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the Billboard [44] is a passing mention, but probably good for the fact. The enciclopedia [45] seems to be a passing mention, but my access is limited. The Cosas [46] (see [47]) is mostly an interview, but may count as a partial WP:BASIC-point. The Spanish WP-article is extensive, but has no refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the relevant text in the encyclopaedia source (your #2) reads "La información sobre MegaTV se ha obtenido gracias a Isabel Bucaram Montana, directora de Mercadeo y Comunicaciones de Spanish Broadcasting System". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what is wanted for a keep-vote then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a lot about her in the Spanish-language magazine Cosas, particularly here and here. And from El Universo: this. This is from a newspaper in Bolivia. This is from La Revista in Ecuador. I think it adds up to notability, despite all the conflict-of-interest and copyvio edits that the article has gone through. Perhaps the fact that she's attractive has something to do with all the media coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about the Cosas refs is that they are interviews, doesn't really help in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The eldeber.com.bo is also mostly an interview, though not completely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources talk about her family, but there are several notable people with that surname listed at es:Categoría:Bucaram, including Abdalá Bucaram. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are about the subject. I don't know why you mentioned to this there are several notable people with that surname. Whats that mean? whats that got to do with her notability?Misasory (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was updated by sources and more context. Her notability clearly was demonstrated by significant coverage in multiple Spanish sources . passes WP:GNG.Misasory (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's so unclear what she has actually done. Public relations people get their names in the media a lot. The WP:REFBOMBing only serves to confuse me in this case, we now have a six-sentence article of 9000 bytes. Geschichte (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, notable position on CNN en Español. Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:21, 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 keep. ✗plicit 03:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out in Fifty[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFSOURCES. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search. No reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDb lists 3 reviews ([48][49][50]). I'm unsure about the quality of those sources – the last two look like they might just be blogs, although the first one seems like it might be reasonably reliable (at first glance, at least). TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think those can pass as reliable sources WP:NFP or as "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" per WP:NFO. Kolma8 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It made it into DVD & Video guide for a few years after the release and into the 2000's International dictionary of films and filmmakers, but I could not find anything else. Kolma8 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFILM. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It actually seems to be notable in Germany, where it was called Eine Nacht in L.A. (One Night in LA). I am then counting the Actionfreunde.de review together with this long review and this short review. On the not-so-significant side there is also a blurby German text and a TV Guide blurb. That being said, Whydoesitexist seems like a quality review, albeit it may be written by a relatively unknown person, and there is also a podcast about the film, maybe made by a relatively unknown person too. Geschichte (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the sources listed above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep any time you have that kind of star power in a production it is notable. Notable for being bad. WP:NFILM. This is a film with major actors. One can find some minor coverage. This looks like a blog. Looks like TCM showed it in 2004. Mentioned in NY Mag. It gets panned in the Sydney Morning Herald. I think we have enough to keep this article. Will need to reference the article, but that is surmountable. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 'Lightburst' and 'Geschichte' DonaldD23 talk to me 12:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources significant coverage has been identified in this discussion such as The Sydney Morning Herald,and multiple German sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://f1experiences.com/blog/f1-history-tracing-the-roots-of-the-mercedes-f1-team

[1]