Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 10	September 12 >

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 keep. – Joe (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

America's Public Television Stations[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Article has recently had many sources added. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 06:30, 11 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) 23:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, and probably WP:FLEXIBILITY. This isn't some corporation trying to sell stuff. This is a core (non-profit) part of the media landscape in the United States, arguably the media market that sets the tone for every other Western media market. There's no desire (from what I can tell) to promote the organisation; this is purely functional and informative. Their audience is the Federal Communications Commission and that organisation's decisions aren't going to be influenced by our telling people what this organisation does. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The deleted version can be restored as a draft if someone wants to work on it. – Joe (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacyo Matynia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; he’s only had one significant role in Break Every Chain. The article was created WP:TOOSOON. The Film Creator (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, fails the parameters of WP:NACTOR. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, WP:TOOSOON.TH1980 (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. No reason to not keep a draft where the article can be worked on until he meets NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some won awards don't look that bad, but this needs cleanup - overly promotional. "Best known... for his appearances on the TV series Luke Cage" (credits: one episode as a "Thug")... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 14 September 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turby wind turbine[edit]

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

Exists, doesn't meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A google book search for Turby wind turbine turns up a lot of independent RS. Was a WP:BEFORE search done?4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting rather tired of these nominations based purely on the length of time that an article has been in a category. That is a reason to check whether it belongs in the category, not to automatically nominate it for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure if the Turby turbine is still being manufactured, looking at the Wayback Machine their website went offline earlier this year. However there are plenty of articles discussing the turbine. This article reads a bit too promotional for me, the benefits listed in it need removing or backed up by inline citations. This article criticises the Turby and other small turbines, but I'm not sure how reliable this source is. NemesisAT (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for the commercial use of a helical twist in the blades. RomanSpa (talk) 22:46, 14 September 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 Cardiacs. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet Business Concern[edit]

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

The article is built on non-independent/unreliable sources. I have conducted a search which found remarkably little on this label; it seems clear to me that it isn't indecently notable of the band Cardiacs and doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A redirect to Cardiacs might be in order. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect references all point to Cardiacs so redirect there. References are not good with regard to GNG and NCORP.--Whiteguru (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Whiteguru. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article now has secondary sources. Miklogfeather (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC) — Miklogfeather (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per Miklogfeather. IAmAnIndividual (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the sources that have been added confirm my previous impression: they do not contain significant coverage of the subject. Indeed, some are from blatantly unreliable sources such as the deprecated Rate Your Music. Redirecting continues to be a reasonable option. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cardiacs. Even with added sources still lacks the significant coverage required by WP:NCORP. Not independently notable. --Bejnar (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cardiacs. These references are about the CARDIACS - not about the record label. There's very little RS here focussing on the record label of itself. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cardiacs as WP:ATD, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of this organization as per NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cardiacs.4meter4 (talk) 20:07, 18 September 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 KC and the Sunshine Band. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Timmons (musician)[edit]

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

Unref blp on a person not notable outside of the band. Redirect to KC and the Sunshine Band at best. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as per nom, non-notable and unreferenced. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KC and the Sunshine Band. Not independently notable.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KC and the Sunshine Band, doesn't have sufficient notability for an article. Suonii180 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beryllium sulfite[edit]

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

Refs are only database entries subject to echo-chamber/circlular-ref, or refs that do not mention it at all. Hoax (or at best a mistake being amplified). DMacks (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can give a good reason otherwise. I found a couple sources that talk about this. this brief piece from NIST says "only a small amount of work has been done on the BeSO₃ system... From aqueous solutions prepared by dissolving beryllium hydroxide in sulfurous acid, no neutral sulfite can be crystallized (1,2)." And Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds says "Beryllium sulfite would have the formula... There is no scientific data that beryllium sulfite even exists as no studies have documented such a salt." So I guess it seems like something that could exist (as many things can in chemistry), but its existence has not been observed. Chris857 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to sulfurous acid. With a specialty encyclopedia having a dedicated entry on it, I do think we should cover it. However, since it is really more of a theoretical chemical I see no reason why it couldn't just be briefly covered in the article on sulfurous acid rather than being a stand alone article.4meter4 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has not been reported as a solid that was actually made. And there are very few publications on the theoretical material. If there is any mention at sulfurous acid or sulfite, it could say that the beryllium salt is not known. Note that "Chemistry of the Elements" does not mention the substance. And the reference I added to supply a CASNo mentions that it has not been made. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one source giving a paragraph saying that it isn't known to exist, but if it did this is how you would make it, isn't really substantive coverage, just someone filling out the entire grid of possibilities. No basis for notability on its own, and unless we are going to have a whole section on sulfurous acid dedicated to all of the types that doen't exist it all seems rather pointless to merge and redirect. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm persuaded by the arguments above that this shouldn't have a stand-alone article, and unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OgTs₄, I don't think there is a good merge target here (none of beryllium, sulfite, or sulfurous acid seem appropriate). TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team[edit]

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

Fails collegiate sport season notability guideline at WP:NSEASONS. No evidence of season's notability, which is currently ongoing, and in my opinion borders on both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOSTATS. GauchoDude (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a general rule college soccer seasons do not merit separate articles. Giant Snowman 17:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I disagree with GS, because NSEASONS gives pretty clear guidelines for when a college season is notable. That said, this article clearly fails NSEASONS and is at the least WP:TOOSOON. This could be recreated if and when the sources appear to make it notable but with the season still going on those sources do not exist. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON, typically we wait to see if a team has made the NCAA Division I tournament before that presumption of notability for a college season generally kicks in under WP:NSEASONS, and I don't see anything at present indicating WP:GNG for this particular season. That may change but at present it remains too soon. Jay eyem (talk) 03:10, 14 September 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. List of Medal of Honor recipients is an article that exists, with several spinoffs to accommodate the large number of recipients of this medal. Given that, any argument to keep this list needs to demonstrate that sources deal with this topic independent of the list of all recipients; i.e., that sources have covered the currently living recipients as a body, rather than as single recipients or among all recipients. Those arguing to keep in this AfD have not done so. I'm not even giving much weight to the concerns that this list will have high turnover; that's probably a subject for a wider discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living Medal of Honor recipients[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic cross-categorisation of "living people" and "medal of honor recipients". Nothing to demonstrate that recipients who are still alive are independently notable as a group from recipients as a whole; therefore failing WP:LISTN (and also WP:NINHERITED - it's not because the MOH is notable that a list of living recipients is); as well as being duplicative of existing lists where readers can just as well find the same information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone's on a tear about deleting articles. Can you honestly NOT see someone wondering how many MOH recipients are alive and from which conflicts? Bkatcher (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bkatcher: Please retract that dubious ad hominem. As for the rest; WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a good argument unless you can come up with sources which show this to be interesting. There are a lot of things which are "interesting" at least according to some people but which are not of encyclopedic interest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This seems rather pointy on 9/11, when there's a convention of living MOH recipients taking place in Boston as reported in the press such as this. The group is obviously notable. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: Your comment is the unsupported WP:Clearly notable. Unless you can show sources which specifically show that this is a notable group (as opposed to MOH recipients as a whole). Which of course are sorely lacking, since you seem to have resorted to bad-faith accusations and other arguments which are rather nearer to the wrong end of this pyramid than one would like (why would I be expected to know about something happening in Boston and which is apparently mostly covered in local news?). In any case, the MOH convention doesn't look like it is limited in topic to only the "living" recipients: their website clearly states that "The annual Society conventions allow Recipients to reconnect with one another, remember those who have passed, ...") RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider the Medal of Honor Society a source 'which specifically show that this is a notable group'? https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/lists/living-recipients Bkatcher (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious which ships are currently transiting the Panama Canal. Some sources report this information. Should Wikipedia mirror this ever-changing WP:DIRECTORY, too? pburka (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So...we shouldn't have articles that might change one day? Bkatcher (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not. An encyclopedia should communicate accumulated knowledge. It's ok for that knowledge to grow and be corrected over time, but information that's constantly changing isn't encyclopedic, so I don't think we should have pages whose primary subject isn't accumulated knowledge. Some pages might have a component that reflects the current state of the topic (e.g. infoboxes for cities or countries or a section listing current members of the Security Council), but I believe topics with only current information (e.g. lists of scheduled events, lists of current products, or lists of living people) are usually unencyclopedic. pburka (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can certainly imagine someone wondering how many MOH recipients are alive, but lots of interesting things aren't encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A better argument might be that living MOH recipients have been discussed as a group: the Congressional Medal of Honor Society maintains a list of living recipients and the group is meeting in Boston right now. On the other hand, this information is easily available outside of Wikipedia from a more authoritative source (CMOHS), and it's unclear why we should mirror their list. I'm skeptical of any content that needs to be constantly maintained (i.e. entries removed and added) especially when it involves living people. And this seems an awful lot like a WP:DIRECTORY. I'm open to being persuaded, but right now this looks like a case of WP:NOT. pburka (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and as an unencyclopedic cross-categorisation per WP:NLIST. pburka said it perfectly. I see no reason for us to mirror CMOHS; particularly when interested readers can always access their list at any point in time.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and succinct analysis by pburka. Every MoH awardee has (or is notable enough to have) a page, we don't need to know the exact number of them alive at any time any more than "which ships are currently transiting the Panama Canal". Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly support a separate list. Living members are public figures and are often in the news. Wikipedia is my first stop for lists of the highest living award holders. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Individual members being in the news does not mean that this a valid list topic (independently of the group of all award holders, living or not). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. The Congressional Medal of Honor Society maintains a list, but I don't see anybody else doing so. Simplest solution is to add an external link to the CMOHS list in List of Medal of Honor recipients. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Congressional Medal of Honor Society does not maintain a list of living recepients. It's just a master database of everyone that's got one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then what is this? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful article, and the sort of thing wikipedia generally publishes. Certainly notable, and certainly of interest to the user. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Respecive articles like List of post-Vietnam War Medal of Honor recipients could denote those who are still alive. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, why have all the names in one article when we have have them in four? How is that more convenient? Bkatcher (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, that article doesn't indicate whether the veteran is still alive, unless the medal was awarded posthumously. Bkatcher (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's why I said it could also indicate that! Why does it need to be convenient to be in one article when this is not a notable intersection in the first place? I love considating related articles, but why have four when we could have a single convenient list with every recipient, living and dead??? We have thousands of lists of people, and it's unnecessary to have another page that duplicates a subset based on whether they are living. Reywas92^Talk 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been thinking about this one for a few days and can't see a compelling reason to keep. It's marginal WP:LISTN at best but, to me, violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMIRROR. Most of the keep !votes boil down to WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSINTERESTING or WP:ITSNOTABLE. As Clarityfiend suggested, an extlink to https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/lists/living-recipients in List of Medal of Honor recipients would be perfectly adequate. pburka (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that list doesn't give any indication of whether they're still alive. Bkatcher (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The CMOHS list certainly does, and information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. pburka (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what??? Does List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients need to indicate whether they're still alive? Does List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients need to indicate whether they're still alive? And what's stopping us from doing that there if we do need that? Reywas92^Talk 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful. It's referenced and linked. It's a small group. It is useful and informative. WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. And conversely, do you have a source that it's "not iinteresting." We should be thinking about readers and how they use this encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You know damn well that "It's referenced and linked" is not a basis for keeping an article. List of post-Vietnam War Medal of Honor recipients is also referenced and linked. It could include whether someone is alive too, if that's so useful, though I question that because we really don't need to distinguish this on our countless other lists of people, as "informative" as that could be to duplicate content for any subset of additional facts. Reywas92^Talk 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reywas92 "You know damn well" that this should be about its usefulness to readers. It is a well illustrated and useful list. And you ought not to be speculating about my knowledge or intent. It was a borderline WP:Personal attack. So striking the comment would be the right thing to do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Explain how its useful. Mztourist (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:USEFUL might be helpful reading here. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How many of these list are going to be sent to AFD? Category:Lists of living people You should've just done them all at once together since the same argument against them is made. It is a valid navigational list, all items link to their own articles, and a valid reason for grouping people together on it is clear. Dream Focus 16:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the brigade is here. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list says "Focus on improving content", but it's not clear how this should be done when 7&6=thirteen just inappropriately canvasses this with the word "Really?" without "any ideas to improve the content."
  "It is a valid navigational list, all items link to their own articles" This is false, there is no basis that just because there are blue links listed it cannot be deleted: List of post-Vietnam War Medal of Honor recipients, List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War already provide navigation between the articles and this duplicates them. Reywas92^Talk 17:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I participate in all list articles and have for years now. You can check my recent contributions and see I have participated in multiple list articles up for deletion. I would've found my way here whether it was tagged for Rescue or not. Dream Focus 17:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are other lists like this and I can think of no good reason why this one doesn't also belong. It's interesting to many people. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:INTERESTING are both arguments to avoid. And several of the pages you linked to are also currently being considered for deletion. pburka (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You just used the OTHERSTUFF argument right after you said to avoid it, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't understand. Do you mean where I pointed out that even if OTHERSTUFF were a valid argument the other stuff you linked to doesn't support your case? pburka (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The way you phrased didn't make it clear that it was conditional on the argument being valid, but I see your point. However, compiling a list, possibly with the help of other editors, and adding it to a list of lists, holds more weight to me than someone jumping around tagging lists for deletion, so if OTHERSTUFF were valid, I would say that the argument to keep based off of it is stronger than to delete it. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I propose that the way to improve this list (and most of the lists in that category) is to incorporate the information into existing similar lists rather than keeping a nonencyclopedic cross-categorizations of MOH recipients and people whom we believe are alive. pburka (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        'Whom we believe are alive'? Are you suggesting the Medal of Honor Society is in error? Bkatcher (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        All we can say with confidence is that they were alive the last time a reliable source reported that they were living. Maintaining lists of living people is inherently a BLP problem, but the more high-profile they are the more timely our updates will be. While it's problematic, this list is in far better shape than, say List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War. pburka (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep arguments are mostly WP:ILIKEIT. This list is a redundancy in the face of other lists of MOH recipients. Not to mention that it is a perpetually moving target (not automatically disqualifying but not very encouraging, quality articles are supposed to be stable.) The whole "Recently deceased" section is a WP:NOTNEWS violation, as it is determined by a very much temporally-relative term. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are actual organizations better-placed to track this, and Wikipedia shouldn't be (poorly) duplicating their efforts. Intothat darkness 22:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Intothat et al. Bad list articles seem to have become vote brigading targets and the behavior demonstrated by some of these pile-on “keep” users is getting highly dubious and borderline disruptive, especially the baseless ad hominem attack that this was somehow deliberately nominated on 9/11 to... do something offensive, I guess? Dronebogus (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I am a content expert and this and other lists on the chopping block are on my watchlist and more than once Wikipedia has alerted me to a change in the list. As I suggested in one other list, an issue with lists is the prose which is a precis, not always accurate, of the main article. The only prose should cover the content of the list with all information about the award to be found in the main article. I find lists valuable, and use them. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically you’re saying “WP:ILIKEIT” which as discussed isn’t a legitimate argument even if you’re a topic expert. Albert Einstein could say he liked an article on general relativity and found it useful but that still wouldn’t save it if he didn’t have valid, objective reasons for keeping it. Dronebogus (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. I like it. More importantly, I regularly edit the main Medal of Honor article. eg. 'Found 53 edits by Anthony Staunton on Medal of Honor (1.16% of the total edits made to the page)'. So my defence of this and other lists of living recipients is that these awards and the lists are articles to which I regularly use and contribute. Anthony Staunton (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You… just said basically the same thing twice. “I like it, more importantly I edit this topic a lot because I like it”. Dronebogus (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of how much you like it, you should only !vote once. pburka (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (people really think this should be deleted?) MoH recipients are rare, living ones rarer still, which is why they receive so much media coverage, as they're getting their medal from the President of the United States, and which is also one reason that makes this information encyclopaedic. Also, I damn well agree with 7&6=thirteen. - wolf 20:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean "they're getting their medal from the President of the United States"? They got the medal a long time ago. These aren't people who were living when they received the MOH: this is the subset of MOH recipients who are alive right now (or at least that's what we claim; we can't prove it). The individual MOH recipients are all notable, of course, but what makes this grouping of them notable? pburka (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "These aren't people who were living when they received the MOH..." Um, what...? - wolf 21:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - There have been 3508 MOH awarded and 2890 of the recipients were awarded the MOH while they were living. The list of 2890 people who received the MOH while living might be encyclopedic, as might the list of 618 who weren't, but this isn't that. pburka (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then what is it? (And I expect an answer to that). Meanwhile, of 3500+ that rec'd the award, almost half were during the Civil War, and many of those were for silly things like watering your CO's horse and showing up for guard duty sober. But, the military cracked down on that sort of thing, and now it's only awarded for true acts valor and gallantry, regardless of risk to one's own life and while engaged with the enemy. Any recipient, from the Civil War right up to the present who truly deserved the medal for those reasons, is a notable person. It doesn't matter if the medal was awarded posthumously or not, they are notable either way. And therefore so is this list. I'm not sure why you think it must be deleted, but maybe you cover that while you're explaining... everything else you've said above. - wolf 22:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to be quite darn confused. This isn't List of Medal of Honor recipients. Even if somehow you're saying that a list of living ones is acceptable, that's already dealt with in my nomination ("NINHERITED"), and the rest of your comment reads like WP:ITSIMPORTANT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        There's a difference between "being confused" and pointing out that someone else's comments seem confusing. Either way, your reply is "quite darn" rude, people don't always agree on the things here, no matter how much Wikilink-salad you toss at them, surely you realize this by now. - wolf 15:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        ”Wikilink salad” is merely citing policy via shortcuts, which is a fair sight better at making a convincing argument than simply saying things like “it’s important” “I like it” “people care about it” “reliable sources exist [none provided]”. In any case could we try to work towards some kind of consensus and stop attempting to make childish zingers at one another? And “consensus” doesn’t mean “brute force a stalemate with a billion canvassed keep votes with no arguments attached” Dronebogus (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        A) Those are not "policies", they're essays. B) You're attributing numerous quotes to me that I never wrote. C) Are you sure about the sources? (rhet.) D) So I'm "childish", but you can post rude, uncivil, multiple-policy violating rant and that's ok? I think we're done here. - wolf 16:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        B— I was being rhetorical and describing a number of !keep votes. C— no, but labeling a question rhetorical means you think the answer is so obvious it needs no evidence. D— I was criticizing both you and RandomCanadian among others in this discussion. I’m sorry if I come across as rude, I’m just frustrated. Dronebogus (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm curious what you believe the inclusion criteria are for this list. It's certainly not the list of people who received the MOH while they were still living. It's the list of MOH recipients who didn't die before September 1, 2020. pburka (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure you are, but simple fact is everyone (including you) get's a !vote and mine is to "keep". It's up to the closer to determine how much weight they'll give my !vote, not you. You don't like my !vote but, but that's not my problem. Trying to drag this on into a endless circular debate is not going to accomplish anything, so how about you stop all this badgering and find something better to do? Thank you - wolf 16:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone here suggested this information is elsewhere on the internet. It's not - one site has a databases where you can search ALL medail recepients, but this is the only place currently where you can see current living recepients - so its unique information, that certainly serves a purpose for people researching or just interesting in the MOH. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn’t that person also refute that with a link to https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/lists/living-recipients? Dronebogus (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but they're not linked to wikipedia articles, separated by conflict and branch, etc. This article is useful. Bkatcher (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it might be useful, if you're interested in this detail. So is a detailed roadmap updated with road closures and traffic information. Doesn't mean either belongs in an encyclopedia, which is a summary of knowledge, not a directory or a case study. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom's and pburka's assessments. The keep !votes all fall into either WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, or WP:OSE. All arguments to be avoided at AfD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Voluntary Military Patriotism Technical Sport Society[edit]

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

It was society to give military training to youth. Now it is a subsidiary of State Service for Mobilization and Conscription of Azerbaijan ([1]) and there are no sources about their work/activities except creation. NMW03 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks notability, doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:NORG. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and NORG.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Thakur (Fitness Coach)[edit]

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

Rejected draft in AFC moved directly to mainspace. Copying my comment from my talk page which should serve as rationale of this AFD:

Most of them are very obviously paid and others are written in away that it indicated they are influenced. For example, Mid-day says brandmedia, Business Standard says BS Marketing initiative, Telegraph says ABP Digital Brand Studio, DNA says 'It is a featured article' at the end, The Week says focus. The Hindi ones, I might be okay with News 18 (it still doesn't have a staff byline!). Jagran is his opinion on stuff so that's out. Patrika can't be considered WP:RS considering that they publish basically anything. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G11. The author had a chance when I moved it into draft space the first time. The fact that there was absolutely zero effort to improve it suggests that the article was created in bad faith, purely to promote (and the author admits to a COI), using poor sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the paid-for spam content in the world still isn't enough to pass WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly spam content for references. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam article. Spam references. Miserable failure of GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:04, 15 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Marching Band[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Possible ATD is redirect or merge/redirect to Bowling Green State University. Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with sources like this, this, this, this, and this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ejgreen77. Passes GNG and criteria 1 of WP:BAND. There's likely a lot more RS on the Falcon Marching Band as Bowling Green University's music program is one of the best in the nation; producing a lot of doctoral students and research fellows in music on top of performers.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 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) 19:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Junie Browning[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria for not having 3 fights in a top tier promotion. Fails WP:GNG as fights are merely routine reports. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, Fails WP:MMABIO. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MMABIO and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the disputes on the talk page, but both Sherdog and FightMatrix show him with only two top tier fights. The confusion was probably because TUF fights are considered exhibitions until the finale. His highest ranking at fightmatrix.com was 344th. He appears to fail both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG since coverage of him appears to be routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefails WP:MMABIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelia Kramer[edit]

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

Similar case to Cecilie Fløe, Emma Færge, Sofie Karsberg and other recently deleted Danish articles on footballers. No claim to passing WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL, in a Danish source search, I could not find any WP:SIGCOV of Kramer. Only independent sources that I could find were Ekstra Bladet and UEFA, none of which address Kramer in detail. Source analysis to follow, which will explain why the cited sources don't show SIGCOV. Also checked the Danish and Italian Wikipedia articles and none of the sources cited there are any good either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment - the sourcing isn't enough Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.fodboldforpiger.dk/2016/11/13-aarige-cornelia-debuterede-i-soendags-paa-aabs-u18-dm-hold/	Routine coverage of a teenager making their youth team debut. See also WP:YOUNGATH	✘ No
https://www.dbu.dk/resultater/pulje/306174	Not mentioned	✘ No
https://www.fodboldforpiger.dk/2019/04/20-spillere-udtaget-til-u17-em-i-bulgarien/	Squad list mention	✘ No
https://www.dbu.dk/landshold/landsholdsdatabasen/MatchInfo/9095	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/cornelia-kramer/575990/	Stats	✘ No
https://www.dbu.dk/landshold/landsholdsdatabasen/PlayerInfo/7828	Stats	✘ No
https://www.soccerdonna.de/wiki/pedia/profil/spieler_37288.html	Stats	✘ No
https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/clubs/players/250126592/	Page doesn't work for me but it's clearly a stats page	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, no claim to passing WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom fails WP:GNG. Henriklars (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2021
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selma Svendsen[edit]

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

Similar case to Cecilie Fløe, Emma Færge, Sofie Karsberg and other recently deleted Danish articles on footballers. No claim to passing WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL, in a Danish source search, I could not find any WP:SIGCOV of Svendsen. Only independent source that I could find was this tiny transfer announcement. Source analysis to follow, which will explain why the cited sources don't show SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://b93prof.dk/project/4-selma-larsen-svendsen/	She used to play for this club, not an independent source	Just a generic profile page that any footballer gets	✘ No
https://www.hbkoge.dk/19-aarigt-stortalent-til-hb-koege-kvindeelite/	Her club's own site	Transfer announcement	✘ No
https://ekstrabladet.dk/sport/fodbold/dansk_fodbold/hb-koege-er-dansk-mester-i-kvindefodbold/8614520		Doesn't even mention her once	✘ No
https://www.fodboldforpiger.dk/2020/02/u19-kvindelandsholdet-udtaget-til-la-manga-tournament-i-marts/		Mentioned once in a squad list	✘ No
https://www.dbu.dk/landshold/landsholdsdatabasen/playerInfo/7730		Stats	✘ No
https://www.soccerdonna.de/wiki/pedia/profil/spieler_36525.html		Stats	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/selma-svendsen/540524//		Stats	✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/selma.l.svendsen	Facebook is not reliable or independent		✘ No
https://sn.dk/Det-Groenne-Omraade/Fra-Lundtofte-til-Kvindeligaen/artikel/1341576		Way too brief, just a routine transfer announcement which doesn't confer notability	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails GNG and NFootball. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hungarian game shows[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since May of 2011, contains WP:OR, and is WP:ORPH. Would advocate for merge into List of international game shows, but much of the information in this article is already featured there anyway. RetroTimeLady (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable list of game shows that lacks references. General notability is not satisfied here. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, general notability would seem to be satisfied by the listing of such shows in sources such as ISBN 9780822374466 and ISBN 9780190885540. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable list of game shows and non verifiable niche material. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the game shows in any country (apart from a micronation) can be described as niche. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I fairly strongly disagree with some of the characterizations above. These shows are likely notable (nationally broadcast TV series are typically notable, though some of these would likely requires some offline searching in Hungarian language sources) and this is a clear, bounded list. matt91486 (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, until a better article can be produced. Santosh L (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:JUNK. While I agree with Phil Bridger that sources exist to improve and expand the list into something that is of quality, this particular list contains WP:OR, lacks basic information on the content (such as broadcast dates; when were these shows?), has no references, and includes programs which are not even game shows (such as talent competitions). It's an absolute mess, and would require a complete re-write to turn it into something of quality. It's just best to delete with no prejudice for recreation if a dedicated editor is willing to build a new quality list from scratch.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Arthur Fellowes Prynne[edit]

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

~~Moved back to draft for extra work, but creator moved it straight back to main space, fails WP:NARTIST.~~ Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn thank you Netherzone for heads up. Theroadislong (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The creator should not have moved it back to mainspace like that, but rather taken the advice to continue to improve it in draft space; however the artist is notable. They are listed in several dictionary/encyclopedias: Artists of the World [2], and in Benezit Dictionary of Artists [3], and Directory of British Architects. [4]. Also in this book British and Irish Paintings in Public Collections: [5] Therefore clearly meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, and may pass WP:NARTIST criteria #4 if more info can be found on the specific collections. Draftifying/userfying (but not deleting) is another option. I will do some work to improve it, adding the citations above. Netherzone (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 11 September 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 Ava Max discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Kay (EP)[edit]

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

Article is unsourced and does not meet any criterion of WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Preferably a redirect to Ava Max discography or Ava Max will suffice. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ava Max discography as there does not appear to be enough significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources to justify this EP having its own article. It is a viable search term though so I think a redirect would be more beneficial to readers than an outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Conforth[edit]

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

Deletion requested by Conforth on WP:VRT, ticket:2021090510000014, text copied from the email with his approval.

"I would like to request the deletion of the Bruce Conforth Wikipedia page as not being of notable content. I created that page (under the user name Emmetman) as a vanity issue. I made up some of the material and anything else does not constitute worthy notability. This page was created by me solely as a self-advertisement. I wanted to make myself seem notable, but I am not. If you read the page it is all of self interest and does not belong on Wikipedia." -- Cabayi (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The pass of WP:NAUTHOR looks unambiguous to me, with the biography of Robert Johnson having lots of reviews in high-profile venues, and another book African American Folksong and American Cultural Politics having at least two reviews [6] [7]. The deletion request seems to be because of the sexual harassment allegations covered in the NYTimes [8]. While I have some sympathy, I don't think this is the kind of marginal notability pass that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE refers to. The article could use a good trim for unsourced content. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's not very helpful on his part; what exactly is made up (although his POV editing is an issue)? There's a lot of coverage in regard to his curatorship and his writing. Is he upset about the sexual assault allegations in the article? Although in this case, The New York Times devoted a substantial article to it, which it MAY not have done if it thought Conforth was not already a notable professor/writer/curator... The article does seem overly detailed, so maybe it's a TNT issue... (edit conflict) Caro7200 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR; coverage of the sexual harassment allegations implies that the article is not "all of self interest". Unsourced content should be fixed up or, most likely, removed; I've zapped a couple bits, and the entire "1960s" section could potentially go. If you were there, you wouldn't remember, right? XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His book reviews (including in the WSJ) are enough for WP:AUTHOR. And when your indiscretions become an article in the NYT, it's a little late to say "oops, maybe I should try to stay more private after all". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Ansong Satekla[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non notable fashion entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her. A before search turns up nothing. Two third of the sources used in the article are about her husband who is indeed notable but notability is not WP:INHERITED via proxy to a notable person. WP:ANYBIO is also not met. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article that mention her husband are about the couple, not just him. There are at least two references that are just about her as a dentist. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— There are 3 actually and all of which do not satisfy what is contained in WP:GNG, GNG requires WP:SIGCOV and I do not see how it is met but, please by all means please could you provide any sources that demonstrate or show notability? That is, the sources you provide should discuss her in in-depth significant coverage independent of her.

In fact why don’t I analyze all “three” sources you make reference to, starting with this (SIGCOV isn’t met) and this (a top ten things you didn’t know about list article from an unreliable source)and finally this (which is a press release with 0 in-depth 0 SIGCOV and reads like an announcement) Celestina007 (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside the fact that most of the articles that mention her husband are entirely about the couple, there is significant web articles that centre focus on Louisa herself. These are indeed multiple independent sources. This satisfies WP:BASIC.Itspoojkins (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)This editor has now been blocked for possible UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The editor above is the creator of this article. Furthermore merely saying they are notable without substantiating this statement with sources would not be considered as it largely constitutes WP:ATA in an AFD. So please bring those sources and I’d analyze them like I did for the sources provided by the other editor above. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrated so far. MarioGom (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Passes WP:GNG As per significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including The Ghanaian Times, ModernGhana, News Ghana, GhanaWeb, and more. It's quite hard to get coverage in these sources especially in African countries. These are well-known newspapers and magazines in Ghana especially The Ghanaian Times, ModernGhana, Daily Graphic, News Ghana, Yen, GhanaWeb. See [|here] Richloveburner (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I’m afraid you do not comprehend our policy on notability. The bane or, rather core of this nomination is on the fact that almost every source that discuss her do not meet WP:SIGCOV as she is mostly mentioned in connection to her marriage to a very notable person. Thus notability isn’t WP:INHERITED. In any case you are more than welcome to link to this AFD any source (even if it is just one) that is independent for of the subject, satisfies WP:SIGCOV and WP:INDEPTH please do so, if not I’m afraid this !vote may not be considered. Furthermore I saw your link above (this one) and that is archetypal example of mere announcements or a cluster of press releases(take note of this for future purposes) A cluster of press releases are what we refer to as “churnalism” which doesn’t constitute notability. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 as requested for, below are some independent sources of the entity to confirm notability: 1. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Dr-Louisa-Ansong-Satekla-demonstrates-ideal-tooth-brushing-technique-for-oral-hygiene-1224703 2. https://daughtersofafrica.org/8-things-know-dr-louisa-ansong/ 3. https://espact.com/meet-the-young-ghanaian-doctor-who-won-19-out-of-20-awards/4. https://www.modernghana.com/news/715572/2-ladies-sweep-knust-medical-awards.html 5. https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/knust-graduating-female-medical-student-wins-13-awards.html Richloveburner (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first is a press release / sponsored post The second source has no reputation for fact checking neither is there any editorial oversight. The third source doesn’t meet WP:SIGCOV The fourth source which I already analyzed above fails to meet SIGCOV also and the fifth source mentions her in passing thus SIGCOV isn’t met. What am I missing? Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 thanks for the education Richloveburner (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a dentist who happens to be married to a notable music performer. Notability is not inherited. Celestina007's analysis of the sources is correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED - the articles are really about her husband, not about this obscure dentist. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sirimalle Navvindi[edit]

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

No sources at all. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References have been added. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator shall not expect regional (vernacular) sources from 1980 to be easily available at all. My bar is that the content does not turn out to be a hoax. It has been met. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Sources are not really relevant and/or reliable. Kolma8 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources added are not reliable.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 19 September 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) 11:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sreekuttan VS[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and NFooty. Poppified ^talk 12:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 12:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 12:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 12:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 12:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NFOOTY. Player made no league appearance. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this says 2 goals in 9 games this season, but he doesn't appear here so cannot verify claim to notability. If anybody else can please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFOOTY.Henriklars (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NFOOTY. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 13:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk)
Delete per all of the above. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFOOTY Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:05, 13 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Shrivastava[edit]

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

The subject is already rejected through afc. And the subject is not meeting WP:GNG. lack of reliable sources. Bapinghosh (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not satisfy acting notability. There is also a declined draft at Draft:Sandeep Shrivastava which has a filmography that is not present in this article. The draft may be capable of being improved and resubmitted and should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I added the filmography from the draft. I think that notability may now be demonstrated. If this article is kept, please do a history merge. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nomination and subsequent discussion. defcon5 (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:22, 18 September 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 Intrado. Article history will remain if there is future scope for this as an article. No alternate views expressed. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flowroute[edit]

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

Not Notable, it is primary a PR Puff Piece —Cliffb (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Intrado as per WP:ATD. As it stands, references fail the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:20, 11 September 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) 11:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Annamkutty Jose[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Article is currently tagged for notability concerns. Most of the sources are press release and interviews. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Seems notable as a radio jockey. I found some sources on doing a WP:Before, but not enough to meet GNG. Happy to change my vote to keep if someone comes up with WP:THREE. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 15:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Henriklars (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly doesn't meet any notability guideline.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR upcoming not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Staingate[edit]

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

Non notable. The topic has only gained note within a very small section of a very specific tech-blog sphere. I suspect this issue gained an article, where other issue have not, because of its catchy name and maybe a few customers peeved enough to write about it. Alhough at first glance it appears to meet sourcing requirements, almost every source is a blog—or, as with the Forbes piece, a “contributor” article. My personal stance is that this issue, following the example of the (even more notable) issues with the Samsung Note 7, should be merged into the page for the MacBook Pro. Letting this article hang on also opens up the doors for articles on every product issue with enough coverage or a catchy name. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Specific niche interest not of general notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boldo[edit]

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

Paralympic competitor who failed to medal. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTRACK which states athletics athletes are presumed notable if they have competed in the Olympics. NemesisAT (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @NemesisAT: Subject never competed at the Summer Olympics. He is a Paralympic athlete. They are not the same event. A discussion about the notability of Paralympic competitors is currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) if you would like to add your input. JTtheOG (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOLYMPICS per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per NemesisAT. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My presumption is that paralympic athletes *should* be notable, but that when the question is raised we should check whether they actually are notable, according to GNG. In this case, all I can find is [9]. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While they are presumed to be notable, notability is demonstrated, not inherited. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superboy and the Legion[edit]

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

Story arc of a comic book series, no clear real-world notability. The article's "references" are all to comic books - no secondary sourcing. My attempts to find sourcing for this only found sourcing for the similarly-named Legion of Super-Heroes. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A minor, two issue long story. There is not a single valid source being used in the article, and searches turn up nothing significant, as this was not a notable storyline. There are a number of similarly titled stories throughout DC comics history that come up in searches, but this particular storyline fails the WP:GNG completely. Rorshacma (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma.4meter4 (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northpoint (skyscraper)[edit]

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

Residential building does not meet WP:NBUILDING. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable condominium, does not meet criteria for WP:NBUILDING. The non-notable "award" is a vanity award: Propertyguru.com's "Thailand Property Award". Basically any architect or a firm who enters this PR award gets it - if they pay for the marketing package - pay-to-play. ~~See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andromeda (skyscraper) for more info on content from the UPE account who has been creating these articles.~~ Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertizing. Netherzone (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "The UPE account who has been creating these articles" did not create this one. This article was created in 2009 (though by an account whose few contributions are all about Raimon Land's projects). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_012 Thank you for pointing that out, I struck the sentence in my comment above, but still maintain the article should be deleted, as I don't think it meets notability requirements, and the sourcing is weak. This article creator has not answered the inquiry on their talk page re: COI, however they are a single purpose editor for Raimond Land development projects. Netherzone (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was something like the 7th tallest building in Thailand upon completion, and the first of a huge wave of skyscraper construction in Pattaya, so there should probably be some coverage in that respect, though I'm finding it elusive. 2008 is over a decade ago, though, so it's possbile there's news coverage that's now offline. What's available online include the usual coverage (mostly PR-based) in the Pattaya Mail[10][11][12], a piece about the Pattaya real estate landscape from a website of Hotels.com[13], a review on real estate website Think of Living (no, I still say it's far from proven that it's sponsored content)[14], and an article on the website of real estate agent Town & Country Property, which, while glowingly positive, seems to reflect the author's assessment and doesn't appear to be sponsored, though a real estate agent probably doesn't exactly qualify as a reliable source[15]. There are some magazine results in Google Books as well[16], but no previews available so hard to say what the degree of coverage is. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is the kind of prestige project that normally generates third-party coverage, and the Art and AsiaPacific snippet found via Google Books search suggests that there are sources that aren't quite easily available as we're looking decade late. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul_012. What makes you say this is a "prestige project"? Also, could you please post the link of the Art and AsiaPacific snippet that you are referring to? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one generally doesn't go around building the tallest building outside of Bangkok if not aiming for prestige. Mentions by the South China Morning Post also suggest so: "The developer is leading Thailand's luxury condominium charge with The River project in Bangkok ... and Northpoint Condominium Pattaya."[17] "In November, Raimon Land will launch the high-end luxury condominium complex Northpoint in Pattaya. The development is already 20 per cent sold, proving the high demand for this location."[18] Search snippets can't be linked, I think. It's the first one shown in the Google Books link in my above comment. (I can't quite tell though whether it's from a piece of coverage or an advertisement, which is why I only said that it suggests that there are more sources: "Featuring an exceptional mix of luxurious and spacious residences, majestic gardens and a world of recreational choices, Northpoint is quite simply Pattaya's most sought-after beachfront address.") --Paul_012 (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul for the explanation and for sharing those links. In my opinion, they are passing mentions but indeed they do hint at notability being possible with more sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Netherzone.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nimfa Sound[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article shows some edit-warrning, possibly relating to this legal case but that does not confer notability on any company which is involved. Searches find only passing mentions, rather than the coverage needed to demonstrate WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be any references that meet WP:NCORP to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:53, 18 September 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 Air Defence Regiment (Sweden). – Joe (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Göta Anti-Aircraft Corps Commemorative Medal[edit]

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

This has been in CAT:NN for nearly 12 years. It was added with the comment: 'I'm very skeptical about the notability of this medal. Göta luftvärnskår ("Göta air defence corps") was the name of a Swedish army air defence "regiment" 1994-2000 (a predecessor of Luftvärnsregementet), a unit which not have been in battle. Calling it a "decoration" gives a strange impression; most likely it's a local medal handed out to commemorate good services during the unit's existence under this period. Hardly worth an article, in my opinion, could possible be mentioned briefly in the regiment's article. And I seriously question the authority of a local (former) regiment to confer a decoration on foreign military personnel, this kind of decisions tend to be taken centrally.'

It doesn't have a Swedish-language WP article and I couldn't find on a Google search that it does meet WP:N. Possible WP:ATD would be redirect to Air Defence Regiment (Sweden)#Medals, where it is mentioned. I wouldn't recommend a merge as the information in this article is unreferenced. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, belongs on a medal fansite. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The source with the information is here, but that was the only one I could find. As an aside, somebody may need to hide the current text in the article as it is directly copied from the source. --Coolperson177 (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selective merge to Air Defence Regiment (Sweden)#Heraldry and traditions#Medals per WP:CHEAP. The medal is already discussed there.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 19 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeekWire[edit]

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

Promotional article. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at [19], I think it obvious that GeekWire is a routinely cited source. I was surprised to not find it on WP:RSP. If this is not closed procedurally, which I recommend given the behavior of the nominator in AfD'ing a lot of media articles, it likely should be kept. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Local technology news outlet that does get quoted and reprinted in other, more established sources (e.g. The Seattle Times) and has independent coverage. Definitely meets notability guidelines, even if the article is need of improvement (see Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). Sounder Bruce 07:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheFeature[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2006-08 Seattle Wireless (closed as ✓ keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranker[edit]

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

Promotional article. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2021-07 Murphy (novella) (closed as redirect all)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Mart[edit]

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

Promotional article. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article has 6 valid and working references from the major newspapers of Pakistan – Dawn, Pakistan Today and Daily Times (Pakistan). Plenty of independent, third party news coverage. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:21, 11 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Arnold (Internet entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Promotional article. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator's contributions Sawada Katsuo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) consist almost entirely of AfD nominations. I would remind the nominator that a promotional tone, if it exists, can be removed by editing (WP:SOFIXIT) and that WP:BEFORE is a requirement before an article can properly be nominated for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur that the promotional tone needs to go but there does exist independent coverage in Wall Street Journal Entrepreneur Magazine NY Times Forbes maclean (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with all above, the tone and sourcing need work. In addition to Maclean25's sources above, here are several more from the Atlanta newspapers covering his various moves: Oct 2000 Oct 2000 continued, Oct 2003 Oct 2003 continued, and Oct 2007 and Oct 2007 continued. No, I do not know why the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a habit of writing articles about him in October. --Krelnik (talk) 15:45, 15 September 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 10:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Chang (web designer)[edit]

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

Promotional. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, promotional, non-notable person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b and Sawada Katsuo. Worth noting it was nominated for a deletion back in 2007 and kept per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Chang (with a different Article name then) ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:51, 12 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belgharia High School[edit]

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

This page is scheduled for deletion because this article is very short and there are no citations for verification. Papai Bachar (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Papai Bachar (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Papai Bachar (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A tip for the nominator, who is likely inexperienced here: being a stub is not a qualifier for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has some references now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after WP:HEY by Eastmain .Further the school is one of the oldest in Kolkata founded in 1872 passes WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as article has references, and stubbiness is not a qualification for deletion.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boardwalk Real Estate Investment Trust[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP since sources are largely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. The ones from the Edmonton Journal and Policy Options are particularly useful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Eastmain. Lagoyan (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found articles in Canadian news outlets including Financial Post and Calgary Herald Apopolips (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:27, 18 September 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. – Joe (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tricon Residential[edit]

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

Promotional article by WP:UPE. Does not meet WP:NCORP since sources are largely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. gnews reveals mainly press release type articles. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company has a lot of online news coverage. A deep look reveals coverage in Wall Street Journal, The Star, BNN Bloomberg, San Antonio Express-News, The Tennessean, Nashville Post and Forbes. Apopolips (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple google search shows articles in reliable sources. The article itself already cites many news sources covering Tricon such as The Globe and Mail, Financial Post and other Canadian media.

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 Dogma in the Catholic Church. – Joe (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assent of faith[edit]

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

This article's main point is already discussed in various articles (Dogma in the Catholic Church, Faith, et al.) and scholarly and theological discussion on it from a specifically Catholic POV, though available, is too scant and obscure to warrant an article outside of the more general articles on faith and epistemology. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 05:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 05:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 05:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dogma in the Catholic Church. If kept it should be renamed to Assent of faith (Catholic). However it reads to me like an attempt to produce a short creed, probably a heterodox one as I thought the basic beliefs of the Catholic Church were enshrined in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. I am not a Catholic, so do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arushi Nishank[edit]

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

Concerns of WP:GNG and WP:N, WP:RS and notability not inherited. Ht24 (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even though her father is important, the coverage in reliable sources is of her, not of her father. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although the coverage is that of Arushi Nishank, the sources cited are not reliable. Please read this and check if the media houses cited here are in this list. Ht24 (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything notable about her. Eevee01^(talk) 03:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I looked up the English language references and none of them are on the list WP:RSP. One of the references in the article is to [20]. Isn't that a satisfactory article? I'm not confident that the searching for sources going on here is adequate. Thincat (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the India Herald article is significant RS. There may be foreign language sources also. I am going to ping two editors who comment regularly at India related AFDs who are proficient at searching in foreign languages for this region. Goldsztajn and Tayi Arajakate would you mind searching for foreign language references on this individual?4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBIO. Also likely to be a self-written biography. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs clean up, caution a plenty given the BJP/current government connections and no doubt concern over the influence of PR/churnalism. Nevertheless, there's substantial multi-year RS coverage available, meets BASIC.^[1](Same story, different source, English version^[2])^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ "उत्तराखंड में आरुषि निशंक ने शुरू किया कोरोना राहत अभियान, NGO स्पर्श गंगा के जरिए कर रहीं मदद". Zee Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand (in Hindi). 29 May 2021.
^ Jain, Vaishali (29 May 2021). "Arushi Nishank launches COVID-19 Relief Campaign in Uttarakhand". www.indiatvnews.com.
^ "आरुषि निशंक को वर्ल्ड एनवायर्नमेंट डे पर खास सेरेमनी के लिए चुना गया गेस्ट ऑफ ऑनर". www.timesnowhindi.com (in Hindi). 5 June 2021.
^ "Coronavirus: केंद्रीय मंत्री की बेटी ने 10 हजार फौजियों के लिए बनाए खादी के मास्क". Patrika News (in Hindi). 29 April 2020.
^ "Arushi Nishank: I am using the lockdown to prepare for my next project 'Tarini' - Times of India". The Times of India. 25 May 2021.
^ October 30, Simi Kuriakose. "'Women should lend a helping hand to each other'". India Today.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

On the issue of paid news in the Indian media, this is a well-known problem (and not exclusive to India). The difficulty is what conclusion one draws: either all sources are permanently regarded as unreliable or a case-by-case basis is necessary. I see no community consensus for designating all sources implicated as unreliable, as such the onus is on an editor to show why a particular article from a claimed suspect source should be regarded as a paid news product. The alternative produces Salem-like outcomes (it floats...witch!). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources too flimsy for this marginal BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment- Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR; according to this news article she has acted in only one music video and her debut movie and web series are yet to be released. Eevee01^(talk) 09:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't know what to say about this one. Goldsztajn has already dug through sources which give her enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC, if we take them at face value. But I'm not very comfortable !voting keep looking at the sources. Blanket assessment of Indian media sources would be erroneous, paid news do not equally afflict all news publications and the reliability of different publications can vary significantly both within and between them so case by case assessments are necessary. The problem in this case is perhaps not even paid news per se but that some of these sources are linked to the party itself so all it'd need is some nudging to get a couple features up, for examples on India TV, India.com (source provided by Eevee01) or Zee Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand while this wouldn't be so easy to accomplish with say India Today. I wish more people would just bring sources to RSN instead of unilaterally assuming them to be either reliable or paid promotion and the like. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Deriving from Tayi Arajakate. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 13 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medrar for contemporary art[edit]

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

I'm genuinely not sure how the previous AFD was not closed as "delete" given there was no opposition to the nomination. I also see that nothing has changed since then; there are barely any sources in the text, there is nothing in the search engines to indicate it is any more notable than it was six years ago, and less than ten edits to improve it since the last discussion. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete coverage I see is limited to event listings and one about its move, nothing to meet WP:ORG. Any Arabic speakers willing to chime in to see if there's adequate non-English sourcing? And concur, that last one should have been treated as a PROD. Star Mississippi 12:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Star Mississippi and nom.4meter4 (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Tibrewal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Recently announced political candidate whose only sourcing is routine election coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP Pass WP:ANYBIO This person has achieved great success in her carrer. and she have significant coverage in reliable sources. Not everyone accomplish and get so many recognitions from national media. very well deserved to be on the platform since she is inspiration to many fellow woman's and continuously working towards social causes. Joy Wick (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:PROMO and WP:NPOL where "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability".— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:NPOL. This article is created for making her a high-profile heavyweight politician, which is not a good sign in Wikipedia. Remember a person is recognised ad famous in one event (a by-election) but doesn't mean she us popular at all. After all, she is a common advocate in Calcutta High Court. Unless she is elected, it is recommended to keep this in draft or deletion. Jyoti Roy (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPOL and GNG. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a member of a political party and one who hasn't been elected in an election for either regional or national parliament yet doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Htanaungg (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Subject is a candidate in a high profile bye election from Bhabanipur (Vidhan Sabha constituency) against Mamata Banerjee hence has got coverage but fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G5. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:33, 19 September 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 01:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gumwood, Delaware[edit]

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

This is pretty obviously a subdivision, though the label moves around so much it isn't clear which one. Searching is rendered nearly hopeless by the lumber. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe's assessment. Maps show Gumwood Drive leading into a small subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 18:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: newspaper results are a huge pain in the ass, since the name of the subdivision also refers to a type of wood. I don't know if it will be possible to come up with anything this way. I am leaning towards "delete". Nothing interesting shows up on USGS maps from 1901 through 1993. In 2011, a "Gumwood" label shows up, but that isn't a whole lot to go by. jp×g 22:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable housing development Superman7515 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 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 Khloe Kardashian. – Joe (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good American[edit]

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

Remove Khloe Kardashian from the equation, and there's no substantial coverage about the company whatsoever. Fails WP:CORP and General Notability. Not deleting this would mean another advertorial remained on Wikipedia indefinitely. PK650 (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the idea that we ought to remove from consideration one of the company's co-founders in determining if the company has substantial coverage. But see, for example, this Evening Standard article which focuses on the company's other co-founder, Emma Grede. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's still a notable company with significant coverage. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you !voting above, could you please provide evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources about the company? You've merely cited a single example of an article about a co-founder, which actually furthers my deletion argument. PK650 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search on google shows coverage in Harper's Bazaar, E! Online, Cosmopolitan and other fashion news sites. Apopolips (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All related to its owner, not the company itself. PK650 (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is mostly PR, failing WP:ORGIND and driven by the name. At the end of the day, it is a shop selling denim. A common occurance and mostly mediocre. WP:NOTINHERITED. scope_creep^Talk 08:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Khloe Kardashian. The article's sources show that the brand has no notability that is distinct from her. JBchrch talk 02:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as the brand's notability is derived from its founderJackattack1597 (talk) 20:31, 18 September 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] "उत्तराखंड में आरुषि निशंक ने शुरू किया कोरोना राहत अभियान, NGO स्पर्श गंगा के जरिए कर रहीं मदद". Zee Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand (in Hindi). 29 May 2021.

[2] Jain, Vaishali (29 May 2021). "Arushi Nishank launches COVID-19 Relief Campaign in Uttarakhand". www.indiatvnews.com.

[3] "आरुषि निशंक को वर्ल्ड एनवायर्नमेंट डे पर खास सेरेमनी के लिए चुना गया गेस्ट ऑफ ऑनर". www.timesnowhindi.com (in Hindi). 5 June 2021.

[4] "Coronavirus: केंद्रीय मंत्री की बेटी ने 10 हजार फौजियों के लिए बनाए खादी के मास्क". Patrika News (in Hindi). 29 April 2020.

[5] "Arushi Nishank: I am using the lockdown to prepare for my next project 'Tarini' - Times of India". The Times of India. 25 May 2021.

[6] October 30, Simi Kuriakose. "'Women should lend a helping hand to each other'". India Today.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]