Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 11 September 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Haley[edit]

Gina Haley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be notable per criteria at WP:ARTIST NE Ent 17:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NE Ent 17:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep On second thought, Weak Delete. Although she meets the bare minimum of coverage with reliable sources (2), she wouldn't have gotten the coverage if not for her famous father, although articles do appear to be about her rather than him. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Los Angeles and Houston newspaper articles cited in the article are significant RS. Add to those her Rockabilly Hall of Fame entry (see here) and there is enough RS to pass criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO). Additionally, there is some coverage in google books; although mainly in connection with her covering songs by her father or speaking about him to biographers on her father.4meter4 (talk) 16:47, 12 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, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Redirect to Bill Haley): The Rockabilly Hall of Fame does not appear to be an RS, and even if it were, inclusion on that site does not indicate notability. The LA Times article is significant coverage but is a primarily sourced interview -- a non-independent human interest story of someone at the time who was not notable - "Together, they are trying to break her into the music business. Her problem is getting somebody to take notice". The Houston Press article is similar: "Gina already has some gigs lined up and she's trying to secure investors who believe in her potential". I can't see RS sigcov of her work. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:26, 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 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hifigear[edit]

Hifigear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Citations brutally fail WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:RS, and the article overall fails WP:NCORP as a result. It's a mix of user-generated, primary, and hyper-local sources. Nothing that meets CORPDEPTH was located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack E. Robinson III[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jack E. Robinson III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perennial candidate fails WP:NPOL. No lasting impact or coverage. KidAd • SPEAK 23:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The fact that there his death was announced in the Boston Globe, and there are some scant other non-routine sources that do provide WP:SIGCOV make it close, but I think it still fails WP:GNG; some newspaper sources may exist (my newspapers.com subscription is in the process of renewal so I can't check) , but as of right now, no dice. Also, searches are further hampered because his grandfather, who has the same name, was apparently a local bigshot back in the day. Curbon7 (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also looking at the previous AfD from 2008, those really were different times. Curbon7 (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, but this features neither a credible claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy nor sufficient sourcing to deem his candidacies more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NPOL and I can't see any indication that he passes WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: His candidacy for the 2000 United States Senate election in Massachusetts certainly appears sufficiently special - WP, NYT, TAL Economist - to a level where redirection and capsule coverage there would be reasonable. I don't see reviews sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:20, 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 keep. ✗plicit 23:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Pigalle[edit]

Anne Pigalle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. This French born but London based singer, chanteuse, was a significant part of the pop world and even quite well known in the 1980s, on ZTT recordings, her work produced by Trevor Horn, and widely reported upon then in the music press in UK and Japan. Her career as musician and Naïve artist continues as she nears 60.Rodolph (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the state of the article is quite a mess and references are absent, a quick Google search actually brought up a bit on Pigalle (just a cursory search found this, this, this, this, this). Also, released an album for ZTT Records. ExRat (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article is a mess, etc., though the essential notability of the subject exists. Article needs serious editing and imposition of footnotes and references (ie. evidence) and some coherence.Rodolph (talk)
  • Keep. Very much notable and received quite a bit of coverage in the 1980s. --Michig (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the article needs work, there has been plenty of significant coverage, and notability is not temporary.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:59, 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 redirect to Nick Pelling. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadians (video game)[edit]

Arcadians (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete for failing to have significant coverage. Fails to state a claim to fame. Fails the general notability guidelines. Was not an original game, just a copycat. It did not gain a large following. At the present time the article cites no sources. It has been tagged as sourceless since December 2009.  --Bejnar (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nomination. I did an extensive search but found nothing Timur9008 (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nick Pelling ("Orlando") as alternative to deletion. There are a bunch of mentions in an archive.org magazine search, including a Retro Gamer about Pelling that discusses some aspects of its development. This title is a valid search term. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:26, 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. No consensus, and [user:Editorofthewiki|Editorofthewiki] has provided more sources. (non-admin closure) Peter303x (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tybouts Corner, Delaware[edit]

Tybouts Corner, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another "locality" badly copied into GNIS from Delaware Place Names, where by rights it should have been recorded as a "locale". Instead, it was elevated to "populated place", and now we've turned it into a "community". I did find some HABS pictures of Mr. Tybout's barn, and bit to the south is the Tybouts Corner Landfill, mildly notorious as a superfund site— I say "mildly" because the only references I could find were in official documents. At the intersection itself is a gas station, which has been there since the 1950s, and there are now the usual string of businesses, one of which has taken up the name. Notable community town? No. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is different from the other mass-created GNIS stubs. It has a name and has been and currently is inhabited and is/has been the site of businesses using the name. I would say it fits under the definition of an unincorporated community, but that's just my opinion. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Geschichte: GNIS, at the bare minimum. Though, I believe photos can also be used as sources. Other sources such as a place names origin publication listing the community could be used as one, if it exists. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photos would be primary sources... Geschichte (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WaddlesJP13, photos are indeed primary sources. And all they show is that the place exists, on which no doubt has been expressed. -The Gnome (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure what would set this stub apart; most of the named intersections in Northern Delaware have since been covered in housing and commercial development. Topos from 1906, 1919, 1953 and 1993 show an increasing number of buildings in the general area, consistent with late-20th-century growth in New Castle County, but there doesn't seem to be anything historically clustered around this intersection and the Tybouts Corner label doesn't appear until 1993. Unless I've missed something, the only "business" that uses the name is "P+R Tybouts Corner" which is a park-and-ride lot. Newspaper articles are either about the landfill or simply using it as a reference intersection (between Rt. 273 and Tybouts Corner, for example). I'm not finding any sources that call this a community, so I would say that the label (which was made up by a Wikipedia editor) fails verification. But I'll change my mind if anyone can find sufficient sourcing that treats this as a community name in common use. –dlthewave ☎ 12:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reviewing USGS topo maps. 1906: no label, a few houses some distance from the intersection located at the coordinates. Same in 1919 and 1953. A "Tybouts Corner" label appears in 1993, along with a highway cloverleaf and some houses to the north, northwest, and southeast. Google satellite maps show little of note (other than "Bob's Affordable Carpets", "Mobile 1 Audio" and "Masterbaiter's Bait and Tackle" to the north). There is a subdivision called Monterey Farms to the northwest -- I am not seeing much in the way of a community here, Google lists the coordinates as belonging to New Castle, Delaware. Perhaps someone can come up with historic sources here; otherwise, I will say redirect to New Castle. jp×g 02:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing a lot in the archives here, mostly in relation to the landfill but also about construction projects and the like. But this article profiles several residents of Tybouts Corner, indicated that is is, indeed, a community after all. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputes that the subject plaxce exists and that it has a name! These two "attributes" on their own, alone, do not support inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an all-encompassing collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was not that it was a named place, rather that is is an actual community, with a population. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggestion in that other discussion about placing it under a Redirect would not be out of place here, either, indeed. -The Gnome (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eddy. If the newspaper is referring to it as a community, than it's a community.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific newspaper article that refers to a community/settlement? I haven't seen any (including Eddy's link) but I might change my mind if I did. –dlthewave ☎ 19:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave: I looked at Eddy's link. The place isn't directly referred to as a community, but it is indicated that it is one by implying people live in Tybouts Corner. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All those "in"s do nothing more than establish an area around the junction. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, an area referred to as a community in several sources with a handful of residents. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually this is like any other mass-produced lemma for wannabe Wikipedia-worthy geographic locations. There is nowhere in any source an appellation that would enable us to consider this as a place worthy of inclusion here. We cannot project onto this subject our own viewpoints. -The Gnome (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources? Ok: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9] [10]. So it is patently untrue that there aren't sources here, as there are plenty to meet GEOLAND. It has non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, and not all of them are from Delaware -- Maryland and Pennsylvania newspapers have covered this community as well. This smells more like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All but one of those are about the dump, and almost all of them are in the local newspapers. All of them are consistent with this just being a locale around an intersection. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant that most of the sources are about the dump--not all, and the dump is an important location in Tybouts Corner. Further, not all are local news, and even if that was so, they have sufficient coverage for GNG. Whether it was just an intersection is also unimportat, as newspapers have considered it a community with residents. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:GEOLAND, which states that places must have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." While I see Tybout's Corner mentioned in a couple of places, I see nothing significant about the place itself. There is no doubt that it exists, but it should not have its own article. Perhaps a redirect to New Castle? -Pax Verbum 06:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with the proviso that @Editorofthewiki: actually write content from the sources listed above and add it to the article with appropriate referencing. jp×g 22:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming the article is kept, I will expand the article with the above sources. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of non-trivial sourcing, it was a crossroads with a barn that got wrapped up in the spamming of GNIS stubs throughout the state. Superman7515 (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you examined the sources to conclude that they are trivial? Because they seem pretty substantial to me. And while there are errors with GNIS, most locations do not have the sources this does. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not about everything. Unfortunately this page was deleted for some reason. The closest existing equivalent I would find was Existence ≠ Notability. Minkai (talk to me) 13:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep assuming Editorofthewiki will expand it, it appears notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 20 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) 15:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entrespace[edit]

Entrespace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ADMASQ article promoting a non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP:NCORP. A before search shows a plethora of user generated sources needless to say, WP:ORGDEPTH is definitely absent. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can only find a Business Wire press release and the usual database profiles. According to some of the profiles, this is a small, recently-started company with 3 employees. There's no claim to notability and none of the sources satisfy WP:NCORP criteria Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional and not close to a Wikipedia article at all. If the company ever grows to a size and influence with independent sources, start from scratch. W Nowicki (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This reeks of promo and utterly fails notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom and above arguments. Peter Ormond 💬 00:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deleteinsubstantial RS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:46, 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. Geschichte (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Angel (SHC)[edit]

Jack Angel (SHC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 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) 09:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gouripur S A High School[edit]

Gouripur S A High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable institution. Article replete with primary and unreliable sources. Peter Ormond 💬 22:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ormond: I'm sure that no sources of these article is unreliable. And how do you know that these schools are non-notable? These schools are one of the the most famous schools in Bangladesh. You are not a residence of Bangladesh. So you don't know it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajwar.thesuperman (talk • contribs) 04:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite reliable sources to establish notability. Peter Ormond 💬 08:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot find any independent reliable sources detailing this school in English or using the Bengali name for the school given in the article. If a Bengali speaker can find any reliable sources meeting the WP:GNG guidelines, I'm happy to change my vote. pinktoebeans (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (copied from elsewhere): If the guidance at WP:IKI applies to Bangladeshi schools as well, then Nursery-X schools (as this one is) are generally considered notable. Ref the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RFC, however, schools need significant independent coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate how they meet WP:NORG / WP:GNG - it cannot be presumed. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Copied from my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhaka Cantonment Board Adarsha Bidyaniketon) An essay largely written in 2013 cannot override the wide community consensus of the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC; in the absence of sources we can't presume this is notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 20 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) 09:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B A F Shaheen College Kurmitola[edit]

B A F Shaheen College Kurmitola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable institution. Article replete with primary and unreliable sources. Peter Ormond 💬 22:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ormond: I'm sure that no sources of these article is unreliable. And how do you know that these schools are non-notable? These schools are one of the the most famous schools in Bangladesh. You are not a residence of Bangladesh. So you don't know it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajwar.thesuperman (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite reliable sources to establish notability. Peter Ormond 💬 08:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot find multiple independent reliable sources detailing this school in English or using the Bengali name for the school given in the article. If a Bengali speaker can find any reliable sources meeting the WP:GNG guidelines, I'm happy to change my vote. pinktoebeans (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (copied from elsewhere): If the guidance at WP:IKI applies to Bangladeshi schools as well, then Nursery-X schools (as this one is) are generally considered notable. Ref the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RFC, however, schools need significant independent coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate how they meet WP:NORG / WP:GNG - it cannot be presumed. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Copied from my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhaka Cantonment Board Adarsha Bidyaniketon) An essay largely written in 2013 cannot override the wide community consensus of the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC; in the absence of sources we can't presume this is notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Delete per nom and PMC.4meter4 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't delete I've added two reliabe sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajwar.thesuperman (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 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) 09:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Habibullah Model School & College[edit]

Nawab Habibullah Model School & College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable institution. Article replete with primary and unreliable sources. Peter Ormond 💬 22:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot find any independent reliable sources detailing this school in English or using the Bengali name for the school given in the article. If a Bengali speaker can find any reliable sources meeting the WP:GNG guidelines, I'm happy to change my vote. pinktoebeans (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (copied from elsewhere): If the guidance at WP:IKI applies to Bangladeshi schools as well, then Nursery-X schools (as this one is) are generally considered notable. Ref the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RFC, however, schools need significant independent coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate how they meet WP:NORG / WP:GNG - it cannot be presumed. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Copied from my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhaka Cantonment Board Adarsha Bidyaniketon) An essay largely written in 2013 cannot override the wide community consensus of the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC; in the absence of sources we can't presume this is notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 20 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) 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islami Bank International School & College[edit]

Islami Bank International School & College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable institution. Article replete with primary and unreliable sources. Peter Ormond 💬 22:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ormond: I'm sure that no sources of these article is unreliable. And how do you know that these schools are non-notable? These schools are one of the the most famous schools in Bangladesh. You are not a residence of Bangladesh. So you don't know it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajwar.thesuperman (talk • contribs) 04:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite reliable sources to establish notability. Peter Ormond 💬 08:42, 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) 09:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur Cantonment Public School and College[edit]

Mirpur Cantonment Public School and College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable institution. Article replete with primary and unreliable sources. Peter Ormond 💬 22:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ormond: I'm sure that no sources of these article is unreliable. And how do you know that these schools are non-notable? These schools are one of the the most famous schools in Bangladesh. You are not a residence of Bangladesh. So you don't know it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajwar.thesuperman (talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cite reliable sources to establish notability. Peter Ormond 💬 08:42, 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 no consensus. Geschichte (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veigar Margeirsson[edit]

Veigar Margeirsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unref blp in CAT:NN for 12 years. Indications of notability, but I couldn't find evidence he meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 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) 22:06, 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Marin[edit]

Peter Marin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've found and added refs to confirm the artist's membership of at least two notable ensembles per WP:MUSICBIO#6. I'm endeavouring to determine whether the content can be further supported by other refs.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I've added even more content and refs. I believe notability via WP:MUSICBIO#6 has been met.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:01, 8 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) 22:05, 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 snow keep. Geschichte (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Football in Paris[edit]

Football in Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the only article of its type in France. We have Football in France, but this article is the only one by city. I personally don't see how this article is notable; it's basically just a list of football clubs in Paris and their achievements. Is that really notable? I think it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Plus, the article is so poorly written and doesn't have a single source. Article could be improved massively, but it's really just not that important that I think we could simply delete it. We could also merge some of the text about Paris derbies in the Football in France article/individual club articles (like Red Star F.C.). Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:55, 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) 07:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Nate; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 10:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean towards keep As pointed out above we have other articles on football in cities. I knew about Football in London which needs some work. Football in Paris needs a lot of work. However I can see the subject passing GNG. I am sure there are lots of historic elements that can be added to the article. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article can be improved, not deleting. Footwiks (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination statement is false, claiming that there are no other articles about football in cities. Article should be improved. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think Paul Vaurie was saying that there were no similar articles about French cities rather than cities in general. That being said, Football in Berlin gives us a good idea of what Football in Paris could end up looking like with a lot of work. Because editing could make the article comply with our standards, I don't believe that there is a notability issue here so the article should be kept. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes GNG. Lorenzo the great (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:54, 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. ✗plicit 00:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saietta Group[edit]

Saietta Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough significant coverage to pass WP:CORP. Half the refs here are not independent coverage, and some are just passing mentions and routine business coverage. Uhooep (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Did you do a WP:BEFORE search? Searching "Saietta" in news on Google yields a ton of results and relevant independent sources. The company is notable, it's just the wrong references were added to the article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vast majority of those Google News results pertain to the company's recent July Initial public offering (IPO). No IPO = no article, in many cases here. Uhooep (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An online google search reveals a lot of online publications for example this one in Morning Star and The Oxford Magazine. Apopolips (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it doesn't matter if the coverage is largely due to its IPO, it is still significant coverage in many independent sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:54, 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 snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu Sports & Social Club[edit]

Malibu Sports & Social Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches are not coming back with any independent WP:RS about this amateur sports club and there are no independent sources cited at all. I would also strongly oppose a merge with Pepperdine University given the extreme lack of coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:31, 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) 21:33, 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 speedy delete as A7. Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Borrilez[edit]

Lucas Borrilez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any sources to support notability under WP:NATHLETE, WP:BASIC, or WP:GNG. This article could be redirected to Malibu Sports & Social Club, however I'll be surprised if that article is kept either. Schazjmd (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 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) 21:25, 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 Snow keep The consensus is pretty much clear. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Bayelsa State gubernatorial election[edit]

2023 Bayelsa State gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event is two years in the future. WP:TOOSOON applies. Whiteguru (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Article clearly doesn't fail WP:TOOSOON. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 14:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep – I have a little bit of a conflict of interest here considering I wrote the first version of this page but no, this and the other 2023 gubernatorial election pages I wrote don't fail WP:TOOSOON at all. There's a page on the 2024 Delaware gubernatorial election that relies on a single source and the election takes place a year later so anything nearing consistency on this site would allow this page. Even if it was too soon, the page isn't hurting anyone, it's not that serious. Thanks, Watercheetah99 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  – Coverage exists. Princess of Ara 07:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the arguments of "Well, there is a 2024 United States presidential election article" are basically just Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, I think there is a bare-bones amount of sourcing here that makes me think this can be cleaned up and meet WP:GNG standards. Bkissin (talk) 14:09, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Liguori[edit]

Chris Liguori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MMABIO criteria as he only has 2 fights in a top tier promotions. Also fails WP:GNG as coverage is merely routine sporting report. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 20:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 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. Geschichte (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dasith Gamage(Musical artist)[edit]

Dasith Gamage(Musical artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot find any reliable independent sources to support notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Sources in article do not support notability.
This article was repeatedly created at Dasith Gamage until the article title was locked. It was then created as a draft under this new title and then moved by the creator to mainspace without going through AFC review. Schazjmd (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - long-term abuse; clear WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG fail. Can't find any WP:RS in searches. See also SPI case Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For the reasons given above. Admins should consider investigating the IP addresses housing the accounts that keep trying to recreate this kid's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO - lacks reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Probably could've been speedied. -KH-1 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it had been speedied several times previously, I figured an AfD would be a more solid solution (and then future attempts could use G4). Schazjmd (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This has been created under at least three 'different' accounts now and under at least three different names to bypass salting. AfD and G4 is absolutely the way to go, especially since SPI is backlogged to hell currently. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello everyone, @Pharaoh of the Wizards@Schazjmd@Spideroneand @KH-1
    I am the contributor of Dasith Gamage's article.  His article has been nominated for deletion.  You have mentioned the reasons above.  I read everything.  I agree with your comments.  Many of you have mentioned here about WP: MUSICBIO I read and understood it well.  Somehow I spent a few days looking for Dasith's information to get any information that matches WP: MUSICBIO.  Sources about him and his music are also included in the article written about him in Google news.  Luckily I found out about a relationship that won a music competition in ‘verse 9’ of WP: MUSICBIO.  But unfortunately it showed some problem in inserting it into the article.  That reference was related to the blacklist.  Please help me to keep dasith's article .Thanks!
    Note- I will not be allowed to send that reference link here.  Says something like this.(“ Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist.”)
    published by - Thrive Global Cluxq (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MUSICBIO #9 states Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. Not just a music competition, but a major music competition. If the only source you are able to find is on a blacklisted site, I'd wager that the music competition is not a major one. Schazjmd (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, As per NOM and clearly fails WP:MUSICBIODeathlibrarian (talk) 06:17, 16 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. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Mansel[edit]

Mary Ann Mansel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. The cited sources are either unreliable (Landedfamilies.blogspot.com), WP:PRIMARY (public records, archives, legal proceedings) or WP:REFBOMBING. Most of the assertions are effectively unsourced. It seems like the whole article is the original research of its authors. JBchrch talk 19:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 19:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 19:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann was the long-time lover of General Robert Manners and General Sir Charles Asgill. Both these army officers were notable in their own right and, as is obvious, have their own pages. They were both part of the royal court of King George III. Some would say this, in itself, is un-noteworthy, but as a story of it's time it is fascinating that she bore them both children, turn and turn about in the last three births, of seven in all. Charles Asgill died in her house, and The Gentleman's Magazine went along with their secrecy by failing to mention his place of death. Her last child is buried in her grave, which must have made her "spin in her grave" because this was the first clue which led to her being revealed for who she was. Does all this not make her a "story of the era", and that she and the two generals, managed to keep this secret - one of them having to adopt another name to do so? She is only revealed, in stark daylight, in court cases, which she must have hated, given her wish for secrecy. Her secrets and lies have now been uncovered, in the form of a DNA match between the descendants of children from both generals. A test performed by Professor Turi King's DNA company of choice. I request the page be kept. Anne (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does all this not make her a "story of the era"? It would, if any independent researcher had researched and written about her. I'm not making a recommendation here yet, because I'm still searching sources, but so far, this appears to be a family history without encyclopedic significance. (Btw, Arbil44, it will be helpful to the closer if you put your "keep" recommendation in bold; it's a standard practice in AFD discussions.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly you will find nothing Schazjmd - this is the point - two generals and their mistress lived secretive lives, and it is only because of the work done, over the past 50 years, by their descendants that the truth has come out. With a final flourish in the form of DNA proving the truth of what has been found. How sad that many of those who worked so hard are now dead, and will never know that they were right all along. Frankly, I do not feel inclined to fight this corner (for what might turn out to be weeks) - I have fought long and hard to get to the point of being able to share the findings (of several people) and do not feel inclined to fight any longer. Perhaps you would do me a favour and recommend deletion? Btw, I have chosen to be known as 'Anne' here, and would appreciate that courtesy if you don't mind. Anne (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There cannot be many women who were lovers of two generals and bore them both children. In my view Arbil44 has done an excellent job of using wikipedia to write about a matter which was probably heavily suppressed at the time: hence the limited coverage. This is a classic case of if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Dormskirk (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't only Anne's work; you were a major contributor to the article as well, with 60% of the text according to "Who Wrote That". Schazjmd (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In response to the comments above, I suggest that this story be published on a personal website or as a standalone publication, but not on Wikipedia. JBchrch talk 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forget the expression, but something along the lines of "statistics and damned lies" - sorry for the misquote. Dormskirk knows that my IT skills are less than useless, and their efforts on the Mary Ann page were almost exclusively mopping up my mistakes. A kindness I have always appreciated enormously. We can't all be computer whizz kids, unfortunately. The content was all mine. Anne (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting: the programme, "Who wrote That" is clearly very deeply flawed. I confirm I did not write a word of the content: I have neither the aptitude or the scholarly knowledge of the subject matter: my only interest here was to help another editor who sought help. Dormskirk (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify further (and to account for Dormskirk's very large percentage of involvement) I wrote the article in a Sandbox, and at a given moment in time, Dormskirk created the article on the main page (if that is the right expression)? Kindness is in very short supply on Wikipedia, and Dormskirk's help has been of enormous value to me. Terse. Curtness. Rudeness. These are my overall experiences here.Anne (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbil44: Let me tell you, editing Wikipedia through its god-awful user interface is much harder that creating a website through services like Wix or Squarespace. I'm sure you will find that it's a lot of fun, too. It will also give you much more control on the story that you investigated, and effectively insulate it from the complaints of self-appointed bureaucrats like myself. JBchrch talk 23:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the suggestion, however Mary Ann has been a side-issue to my main focus/es on WP. I have been 'here' since 2007 and (partly because of my very poor IT skills) it has mainly been a total nightmare experience. I have written the book (and yesterday updated with the DNA results) but no publisher is interested in Asgill, because nobody has ever heard of him in the UK. Catch 22, or what? I have been advised, by a friendly professor, not to give up and get an agent. If I achieve my aim before I am dead, I shall try to resurrect the Mary Ann page, with my published findings as the source. But then I will be slapped with a COI, so that will become the next Catch 22. Anne (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The creator(s) of the article put a lot of work into it which is commendable. I've read the entire article twice now, but am failing to understand what this person is notable for. Is it because she had two notable lovers? If so, notability is not inherited per WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability requires verifiable evidence. DNA "evidence" is not the same as evidence of historical notability. The article reads like a family memorial or geneaology page, which is fine, but not appropriate for this encyclopedia. The subject, who sounds like she was an interesting and complex person, does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for our general notability guideline - fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. What we need to meet the guidelines are verifiable, in-depth significant coverage in secondary reliable sources that are independent from the subject. Perhaps an alternative to deletion would be to merge or redirect some info about her to the Robert Manners or the Sir Charles Asgill articles. I normally don't suggest referring women to associated men's articles, but in this case it seems from her article that this is what she is "best known" for. Netherzone (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, I am unlikely to request deletion myself, now am I? Behind the scenes was a great deal of work, but I cannot live my life like this. If it is unsuitable for WP then let it go. I do not have the inclination to merge, re-write or anything else. If anyone else wishes to do so, then that would be great, but for me this is now an issue I just want to "go away".Anne (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"that are independent from the subject". I take that as a very clear message that, should my book be published, my findings will be totally unacceptable to wikipedia. Just as I thought. Oh, what irony. It was a wikipedia editor who urged me to take the plunge and write the book! Irony here is in plentiful supply! Who else, but a descendant, would be bothered researching, and writing about, 3 people whose main purpose in life was to hide their tracks. That is why such people become forgotten in history. Anne (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've misunderstood, Arbil44. Independent of the subject means independent of the subject of the article, and you're not the subject of this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the relevant policy is WP:SELFCITE. JBchrch talk 12:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well! Well meaning though I know you are both trying to be, JBchrch and Cordless Larry, there is a perennial problem in that nobody, but nobody else, has ever written about Mary Ann, so any new article on her (should I be published) would depend solely on that book, and then there would be this: "However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." For the moment this is accademic anyway, but it looks to me as though Mary Ann is lost to history for ever now. At least she would be very happy!Anne (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's where edit requests (for adding material to existing articles) or a review by WP:AFC (for a new article) comes in, Arbil44. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is very depressing stuff. I have been accused of writing 60% of an article that that I did not write a word of. Meanwhile, Anne (who has published many scholarly articles), is being encouraged, instead, to use a website like Wix or Squarespace: the last thing we should be doing is discouraging the participation of high quality writers. Anne has already explained why you won't find in depth coverage but nobody is listening. Dormskirk (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree with the suggestion that Anne publishes the material on Wix or Squarespace if the aim is then to use that as a source for Wikipedia. A Wix or Squarespace site would be a self-published source and not considered reliable. A much better approach would be to get the research published in a historical society's journal that has some reputation for error checking and quality control. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the historical society's journals to death now Cordless Larry, and I don't intend to go down the self-publishing route either. It is the book, or nothing!Anne (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a properly published book would be just as good. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content on Landedfamilies.blogspot (Kingsley citation)
  • Comment It is high time that, once and for all, Landedfamilies.blogspot.com stopped having such a bad press. I have had frequent contact with the owner, Nick Kingsley, who is a former archivist at the National Archives at Kew, UK. Who better to source archive material? I may be wrong, but I assume this is the website referred to above? [14] Anne (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbil44: According to WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Does Nick Kingsley fit this criterion? In any case, please note that both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC call for multiple reliable sources in order to establish notability. JBchrch talk 01:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is OT JBchrch, but I hate to see someone as dedicated as Nick is, to his work, and as a man who does, or did, work as an archivist at Britain's National Archives, have his reputation demeaned here. I do not think it fair that he is found guilty without trial. There's a website I found, which I cannot access, but the following is interesting, at the very least: On this site, which was short-listed for the SAHGB Colvin Prize in 2019, I present the results of my research into the landowning families of the British Isles and the country houses which they owned. He is the author of at least three books: [15] He works hard and knows what he is talking about, and I feel pained on his account. Anne (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He has also written a series of articles e.g. Perspectives and Priorities: The National Archives Vision for Sector Leadership and Archives for 21st Century in your region. Dormskirk (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbil44: I think a great mistake you are making in this discussion is to think that our rules express moral or personal judgements on certain persons, such as you or your materials, and that's not the case. Personally, I read (and use) what Wikipedia considers unreliable sources everyday and I enquire about what Wikipedia would consider non-notable subjects or persons probably every waking hour. I also find your work very interesting, which is why I suggested other outlets to publish it. But none of this changes the purpose, remit and scope of this particular project, as set forth by the consensus-based rules we are considering. These rules do not demean the reputation and honor of you or anyone: they just determine how this particular project functions. JBchrch talk 14:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may be but Kingsley is an established subject-matter expert as demonstrated by books, articles and being short-listed for the Colvin Prize which "is awarded annually to the author or authors of an outstanding work of reference that relates to the field of architectural history". He clearly is a subject-matter expert...or do you still deny that? Dormskirk (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My appreciation is that Kingsley is a subject-matter expert (as defined by SPS) in the field of archiving, and not British history. However, I want to leave the door open for differing opinions. JBchrch talk 14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to contradict you, but the Colvin Prize is for "architectural history" not for "archiving". Dormskirk (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but SPS calls for previous RS publications in the relevant field, which in the case of Kingsley, would be archiving. I did not find scholarly publications by him related to architecture (or British history). I'm not aware that there is a consensus that prizes are sufficient to establish someone as a subject-matter expert, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. JBchrch talk 14:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should nip this rather pointless discussion in the bud by pointing out even if Kingsley is deemed reliable all that he references is Mary Ann Mansel's year of birth and death and that she was the mistress of two people and had some children. He does nothing to establish notability. FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so as long as it is demonstrated that Kingsley is reliable (and it would be a travesty to say he is not) and given that he does reference "Mansel's year of birth and death and that she was the mistress of two people and had some children", and providing there is at least one other reliable source, then my reading of WP:GNG is the "topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Dormskirk (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a whole book on architectural history by Kingsley: The Country Houses of Gloucestershire: 1660-1830 Vol 2. Dormskirk (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It goes on to state Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. A brief mention of her in an article about something else entirely would appear trivial to me. FDW777 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Kingsley's blog is mentioned at the top of this page as being an unreliable source, it is therefore relevant to discuss it. Firstly, so far as deleting the Mary Ann page goes, what are we waiting for? I'm under no illusion that there is any hope of saving it. Nor have I detected any disparagement of my own work, whether it be on wp or elsewhere. So, the main matter is determined, so far as I am concerned. Moving on to Kingsley I read "disparagement" of him and his work, intended or otherwise. I gave a link to three books he has had published and I would have thought that alone made his blog a viable and worthwhile source. Has anyone looked at my link? He is a sole author of 3, and possibly a co-author of more. Dormskirk has also made a very good case for him. I am coming from the point of view of "knowing him" - if online contact counts - and I know him to be a man who not only seeks the truth and nothing but the truth, but is also passionate about his work - researching stately homes and their occupants. His aim is to do them all before he dies! He knows this may be a bridge too far. He is a historian, an archivist and a blogger. It seems the latter is his crime. I consider the "demeaning" of this man is apparent here, whether others can see it or not. His blog should come off the unsavoury list and he should be a worthwhile and valued source. Whatever he has said, or not said, about Mary Ann is furthest from my mind. He's done far more research on Asgill House than I have myself. I feel very strongly on this matter, whether this the right place to express it or not. Anne (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As regards Kingsley's book on the Country Houses of Gloucestershire, it says "the chapters discuss and explain the social background..." It demonstrates beyond doubt that he is a subject matter expert on architectural history and, importantly, the social history of the people living in the buildings. Dormskirk (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If people wish to continue flogging the dead horse of the reliability of Kingsley so be it. I gave a link to three books he has had published and I would have thought that alone made his blog a viable and worthwhile source. No, you absolutely did not. You provided this link to Amazon, which is a search of books for "Nicholas Kingsley". Had you actually clicked on the Nicholas Kingsley author page you would find the three books this Nicholas Kingsley has written are GLBasic Programmers Reference Guide: Third Edition (self-explanatory), Two Wars (a short story a about "With the human race near total extinction after an alien invasion, a group of weary survivors stop to rest" and The Euniverse Is Here ("the fictional tale of the relationship between the EU and the UK"). That you somehow claim three books, two of them fiction and one about computer programming (which quite clearly is not "in the relevant field" as required by WP:SPS), written by someone with the same name as your blog author in some way makes that blog reliable suggests incredibly bad fact checking and attention to detail on your part. FDW777 (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or on the off chance you are referring to the author of The Country Houses of Gloucestershire: 1830-2000 read WP:SPS, an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications (emphasis in original). That book would, possibly, make him an established subject-matter expert on Gloucestershire country houses, not Mary Ann Mansel. FDW777 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FDW777 Your vile and sarcastic post shows you up, not anyone else. May I formally beg, on bended knees, to apologise for my lack of IT skills when trying to refer you to:
  • The Country Houses of Gloucestershire: 1500-1660 Vol 1
4.5 out of 5 stars 2
  • The Country Houses of Gloucestershire: 1660-1830 Vol 2
4.0 out of 5 stars 2
  • The Country Houses of Gloucestershire: 1500-1660
in order to prove that Kingsley is an expert on the houses of nobility AND THEIR OCCUPANTS. Asgill House is one of the houses he has covered AND ITS OCCUPANTS (i.e. Charles Asgill AND HIS MISTRESS) [16] Try clicking on the link AND DO YOUR RESEARCH. Every single poster, here, has been civil and courteous to me, except you. Even more regrettably, YOU are the norm on Wikipedia. Anne (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Amazon star ratings is really scraping the barrel, it has to be said. Attempting to confer subject matter status on every person that's had a one-night-stand in one of the houses he's written about is a novel approach, but doomed to failure. You also appear to be forgetting that it's already been established that Kingsley's coverage of Mary Ann Mansel is trivial in the extreme, so you're arguing about nothing. Kinglsey does not establih notablity per WP:GNG. FDW777 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This needs urgent administrator intervention right now: these attacks on Anne, in my view, are completely unacceptable. Dormskirk (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FOR THE LAST TIME, I HAVE NEVER USED KINGSLEY AS A REASON TO KEEP THE ARTICLE ON MARY ANN. I KNOW KINGSLEY AND HE COMES UNDER ATTACK IN THE OP - I WISH TO DEFEND A MAN I KNOW TO BE RELIABLE. You libel the man. How do you know he spent one night there? On the other hand, he managed to see the whole house, which was denied me and I've been there THREE TIMES. My comments about Kingsley have never had anything to do with Mary Ann. You have attributed that to me with no reason. I HAVE NOT suggested that the page should be kept because of Kingsley's link on her page. Before your vile post, I had already written: "With regard to Nick Kingsley's blog. This is the only aspect of all of this that I would like to pursue and ask editors to advise me how to go about it. The evidence already presented, along with evidence presented by Dormskirk, leaves me wondering how on earth this worthy source can be classified as "unreliable". I emphasise, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Mary Ann page, which is entirely incidental regarding my opinions. Anne (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Anne (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. I respect what is being done, unearthing history and retelling interesting stories. The problem is it exceeds the capabilities of Wikipedia which are limiting. Wikipedia is a secondary-source based encyclopedia where we report what has already been written in reliable secondary sources. I would expect to see some biographical discussions in journals and books, beyond basic facts like dates, home ownership, births and will. The impression is Anne is the first person to research and write on this topic in any depth, to recognize her story. If Anne does get a book published, yes it might be COI to use it as a source, but someone else could. -- GreenC 02:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject appears to be noteworthy, but per WP:NOTESSAY, e.g. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge, as well as WP:BASIC, e.g. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, and as discussed above and per my own research, the multiple independent and reliable secondary sources needed to support an article per the guidelines and policies do not appear to exist at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing to meet WP:GNG. There's a huge amount of original research in this article, and I've been unable to find sources that provide in-depth discussion of the subject to meet the notability criteria. If Arbil44 publishes her research somewhere reliable, then it could be used as a source and would help contribute to establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I have misunderstood (again), Cordless Larry, but you say "and I've been able to find sources that provide in-depth discussion of the subject to meet the notability criteria." Did you mean "unable"? Anne (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry - now corrected. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: JBchrch While I don't doubt it is not my place to wrap this up, I would certainly like to put it all behind me at the first possible opportunity. This is holding me up with something I cannot do until this is over. It is naturally distressing to see years of work go down the drain. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dormskirk for the strong support offered to me. It means a lot.

  • Since the majority have voted to delete the article, would any of those editors be prepared to edit the article to make it compliant? Even if it is only a Stub remaining? Rather than lose it all?
  • Discussion took place regarding the possibility of reinstating the article, if I ever have my book published? However, I doubt that would change anything, actually, because I know very little more than is in the article. Schazjmd asked me about her secrets and lies. I can only suggest what they might have been, since I have had to interpret her actions in my own way. Besides, I did not consider it appropriate to tar her as a liar on the page. I know that, as a mother, she was loving and caring of her children, but she seems to have taken a very strange approach to the truth (the truth now totally confirmed by DNA evidence).
  • Furthermore, nothing in my book will change the fact that Mary Ann is not considered to be noteworthy, so discussions about the future were really a waste of time.
  • With regard to Nick Kingsley's blog. This is the only aspect of all of this that I would like to pursue and ask editors to advise me how to go about it. The evidence already presented, along with evidence presented by Dormskirk, leaves me wondering how on earth this worthy source can be classified as "unreliable". I emphasise, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Mary Ann page, which is entirely incidental regarding my opinions. Anne (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, when an article is nominated for deletion, there is a formal process involved that entails discussion between editors. These "AfD"s (articles for deletion) proceedings usually take 7 days, but can be relisted and can go on longer. So this AfD will probably stay open until about Sept. 19, since it was nominated on Sept. 12. Any editor in good standing can post what is called an !vote (not a vote) along with their rationale for the article to be kept, deleted, merged, draftified or redirected. They are usually closed by an administrator who analyzes the discussion. !votes based on policy and guidelines hold more weight in establishing consensus (in other words it is not a numerical vote). If it is disturbing to you to read peoples comments, or you are feeling upset that your article may be deleted, you don't have to keep checking this page and commenting. You can "unwatch" it (take it off your watch list by unclicking the star in the menu bar). Let the AfD process unfold naturally. I hope that helps demystify things a little. There are some links in a box at the upper right corner "New to AfD? Read the primers!" about the AfD process if you would like to learn more information. Netherzone (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Netherzone for clarifying the situation. Unfortunately, it is not possible to explain why I need this to be over, but I need to know the outcome before I do something I need to do ...! Anne (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have collapsed the extended content on Landedfamilies.blogspot (Kingsley citation), as the discussion was getting off topic and unnecessarily heated. Please no yelling (writing in all caps) or personal attacks. The AfD is for Mansel, not Kingley. The content is still visible by clicking on the "show" link. I am not an admin, and anyone can undo this if they want. IMO, it is not helping the discussion to continue the Kingley discussion because all the citation says about Mansel is: He [Argill] himself had a mistress of long standing, with whom he co-habited from about 1821: Mary Ann Goodchild alias Mansel (1780-1854), who was also mistress to Gen. Sir Robert Manners (by whom she had six further children), which is not enough to establish her notability but is enough to establish that Mansel had two affairs. It is really not a big deal, I suggest dropping the stick. Netherzone (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Mea culpa but I was attacked, and my integrity dragged through the mud. I am courteous only to those courteous to me! Even you, unfailingly courteous, seem to have missed the point that I have never used Kingsley to advance my cause. Hence capitalising!Anne (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:FORUM - "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own . . . Primary (original) research". Almost exclusively WP:OR derived from WP:PRIMARY sources (or secondary sources that make no mention of the subject). The only secondary source I see that actually names the subject is a blog that only gives the person passing mention and does not support the vast majority of the narrative provided. Seems to fail WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, so stubbifying not a viable alternative. Agricolae (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (was for keep, but though this is a sort of unusual case, I think I agree with the others, there's isn't really enough RS here to substantiate this person for their own article. I hope as much as possible of this can be moved to the other two connected pages. Also, I'd like to thank Anne for your work contributing material to Wikipedia, please don't be discouraged, we need people like you!Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of the material that is referenced to primary documenttation is simply not an option. The entire article is built based on primary sources, with secondary sources only used to provide further information on peripheral aspects only gotten to via primary sources (e.g. using a primary source to say that she lived at a place, and then a secondary source that does not name the subject to give more details about that place). Without the bridge made via the primary source, the secondary-documented information loses its relevance. We would be left with an article about four sentences long, and only so much if we consider the blog to be a WP:RS, which has been hotly disputed in this discussion. Even doing so, we would still lack the substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that underlies notablility. Agricolae (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is potentially a decent article based on primary sources, which may well be worth having published somewhere, probably in a family history magazine. Unfortunately the subject is complete NN. Possibly Userify for a sufficient period to enable the author to keep a copy to take the article elsewhere. This is the kind of WP:OR that is legitimate to do and publish, but not in WP. I am sorry to the author that this response will be discouraging, but WP cannot allow bios of NN people. A brief mention in the bios of the two officer lovers, including a mention that she was previously (or subsequently) a mistress of the other might be legitimate. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On your final point, I would say that that is almost certainly legitimate. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The following is already on Charles Asgill's article: The final two years of Asgill's life were spent at the home of his mistress, Mary Ann Goodchild, otherwise Mansel who was also mistress to General Robert Manners—at 15 Park Place South, near The Man in the Moon, Chelsea.[1] Two codicils to his will were written and signed there shortly before his death.[2] Which is more than enough on that page.
Much less is on the Robert Manners (grandson of the Duke of Rutland) page: General Manners continued as Colonel of the 30th Foot until his death in 1823.[3] He was unmarried, but left children by Mary Ann Mansel (1780–1854). So, if anything goes anywhere, it should be to his page. I have already kept a copy of the Mary Ann article, but hope it will still be in the bowels of wp, and that a link to it there will be possible? Her two generals died weeks apart, one in June and the other in July 1823. She went to pieces, and the Manners family became wards of the Mansel children. In case anyone is interested, while I am descended from Charles Asgill, the DNA match has proved that I am also descended from General Manners.
Elsewhere I have already mentioned that she was simultaneously a lover to both! Her final 3 children were Manners', Asgill's, Manners! Charles, her Asgill son, is buried in her grave. Anne (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Insured: Mary Ann Mansell 15 Park Place South near The Man in the Moon Chelsea". Records of Sun Fire Office, Box: MS 11936/488/980453. Kew: National Archives.
  2. ^ "Will of Sir Charles Asgill of York Street Saint James's Square in the City of Westminster, Middlesex". Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Box: PROB 11/1674/133. Kew: National Archives.
  3. ^ "No. 17933". The London Gazette. 21 June 1823. p. 1013.
Hello Anne, thank you for letting us know the best place to merge/redirect some facts in the event that the article is deleted. May I also suggest, if you have not done so already, to save a copy offline onto your own computer. Wikipedia has a policy/guideline to be aware of called WP:NOTWEBHOST, so while I'm not 100% sure about this, I don't think that there could be a link within any article to a draft or copy from a deleted article. That is because WP is not a webhost where material can be "parked" indefinitely. But it may be OK from your user page to create a link to a user subpage. It is easy to create a user subpage - basically it's just a user sandbox specific to a project. In this case, MAMansel. It won't live in "article space", but in "user space". An admin, or someone who is more knowledgeable than I can weigh in on whether this is a good suggestion or not. BTW, you know more about the IT end of WP than you realize! Plus, there are lots of places to ask for help, and many helpful pages (essays, guidelines, policies, etc.) to learn from. Netherzone (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Netherzone. There are some posters here who know that I have not broken through the glass ceiling of technology, and don't understand why not, after being here since 2007! I am going to put the Mary Ann article in my sandbox. If that is unacceptable, then I know it will be deleted! I use it from time to time for my own reference purposes, so that will be useful. I have already got it on my hard drive too, but 'live' in a sandbox will help a lot. Anne (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan. I have faith in your IT skills. It took me a long time to lean what I know, and I feel like I'm still scratching the surface, but one day at a time! Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAnne you can definitely put it in your sandbox, that's for you to keep and no one will touch it there. I often put things in there I am working on, even if I decide not to put them up. The other thing, if it does get deleted, your option to keep the material up is to shift as much of it that you can into the pages for her two lovers, as long as it is not Original research material. Anything you've got a legitimate RS for, and is connected to the other two fellows, shift it into their pages.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Deathlibrarian I definitely don't want another word on the Asgill page, or that will be up for deletion too!!! Manners' page is more suitable. If you are a librarian in real life (!) there is something you might be able to help me with, if you would? Please email me if you are willing to help me with a final item of research I cannot resolve! Anne (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asgill is very clearly notable, so there's no risk of that article being deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that reassurance Cordless Larry. When I said "another word" I really meant that I am worried about anything further being added, and then much more important aspects of the article will be cut. A discussion we've had elsewhere. Besides, I really do not want to belabour the Mary Ann connection, because then that means bringing in Charles Childs (and he's seriously not notable)! She is already mentioned. That is enough. Please could you sign your post of yesterday? Anne (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now completed my signature of that post - I presume I miscalculated the number of tildes as it had the date but not my name. Apologies for that. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae has just said that the whole article is such a pile of rubbish that not even this is worth moving to the Manners article: In George III, A Personal History, by Christopher Hibbert on page 299 it is recorded:[1]

Such was the tribute of popular attachment manifested in March 1789 towards a sovereign who, only seven years earlier, in March 1782, after losing a vast empire beyond the Atlantic, seemed to stand on a fearful precipice. [To celebrate the king's return to health] There were balls at the Pantheon and at the Duke of York's. A fête was held by White's, where Colonel Manners, who had taken over as equerry on the expiration of Colonel Greville's tour of duty, sang 'God Save the King' so lustily that he was asked not to be so loud. 'They pretended I was out of tune,' Manners said. 'But it was in such a good cause I did not mind.'

The diarist, Fanny Burney, recorded recollections regarding Robert Manners.[2]

Manners' family seat was Bloxholm Hall in Lincolnshire.[3] Anne (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Agricolae hasn't said that, Arbil44. That quote is from a secondary source and is about Manners, so the article about Manners would be a good place for it. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image of a house that one of Mansel's lovers family lived in, as it is unnecessary to this discussion, and does not contribute to whether or not the subject of this AfD is notable. Please folks, lets try to stay on topic! Experienced editors, let me know if I should have collapsed it rather than deleted the image file and I will self-revert. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arbil44, this is not an accurate summary of my statement, not at all. I said that the Mary Ann Mansel article, except for about four sentences, is either directly derived from primary sources or from secondary sources not mentioning Mary and linked to her only via primary-sourced material, and hence expunging the original research will not leave a viable article. Further, I implied, based on the stated conclusion that the absence of significant coverage of Mary Ann Mansel in secondary sources places her well short of satisfying the relevant criteria, that retention of any such stub created by such expungement would be against Wikipedia's policy requiring that article subjects be notable. I said nothing whatsoever about what material might be appropriate for the Mannners article, though now that you mention it, recall that a diary is a primary source so its use on any page is subject to the guidance of WP:PRIMARY. Agricolae (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My name here has been Anne for some time now; changed because I loathe my username, Cordless Larry. Furthermore, I don't understand how the suggested section could be moved to Manners, because it is more than the stipulated four sentences which would be left per: "Without the bridge made via the primary source, the secondary-documented information loses its relevance. We would be left with an article about four sentences long [such sarcasm], and only so much if we consider the blog to be a WP:RS, which has been hotly disputed in this discussion". The last sentence was a direct and deliberate "hit" at me, since it is clear to everyone that I stand by my friends when I know them to be honest, decent and principled historians. I am not happy that certain people are unable to be civil or considerate, when most have shown that they can want the article deleted, without denigrating either me or my work. It can be done. Anne (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF. There was a dispute over whether the blog should be considered a WP:RS, and it grew heated. Anyone who cares can see it themselves above, right here on this page. There is nothing incivil or inconsiderate, there is no disparagement, it is not a 'hit', to take into account that such a disagreement exists when discussing what would remain after the removal of primary sources. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used your username so that you would get a notification, Anne. If you don't like your username, you can request it be changed - see Wikipedia:Changing username. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)a[reply]
Cordless Larry, a couple of years ago I was told I couldn't, and shown how to nevertheless be known as Anne. Netherzone has managed to notify me this way Anne. And why does Fanny Burney have a page dedicated to her if her work is not acceptable and she cannot be used as a source? She was simply recording the world around her. Why can Katherine Mayo be used but not Fanny Burney? I just don't understand. Anne (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were misinformed about the username change, Anne. You can request one if you want. As for Fanny Burney, I haven't read anything about her but being notable and being considered a reliable source are different things. We have articles about notable conspiracy theorists, for example, but we don't treat them as reliable sources. However, no one has said she can't be used as a source - the debate appears to be whether she's a primary or secondary source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at your link and see if I can manage the IT involved, which is probably unlikely. So, are you saying that the link to Fanny Burney can be included in the material I suggested be moved from Mary Ann to Robert Manners, which I copied to this page, since earlier on you said it was suitable? But then Agricolae said Burney couldn't be used. Does no wp page use Burney as a source? What a terrible loss if not. It is no wonder I am confused. Anne (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae hasn't said that Burney can't be used. Agricolae has said that Burney's diary isn't a secondary source and therefore doesn't contribute to establishing Mansel's notability. Primary sources can be used (judiciously) but they don't contribute to establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although Burney doesn't appear to mention Mansel, so why she's being used as a source in this article, I don't know. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary Ann's lover was Robert Manners. Burney speaks about Robert Manners and so was used on her page, especially because of the bachelor/married man quote. Entirely appropriate. Nobody here has noticed that I never once tried to use this to make Mary Ann notable, yet I am accused right left and centre of doing so. Nobody here has noticed that I have not once tried to keep the page (apart from my first post, but was I expected to vote 'delete' then)? I begged for this to be over quickly, since clearly nobody can understand that all this, including the side issues, is very stressful for me. I've been accused of trying to say MA was notable because of her mention on the Kingsley blog. Not once, ever, did I suggest this. I have not only had to face all the criticism of my work and how totally unsuitable it is, but nobody has listened to a word I have said. The poster who libelled Kingsley never ever bothered to notice that not once did I suggest the page was worth keeping because of him. I had to resort to capitals to make the point, since that accusation went on for ever. Btw, I have been in touch with Kingsley and sent him a link to what has been said about him. I have been admonished, constantly, without anyone bothering to see if I said what they accused me of saying. All I want is for the page to go, quickly, but you will not see me vote 'Delete' - why should I? Surely that is not expected of me, is it? Only I know how much work and expense went into it all. Anne (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one is accusing you of anything, Anne. People are analysing the sources to determine whether they contribute to establishing notability, which happens in every deletion discussion where the nomination concerns notability (which is most of them). Deletion discussions typically last a week. If you don't want to participate in them, you don't have to. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you opt out if you were being discussed? Take a look at my post here: Anne (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC) and the one above it, where the vile and sarcastic thread had been collapsed (yet you say I was not accused of anything? That is beyond belief). It shows that still I was misunderstood (by someone who has been one of the most pleasant of posters here).Anne (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the comment about Fanny Burney - that is really laughable and clearly the poster has never heard of her. She recorded Georgian England, word for word, in a way no other did and we would have lost so much of value without her. She stood by the side of Manners often enough to recount his words, some of which were fascinating. She heard him complain bitterly about the new "window tax" which was going to penalise bachelors more than married men - he knowing that he was living the life of a married man, without being married - but he couldn't explain that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer! People who know nothing about the subject should not comment. Anne (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of this matters. If someone is reporting their own observations, they are a primary source. No matter how insightful the observer is, how detailed their record, or how closely connected they were to the people about whom they are reporting, they are still recording their own observations, and that makes them a primary source. Such factors affect their quality as a primary source, but have no bearing on whether their work is primary vs secondary. Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no significant coverage by reliable sources to support notability. The article is original research that may be appropriate for publication elsewhere, but not as a Wikipedia article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hibbert, Christopher (1999). George III, A Personal History London: Penguin. p. 299 ISBN 978-0140257373
  2. ^ Burney, Fanny (1796). "1788 to 1796: 1788-1796 - Fanny Burney - Google Books". Retrieved 2019-10-27.
  3. ^ Creasey, James (1825). "Sketches, illustrative of the topography and history of new and old Sleaford - James Creasey - Google Books". Retrieved 2019-10-27.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Puffin Festival[edit]

Cosmic Puffin Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability Bangalamania (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bangalamania (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 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 snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umesh Kaushik[edit]

Umesh Kaushik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly sourced BLP. Subtle WP:ADMASQ entirely supported by sources controlled by Kaushik himself with no evidence of notability as a singer (per WP:NMUSICIAN), businessperson, filmmaker (per WP:CREATIVE), cricketer (per WP:NCRIC) or anything else really. Fails all relevant criteria and a WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. The tag says "some of the article's listed sources may not be reliable" but, in my view, none of them are.

This has already been sent to draft once and contested by the creator. Moving this back to draft would be move warring. The article should be deleted. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.timesofup.in/2021/09/12/umesh-kaushik-i-believe-in-the-hard-work-game-everyone-wants-to-be-at-the-top-but-i-want-to-top-with-my-family/ No Kaushik owns Times of UP so any content published there is not independent No No ✘ No
https://www.timesofup.in/2021/09/12/umesh-kaushik-to-turn-music-producer-film-editor-and-also-an-author/ No Kaushik owns Times of UP so any content published there is not independent No No ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/umesh-kaushik/ No No Readers' blog profile page No ✘ No
https://www.kinopoisk.ru/name/6267451/ No No No Profile page ✘ No
https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/aligarh-city-umesh-is-establishing-dimensions-in-editing-and-singing-21653576.html ? No Very promotional in language ~ Hardly enough depth ✘ No
https://www.timesofup.in/ No He owns this site No No ✘ No
https://newnationnews.org/kaushik/2-stories-the-book-by-umesh-kaushik-0644268 No No No Just links to other sites where his products are advertised ✘ No
https://www.deezer.com/en/track/1337669052 No No Anyone can have content on Deezer No ✘ No
https://music.apple.com/in/album/soniye-vi-laut-aaja-ve-tu-single/1562466568 No No Apple Music No ✘ No
https://open.spotify.com/album/584rs54yASREuRuGSkeKzz No No Spotify No ✘ No
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt8908002/credits/ Yes Yes No Database source ✘ No
https://www.pressreleasepower.com/news/business/umesh-kaushik-talks-about-his-career-as No Press release No No ✘ No
https://stringfixer.com/nl/Luka_Chuppi No No Wiki page No ✘ No
https://at.wikinew.wiki/wiki/Luka_Chuppi No No Wiki page No ✘ No
https://www.celebheightwiki.com/umesh-kaushik No No Data scraper No ✘ No
https://www.celebsagewiki.com/umesh-kaushik No No Wiki No ✘ No
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58874386-2-stories No No User generated No ✘ No
https://www.issuewire.com/famous-film-editor-singer-and-writer-umesh-kaushik-launched-times-of-up-1707962146520260 No Press release No No ✘ No
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F0-387-33927-2_10 No No No Not mentioned ✘ 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) 18:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a helpful page of Umesh kaushik information. As soon as possible news source link connected.

If the news sources are not currently available then this violates WP:CRYSTAL and, at best, is WP:TOOSOON Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spiderone were kind enough to present such an elaborate assessment. It is clear that it doesn't qualify for any notability guidelines. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think this is the most impressive case for deletion that I've yet seen. Well done, Spiderone. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nominated article has had a number of messy cross-namespace moves, so I have put a move protect on it for a month. I originally couldn't even find the article in question when I saw this nomination. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Blatantly promotional article with self-published primary sources, junk sources and the best sources are mere passing mentions. Ravensfire (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patrolling CSD categories and expiring drafts, I see dozens of articles like this every day. I'm surprised it got as far as an AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG based on source evaluation above. And is also clearly promotional. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear-cut WP:BIO/GNG fail. Spiderone is your err spidey sense tingling at the section of your Talk the editor used? Deletation is new, but repeated asking for "tag" removal. Star Mississippi 22:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi that editor definitely isn't new, sadly. I do sometimes wish that they'd take a day off so that the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopaedia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such logic. How dare we. Thanks Spiderone Star Mississippi 22:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Socks? In an India film/music related article? Inconceivable! Ravensfire (talk) 01:27, 16 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. There is no support for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Bamford[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Carole Bamford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has extremely questionable notability and terrible, intermittent and largely primary or press release sourcing. If anything, the notability case for the organic farm discussed in the article seems stronger than that of the owner. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terrible pr-job of an article, but she is the founder of a brand that is well-known in the UK, & the sourcing can very easily be improved with stuff like this and (not very friendly) this. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, the founder of well known Daylesford Organics should be considered 'notable'.Rodolph (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technical question: For companies, there is no inherited hotability. But can people inherit notability from organisations, or does that rule work both ways? I'm not asking about general notability here, but about the specifics of conveying notability from firm to founder. Daylesford Organics has notably not had its own Wikipedia article created, sourced and deemed notable yet, so perhaps that should take priority. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi all, I've had another go at trying to improve it and will continue to do so until it's right and acceptable. Hopefully this has addressed some issues but please feel keep the suggestions coming and I'll get better at this with each recommendation Duderood (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Duderood[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources presented in the first AFD. Consensus at that discussion was clear that the subject is notable and quality in-depth independent sources exist, but the article itself needed improvement through editing. I can't see any reason to disagree with that assessment. WP:AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - plenty of news exists if you Google her name. I have added a few new citations. Peter303x (talk) 02:00, 21 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aeronautical College of Bangladesh[edit]

Aeronautical College of Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has always relied on a single source, the subject. Searches of the usual types, including in Bengali, found only directory-type listings, self-published blog posts, advertorials, and other promo copy written by the college. The advice the author received a decade ago still applies. Without independent reliable sources, this does not meet WP:NSCHOOL, so is not suitable for Wikipedia. We don't have an article on the privately held parent company, Mollah Group of Industries, but I could entertain merging to sister concern Bismillah Airlines if there's an appetite for that. Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ORG . 1 gnews hit. Unless there is significant coverage in Bengali this should be deleted. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Fails WP:ORG. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:29, 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vrats dasht[edit]

Vrats dasht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The subject claims to be "a term used by Armenian chroniclers" yet all the sources for that are Georgian, and none of them seem to be noteworthy. The only Armenian source in the article is the Melkonyan one, which never uses the phrase. There also seems to be a music source for the etymology of Erebuni, which isn't mentioned at all in the source. A Google Books search brings up only two sources, both Georgian. It seems that this supposedly Armenian phrase is only used by a small amount of Georgian sources, and not nearly enough to be notable enough for an article. Even a normal Google search brings up a deviantart account as the fourth top result. Steverci (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: First of all, the sources aren't "Georgian" as you have noted them to be, these "Georgian" sources are build up on medieval Armenian ones. Also, you are being biased. Since you say "none of them seem to be trustworthy." So first of all:

1) one of the sources contains studies of [Javakhisvhili] Who was a Georgian historian and a linguist whose voluminous works heavily influenced the modern scholarship of the history and culture of Georgia. He was also one of the founding fathers of the Tbilisi State University (1918) and its rector from 1919 to 1926.

2)You making it seem that it's not "trustworthy" makes me feel very confused. people make such decisions for calling things "not noteworthy" only after READING the sources and judging them after. as I know you are not a Georgian speaker so how could you even judge it? There is no place of unwanted nationalism in the fields of modern history and the fact that you call every Georgian source "not noteworthy" is heavily biased and corrupted. SonofJacob (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to respond to Kevo327 regarding WP:V. It is represtenting Verifiability of the sources. Though, one of my source which claims that "Armenian scholars called the land vrats dasht" is from Ivane Javakhishvili Studies. who was a Georgian historian and a linguist whose voluminous works heavily influenced the modern scholarship of the history and culture of Georgia. He was also one of the founding fathers of the Tbilisi State University (1918) and its rector from 1919 to 1926. Who was a verified linguist/historian and very good of that time. SonofJacob (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and a quick addition to that, WP:GNG is most likely regarding "unreliable" sources which I just proved you wrong about. SonofJacob (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Claiming that the term is false and undue just because it is covered mostly by Georgian sources is egregious and prejudicial. The article may need some serious rewrite and a more sharp focus on context, but Vrats Dasht is a real historical place name occurring in the medieval Armenian sources, first in the chronicle Ukhtanes of Sebastia, to the best of my knowledge. A quick search through academic sources using different transliterations of the name yields several results other than Georgian sources. It is mentioned as "Vrac' Dasht (Iberian Plain)" in Z. Arzoumanian's 1985 English-language edition of Ukthtanes's Chronicle (page 62). Also, "Vrac'dašt" (Plain of Iberia)" is mentioned in Robert H. Hewsen's oft-cited The geography of Ananias of Širak (Ašxarhacʻoycʻ) (1992, pages 203, n. 228, 206, n. 243); "vrac'-dašt (the land of the Georgians)" in Biro, Margit, "Shushanik's Georgian Vita", Acta Orientalia, XXXVIII, 1-2 (1984), page 196; "vrac'-dašt, plaine de Iberia" in Garsoïan, Nina G. (1998), L'Église arménienne et le grand schisme d'Orient. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 574. ISBN 9789042906747, page 340. --KoberTalk 17:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the Hewsen and Garsoïan sources and they do not "refer to lands of modern Northern Armenia", nor do they make any mention of all the Armenians living in those lands actually being assimilated Georgian's, as SonofJacob claims. It seems that this was never an official name and is just Iberia translated from Armenian. It is no more deserving of it's own article than say Deutschland. At the most, it could be mentioned in an etymology section. But it never became a common name. A few historians using the term hundreds of years ago is not noteworthy enough to have its own article. --Steverci (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sterverci No. The "vrac dasht" is synonymous for the region of "Gugark" in Greater Armenia. The very region which, unfortunately, is being "Armenian-washed" even by the borders. According to Most Wikipedia articles Gugark's southernmost border is not really that deep but in reality, [village of Gugark] in middle of Lori region of Armenia proves that Gugark must've been around the area of what is now Gugark the village in Armenia. SonofJacob (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Potentially keep -- I know little of the subject, but it seems to me that the Nom is dismissing this on the basis of IDONOTLIKEIT. There is no reason, in principle, why a Georgian historian should not write about Armenia, and do so accurately. This may involve him expressing a Georgian bias, rather than an Armenian one. If there is such a bias, the solution is to keep the article but edit it to show where Armenian scholars believe the Georgian one was wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I mean it's clear that the article fails WP:GNG, this is the main issue. Hence, should be deleted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I know which aspect of WP:GNG does this article fail, and where? I want a detailed answer. SonofJacob (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep For the reasons stated above and for this google book test.--Van Gogia (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per all above. There's enough evidence here to support GNG (i.e. multiple independent refs with significant coverage), and it's clear that the writers of the sources in question are respectable scholars attached to respected institutions. Arguments for discrediting them seem to be based on their nationality which is clearly a biased and specious argument.4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 20 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 delete per G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 19:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Castañón[edit]

Eduardo Castañón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two significantly cited articles. It is not true that every single medical scientist working on problems related to COVID is notable enough to have an article here. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, he is not working on COVID-19, nor virology. He is oncologist and he's famous for speaking about cancer and it's aplications in public and researching about cancer treatments... As simple as a Google search is enough to learn that ;)--Gencepor (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I based that on the statement in the article "The New England Journal of Medicine published in May 2020 his rebuttal on the efficacy of a treatment to deal with COVID-19[4][5]." you wrote that yourself. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 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 17:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The honors college at the university of houston[edit]

The honors college at the university of houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional and not notable in its own right. It is not a college in the usual sense of the word. It is not a separate institution. It does not have its own building, but uses space in various parts of other buildings on campus. It does not teach its own courses, except for the one mentioned. It's important only to those associated with the university, or those thinking of attending it--and a focus on prospective students or clients is pretty much the definition of promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - the institution is not notable in its own right, being more of a status given to students withing the UNiversity of Houston rather than a residential college. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:17, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poste Montagnais, Quebec[edit]

Poste Montagnais, Quebec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the article says it is a community it is really an electrical substation and possibly a live in worksite. As such there is no notability. I checked for somewhere to redirect but could find nothing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Poste Montagnais Airport since it's still a place. Reywas92Talk 19:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recognized by the Quebec government's commission on geographic names as a "poste de transport". It was probably a lively community while the power station was under construction, even though it doesn't seem very lively today. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A temporary worksite during construction is not automatically notable; a "transport station" is not necessarily a notable community or place and substantive sources are expected since the commission uses other terms for actual communities. Reywas92Talk 13:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - used to come up in the Quebec media everytime there was a major power failure in Quebec. Hard to imagine that a location with both an airport and rail service isn't notable. Nfitz (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added six references to the article, and expanded it somewhat. Nfitz (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:25, 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) 09:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Khansahib Bukhari[edit]

Syed Ali Khansahib Bukhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After removing some unrelated sources that don't mention the subject ([17] [18]), as well as some spam and a Google Maps entry (not going to link here), there are only two sources left: a commercial website for the shrine of this Sufi saint (fails WP:INDEPENDENT) and Walter Roper Lawrence's book The Valley of Kashmir, which I've searched but doesn't seem to mention the apparently obscure saint. I've searched both Google Scholar and normal Google for a reliable source to rewrite the article, but I've found none (some hits concern 'Ala' al-Din al-Bukhari, who is a different person), which makes me think that the subject does not meet our notability criteria. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hii, so it has lack of reliable sources?? Ttttt321 (talk). 15:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Part of the problem is that that the article has been done so badly, without specific citations to reliable sources (or any sources) that I cannot even tell if the article is a spoof. For example, if you are going to cite a book, you could at least provide page numbers. If you are going to cite a news site, you could at least provide the article title and the date of the article.
    The only useful citations I could find in the article were the "shrine's" business site and google maps which at least confirmed that there was some sort of "shrine" to Syed Ali Alaa-Ud-Din in the village of Chewdara, which is in Budgam district, J&K. The Google maps link also told me that there was a "shrine" to Syed Said-ud-Dun on the same plot of land. So I looked at District Budgam, Places of Interest, which says:
"TOMB OF SYED TAJ-UD-DIN AND SYED ALLA-UD-DIN"
"ACCORDING to a legend, when Syed Taj-ud-Din arrived in Khag, the Mala Kol silently followed him from Sukh Nag to Skinderpora. Syed Taj-ud-Din first arrived in Sukh Nag where he stayed for long, and later, crossing various villages, reached Skinderpora, where he spend the rest of his life. Following his death, the mantle of spiritual guidance of people fell on his son, Syed Alla-ud-Din, who was equally a pious soul. The tombs of both the father and son, are situated in Skinderpora and attract a large number of devotees."
Skinderpora is not shown on Google maps, but a census document for the district reveals that "Iskineder Pora" is probably an alternative spelling, and that does show on Google maps[19] - but is a village 8.6 miles (13.8 km) from Chewdara. In summary, there is not enough information to know whether the article is a spoof or not, let alone the far more ambitious task of establishing notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV at best. At worst, could potentially be a WP:HOAX given that many of the sources in the article don't actually mention the subject and no independent sources can be located.4meter4 (talk) 22:21, 20 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 17:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of top international rankings by country[edit]

List of top international rankings by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much of the same concerns as the first AfD (which closed as no consensus a decade ago). This is blatant WP:NOTTRIVIA disguised as a WP:NOTSTATS violation too. The only thing even "interesting" here (besides, I assume, the WP:ITSINTERESTING votes to come) is that someone even bothered to do this, but it's clear that this could never be made into a good, encyclopedic list (which records should be included?), a fact which certainly is not helped by the WP:LISTN and the WP:V (having no reliable source which reports on this makes it even more likely that this is incomplete and incorrect) issues. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As someone with a fair number of (largely cleanup) edits on this article, I'm fairly conflicted on this. A couple problems I've observed with the article:
  • List criteria. The introduction is pretty specific about this (entries must be linked to an article or map that has the corresponding ranking of countries). However, these criteria (even though they've been in the article for many years) have not been well-observed by editors adding new entries. Also, even with these criteria being observed, it seems the list could still become unmanageably large. For example, there are a lot of international sporting competitions whose articles have a medal table by country. That narrow subfield alone could easily account for hundreds of entries.
  • Maintaining accuracy. A lot of these statistics are subject to change from year to year, with the result that a lot of the rankings listed here are out of date. When someone goes to update List of countries by infant and under-five mortality rates with new data, it's never going to occur to them to seek out List of top international rankings by country to update the corresponding entry there.
But a lot of that comes down to "it attracts bad edits" or "it's hard to maintain", which are not really reasons for deletion per se. I do think it plausibly satisfies WP:LISTPURP, in that reading the superlatives held by a given country can provide a useful lens for understanding the country's character. Colin M (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't that purpose better be acccomplished by having this information on the page of the relevant country/country-specific-topic-subpage (where I assume that, in most cases, it is)? Like this, it is not much different from outright being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If the purpose truly is helping the readers (WP:RF), then, as suggested, "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." - and this is far more easily done on specific pages about the countries (where the statistic becomes more than just some interesting trivia) then as a separate list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't think it would be appropriate to take the table at List of top international rankings by country § Denmark and plonk it down in a new section in Denmark. Possibly these facts could be integrated into the prose of that article in relevant sections, but there's something to be said for a simple list presentation of "these are the areas in which Denmark is #1". As for the data being put into context, I think the links mandated by the list criteria provide that. (But I'm sort of just playing devil's advocate here. I've thought of nominating this article for deletion myself a couple times, but I don't think the policy argument is totally obvious.) Colin M (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the list, the most important ones appear to already be mentioned: for example, the high proportion of arable land is not mentioned directly as a statistic, but "Although once extensively forested, today Denmark largely consists of arable land." and "Once a predominantly agricultural country on account of its arable landscape, since 1945 Denmark has greatly expanded its industrial base and service sector."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm pretty sure that this would fail WP:LISTN or at least fall into the grey area of this guideline that I am not comfortable with. I think there are also issues with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and a large amount of WP:SYNTH is necessary to generate this list. The criteria for inclusion itself is WP:OR as editors have just decided what makes something notable for this list rather than referencing a sourced standard for notability. There are also massive WP:V issues with this - especially trying to keeping such a diffuse list up to date. Lastly - Argentina is the largest exporter of footballers? Really? Just from a quick Google most sources say Brazil but that's besides the point. The list is just a housing point for WP:TRIVIA. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an insane list without limits, and with no restrictions WP:INDISCRIMINATE on how many lists per country, would quite clearly blow the data limit on page sizes. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is a massive collection of trivia with very little context. Ajf773 (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Santosh L (talk) 16:43, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack "Russer" Russell[edit]

Jack "Russer" Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to have been created as a joke/hoax in 2005. I can find no mention of this person's existence outside wikipedia. El Pharao (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few Google searches pull up no results for him. If he was who he is stated to be, there would surely be at least one result. I checked the contributions of the original author, and they had only made two contributions. One was the creation of this article, and the other was vandalism to the PlayStation 2 page. [20] If no sources can be found on him, no citations can be added, and the page cannot be verified. The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 13:50, 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) 17:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Framo V 500[edit]

Framo V 500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is fake and solely based upon original research. Christian Suhr: DDR-Lastwagen: 1945-1990, p. 57, and Peter Kirchberg: Plaste, Blech und Planwirtschaft: die Geschichte des Automobilbaus in der DDR, p. 97 both describe a "Framo V 500" (sadly not in sufficient detail for a Wikipedia article), but it has nothing to do with what this article suggests. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy under G3 if possible. I trust Johannes' assessment of his sources; the article cites nothing. --Sable232 (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under G5. Creator is a sock. dudhhrContribs 16:12, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tortorich[edit]

Michael Tortorich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that the subject is notable. PepperBeast (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He won several awards, but I don't think they are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 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. ✗plicit 13:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Beno[edit]

Howie Beno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Readable sources in the article and noted in the talk page can't establish notability. I wasn't able to consult the Jives Magazine article, but based on the lines it sources, Beno could have only been mentioned in passing in that text. Best I could find online was this interview: [21]. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I think he at least comes very close to meeting NMUSIC based on his work with a variety of popular artists and his time in Ministry, but like nom I just couldn't find enough sources to establish notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous nominated via WP:PROD (albeit poorly done), ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't find any reliable sources which make him notable for Wikipedia. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 22:02, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karley Scott Collins[edit]

Karley Scott Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject, a retired child actor, fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC – e.g. only one or two passing mentions in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, or Entertainment Weekly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information 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.
Logs: 2011-01 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Husband on Holiday (film)[edit]

A Husband on Holiday (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NFILM. ––FormalDude talk 02:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously created as A Husband on Holiday and deleted via WP:PROD, so not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that books citation has been added to the page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masry684 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are there any critical reviews of the film that discuss it in depth? If the refs just mention that this film exists, then it probably isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM even with added sources. No in depth coverage to be found. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 21 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Game (film)[edit]

Wicked Game (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NFILM. ––FormalDude talk 02:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously created as Game of the Wicked (1989 Egyptian film) and deleted via WP:PROD, so not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that books citation has been added. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masry684 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are there any critical reviews of the film that discuss it in depth? Mccapra (talk) 05:35, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Miller[edit]

Phillip Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MMANOT criteria for only having 2 fights in top tier promotions. While retiring undefeated is a rare sight, subject doesn't have an extraordinary coverage by sources, failing WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 03:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 5 September 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 13:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Strictly speaking, he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. It seems he left the UFC in a money dispute in 2002, before the UFC became such a big money operation. My search found a good number of ghits, but less than I'd hoped in the significant independent coverage category. I found him mentioned in routine sports reporting, various MMA forums/chatrooms, and even an interview where he said he quit because while he was badly beating a fighter in some small promotion, he realized that one day that it would be him on the receiving end--especially because he could never see himself quitting after a loss. I'd like to ignore all rules and vote to keep the article, but I can't get past him not meeting WP:GNG or some SNG. I'll admit I'm open to a good argument as to why this article should be kept. Right now all I've got is WP:ILIKEIT. Papaursa (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Papaursa.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 21 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) 14:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lachlan Kavney[edit]

Lachlan Kavney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. WP:BEFORE revealed zero significant coverage, being mostly database entries or trivial coverage CiphriusKane (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. His personal website is down. He may have stopped racing. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure if he passes WP:NMOTORSPORT (he might scrape by having ridden in Moto3) but definitely fails WP:GNG. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. His own instagram account describes himself as a "washed-up never-was international motorcycle racer" (not linked for his privacy, search it yourself if you must). Fails GNG. A7V2 (talk) 09:04, 21 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) 02:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hisae Watanabe[edit]

Hisae Watanabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MMANOT for having no fights in top tier promotions. Starring in a small Japanese movie isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 04:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The movie is enough to pass WP:GNG, and there are a lot of good references, and even more can be found in the corresponding Japanese and Thai articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain Even if the movie passes WP:GNG, why does her appearing in it suffice to make her notable? She certainly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Also, would you mind showing which sources you believe show significant independent coverage? Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being in a movie isn't enough to show WP notability, especially when you're well down the list of cast members. She fails to meet WP:NACTOR and lacks the top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. She also fails to meet WP:GNG since the coverage of her can overwhelmingly be considered routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She meets neither WP:MMABIO nor WP:NACTOR. Htanaungg (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 21 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Career Academy[edit]

Baltimore Career Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. All references are to the school or larger school system's website. WP:BEFORE search fails to turn up significant coverage of the school itself. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am leaning towards keep because Newspapers.com yields a lot of results. However, it can be difficult to find a regional source because the name is so generic. Per WP:AUD, public schools need only one regional or national reference. The references added make it clear that local coverage indeed exists. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 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. ✗plicit 12:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BELTUR[edit]

BELTUR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Holding company does not meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, thanks to sources found by Styyx. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Styyx, thanks for taking the time to dig up more references. There are two sections of WP:NCORP which I use to see whether a reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The first is WP:ORGIND and especially the definition of "Independent Content" which says a reference must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The second is WP:CORPDEPTH which requires in-depth information on the topic organization. The NTV reference appears to rely on a statement made by the company, the additional information in the article is generic COVID19 reopening information and does not meet CORPDEPTH. This first Sabah reference comments on an investigation into one of the company practices, it does not provide in-depth information on the company though. But the second Sabah reference doesn't provide the source for the information revealed in the article (maybe the translation is poor) but otherwise I would say it meets the criteria in my opinion. In a similar vein, this Cumhuriyet reference appears to meet the criteria as it does not rely on information provided by the company and contains enough in-depth information. The T24 reference relies on a statement from the company, fails ORGIND. The Aksam piece is social media gossip, not really worth considering. Since there are two references which in my opinion meet the criteria, I'll change my !vote and thank you again for doing the leg work on this. HighKing++ 20:21, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent DeLeon[edit]

Vincent DeLeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable audio engineer and songwriter Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information 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.
Logs: 2019-08 move to → Draft:Vincent DeLeon
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bev Vincent[edit]

Bev Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably not a notable author. He’s notable enough to be referenced by a handful of scholarly papers (i.e. “see B. Vincent” etc.) but going by the golden rule of “must be covered by reliable 3rd party sources” I got nothing. Dronebogus (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 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 redirect to Tribe (band). (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janet LaValley[edit]

Janet LaValley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible WP:ATD would be merge/redirect to Tribe (band), though I'm not convinced they are notable either. She doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independent of the band though. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; now hopefully we can get a decision. Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo de León[edit]

Pablo de León (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Successful, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. I couldn't establish notability from the other language WP articles or Google search. Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject may be notable but no significant coverage is cited. Multi7001 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Percy the Park Keeper[edit]

Percy the Park Keeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It existed and had some notable voice actors, but I couldn't find the level of coverage or significance required to make it notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe the book series should be combined with the TV series since the latter is based on the former. There is plenty of material for the books. Best to use CBBC or the Hit Entertainment official website for the TV series. Deltasim (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 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. czar 04:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Villota[edit]

Jolly Villota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG. Subject failed to medal in a singular Paralympic appearance. JTtheOG (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 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 redirect to Porkkalam. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bandi Saroj Kumar[edit]

Bandi Saroj Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Indian filmmaker. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. John B123 (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 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. ✗plicit 12:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Kay[edit]

Rina Kay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability for musicians. Creator seems to be the subject itself. Already rejected in draft too [22] NagalimNE (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NagalimNE (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. DMySon (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I submitted this for WP:A7 deletion as I felt that there was no assertion of notability but this was declined by an IP without comment. In any case, there are no reliable sources in the article and a source search came back empty handed so this is a clear and obvious delete. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It contains reliable sources and the page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.205.88.123 (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote some reliable sources but someone deleted them. I couldn't change anything in the article because then I would get banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallMeRina (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 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 12:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agua Formosa Trail[edit]

Agua Formosa Trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Probably could have been prodded. Reywas92Talk 19:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: I didn't prod it because of the slim possibility of there being Portugeuse sources I have no way to find. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes there is a page about the trail, but it looks like one of the ten or so trails part of Terras de Xisto [pt] a association for the promotion of tourism on a group os small villages in the centre of Portugal. The association could (should...) have an article, as does the village Água Formosa [pt], and the trails be listed there, but not each trail. There are many many of those, it it is probably a job for Wikiloc or such, not for WP to list those. Is WikiTravel on? If kept move to Água Formosa trail ("Á", not "A", "trail", not "Trail") - Nabla (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC) (I just might go there in some near future vacation, I want to go there for a while...)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Paras[edit]

Crystal Paras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note: AnsrieJames9 has been forum shopping. They asked me to close this discussion as keep on my talk page and contacted Superastig to close the discussion as well. The user has been warned. ✗plicit 14:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the sources in the article are trivial mentions or quotes, neither of which qualifies as significant coverage. My searches find only more of the same: there's none of the sort of in-depth coverage of Paras herself needed to pass the GNG. She also doesn't seem to pass WP:NACTOR since most of the roles cited are comparatively minor. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 20 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 12:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luís Pimenta (footballer, born 1996)[edit]

Luís Pimenta (footballer, born 1996) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines, though did play 2 cup games for Boavista. Over 100 AFDs have shown that this low number of pro games is not enough. Now plays on the district tier, i.e. the fifth tier of Portuguese football. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 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) 18:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both the above. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep passes NFOOTY, and has long lower league career.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mentioned trivially in this Zero Zero news article but almost zero coverage elsewhere as far as I can see Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:50, 16 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 12:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trad (pejorative)[edit]

Trad (pejorative) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to be made-up nonsense. The only (sort of) reliable source is talking about twitter threads MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayta -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
Delete. The use of "Trad" as a pejorative within the context of Hinduism doesn't appear to be covered in-depth by multiple reliable sources. It may well be that the term would qualify on Wiktionary, but I don't think that it meets the standards of inclusion on Wikipedia itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page should be deleted, as it is made up nonsense. Venkat TL (talk) 12:03, 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 delete by an Admin under WP:G7. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aangename kennismaking[edit]

Aangename kennismaking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no reliable coverage. A prod was removed from the article by the article creator in 2007. SL93 (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a blog that shows the beginning of a clipping from a TV magazine but that just isn't enough. Focus on sports was incorrect so I fixed that. If others find better sources, I would be happy to reconsider. gidonb (talk) 15:55, 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verde Pulgar[edit]

Verde Pulgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotional article from SPA editor. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clearly just promoting that one person's neologism to get search hits. W Nowicki (talk) 16:47, 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 keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Europeanism[edit]

Pro-Europeanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unclear what "Pro-Europeanism" means, and most of the article is an unsourced and indiscriminate list of political parties. I don't think there's an actual topic here; the synthesis between "supports specific EU measures" and "supports the concept of multi-nationalism" is too great. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The article can be cleaned up/improved- 100% agreed. But, just because the intro is slightly vague, it does not justify the deletion in my opinion. From what I have come to understand, this article hosts various political parties within greater Europe that are "Pro-EU" to a degree (as stated in their respective ideologies/manifestos). I believe the definition can be clarified to better reflect that. Best, Archives908 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and address concerns through editing. I was expecting to find a largely unreferenced article when reading the nomination; but with 52 citations I don't think a claim of lacks sourcing can be made. A more fair assessment is that this article is only partially sourced. It's a little difficult to give an opinion on this topic because the two foundational sources for the concept are both offline references. If the nominator had actually stated that the offline sources cited didn't actually support the conceptual framework, or that the text was somehow an original synthesis of those works than I would be inclined to vote the other way. However, it's not clear the nominator has actually read those sources. As is, I'm inclined to WP:AGF that the original contributor has faithfully interpreted the offline sources and that there is RS supporting this conceptual framework in order for it to pass GNG. That said, I wouldn't doubt that OR/SYNTH has creeped in elsewhere, and that a thorough combing through the sources that are cited and trimming down of the article is needed. What we really need is to tag this with Template:Expert needed, because this is a puzzle that requires more than just the typical AFD once over.4meter4 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, 4meter4 sums it up best IMHO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs better sourcing or weak delete. This is a really hard one, the term is clearly very widely used, but it strikes me as something that is not presented as an ideology in itself. I would be much more comfortable if somebody could link an article which defines Pro-Europeanism, rather than attributing it as a position to an individual or party. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's very clear what pro-Europeanism is but if people don't get it they can read something like this. And, as for the attitude of the various parties, here's a book on the subject. See also Pan-European nationalism, Pan-European identity and other related articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It's very clear what x is" is not a valid argument that it meets WP:GNG. The opinion article that you link is not valid to provide notability, the book is probably much better. I could not find the passage where "pro-Europeanism" is defined, as it is paywalled and none of the hits in the book for "pro-Europeanism" defined it close enough to the term for me to see it. But if you have found a definition in there, put it up and I will happily change my vote to keep. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination says nothing about WP:GNG whereas it does claim that "It's unclear what "Pro-Europeanism" means". I have therefore refuted the nomination by providing some counter-examples. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That the word "pro-European" and its derivative "pro-Europeanism" are used is not doubted by anyone. That "Pro-Europeanism" constitutes an ideology which meets GNG has still not been demonstrated. If you find a scholarly article or two which does this, you should link them, because that it is more or less game over for the AfD.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately this article does what so many do when struggling to find good sources treating a subject as a whole: become a list. The article has many reliable sources but they mainly seem to be pointing to particular parties being "Pro-Europe" which is a quite self-explanatory phrase but does not, as far as I can see, point to a larger movement or idea. The usage seems to be limited to speaking about varying national attitudes towards Europe and the EU. At best, the New Statesman articles [23] [24] can be seen as primary sources (and are opinion pieces) talking around the idea and trying to define it rather than speaking about an already defined concept. Writing this I have talked myself into a delete !vote. At my most generous I would say draftify until it is better than just a list. Political parties change stance all the time so I think it is unmaintainable in its current form. A last point would be to contrast this article with Euroscepticism which has no problem defining the term, its ideology, history etc. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:35, 16 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. Sources have been provided, and not rebutted; promotional material seems to have been dumped. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naya Dane (singer)[edit]

Naya Dane (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSICBIO and was rejected twice in AFC earlier [25] TheChronium 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There's a few Nigerian music sources like TooXclusive,[26] City People Magazine,[27] and Hip Hop World Magazine.[28] I don't know any of these but they're apparently notable publications. This seems like enough to meet gng. The page needs some work but I've already cleaned it up a lot. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — Per apt rationale by TheChronium I’m an expert in Nigeria-related sources and I can say expressly say that none of the sources used in the article establish notability. A before search turns up nothing cogent. Celestina007 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BuySomeApples. Seems to have enough independent RS to pass criteria 1 WP:NMUSICBIO. Celestina007's and the nominator's arguments are not convincing. We have three independent publications with reasonably in-depth coverage, and said sources are quality enough to have their own wikipedia pages and are independently notable media. I'm not seeing anything about the publications themselves to indicate they are unreliable, so in the absence of a cogent argument for deletion it's a keep.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotional article by blocked COI account. Best to not waste proper volunteers' time with spam like this. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BuySomeApples and 4meter4. Celestina007 hasn't stated why articles in three notable publications don't establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 11:20, 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh[edit]

Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a position within a sub-division of the local government of the Pakistani province of Sindh. While this seems like a distinctly niche topic, I would not object to its notability if there was coverage about the position itself (that is, not about its holders). The article is unreferenced and I have not found any significant coverage of the position. Yes, there is a government website proving that this position exists, but existence does not equal notability according to WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because there are many positions such as those of Ministers which are junior to SMBR. SMBR even according to Wikipedia's page on Sindh Government regards SMBR as one of Sindh's top positions. Categories can be easily added and I recommend that they are done at the soonest.

  • Comment No significant coverage cited. Improvement needed by adding more independent, reliable sources. Multi7001 (talk) 18:38, 3 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 02:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement needed to add more independent sources. There are official websites on this position, suggesting its importance, however more verification is needed. Suggestion to give deadlines, or otherwise to remove page if independent sources not added. Burberry999 (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is understandable, however the two arguments above are extremely different. While one is arguing that the page is not relevant, the other is arguing regarding the credibility of the specific page and not the topic itself. Therefore I suggest to clear the page from deletion, and give it a certain time period in which the suggestions can be implemented. If they have not been done so in that given time-frame we may go ahead and delete the page.IBRAHIMNAWAZOVO (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

very much in shock to see that one could say that the topic of SMBR is not relevant. perhaps the user should re-direct their focus on pages regarding other topics or shall perhaps education themselves in topics of such matter. The issue of adding more sources is not an issue and can be resolved. Even if not resolved, it does not warrant one to delete the entire page, and that is devoid of all logic.Arhsquad01 (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this administrative role at the provincial level does not seem inherently notable. And the sources do not suggest it is either. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:01, 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 merge to Cthulhu Mythos. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Mythos cults[edit]

Cthulhu Mythos cults (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NLIST, BEFORE is not helping, only content I see is in-universe. It seems like a fancrufty and ORish (for what is footnoted, sources mix works by various authors, mosty post HPL, and even RPG-books info, and I think some fan-page invention as well (?) spin-off of the table at Elements_of_the_Cthulhu_Mythos#Cults (a terrible article that needs merging back to the main CM article, see merge proposal there). I suggest this for now is converted to a redirect to the linked section, which hopefully will be merged back to the main CM article to prevent this WP:CONTENTFORKing of non-notable Lovecraftian fancruft. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait there is more! It seems to get a proper idea it would be neccessary to do a WP:BEFORE search on all the individual cults listed. Take the Google Scholar search for "Esoteric Order of Dagon" and especially this 14-page paper: Cults of Lovecraft: the impact of HP Lovecraft's fiction on contemporary occult practices. Daranios (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our article claims right now that The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana is an RPG supplement. I'll need to research it more, but the last time I checked this source it was just a plot-summary type of an work. Your findings on how HPL's works inspired real world cults/occult practices are fascinating, and such a section might be of use in making this topic notable (right now the articles are pure plot summary). I am not sure if this would be best covered in a stand-alone article about cults; I still think it is reasonable to merge the plot summary back to parent articles, while adding a new section about 'occult influences'. We do discuss how HPL's work influenced other writers, it does seem that we should also discuss how his work influences some folks who took it too seriously too. But I think the readers would be better served by a section in Cthulhu Mythos rather than one in the much less visible Cthulhu Mythos cults article, particularly given that this section would be hidden near the bottom anyway, after fancrufty plot summaries. Might as well have it hidden in a more visible article. Ps. Regarding EOoD, would be nice to add some sources to Deep_One#Esoteric_Order_of_Dagon (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric Order of Dagon; if there are good sources we could restore it - two years ago nobody found them...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Right, The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana article says it is an RPG supplement. I did not find that claim supported anywhere, though. All comments I've seen say it is an encyclopedia for the Cthulhu mythos; the Origins award is a "Special Achievement Awards", whatever that means, not an RPG award; this review tells us that, while useful for the game, it does not contain game stats, and was not published in the RPG line of Chaosium, but in its line of fiction (while again comments tell us: Beware, it is not a piece of fiction but a lexicon); lastly, this preview tells us that it "is the first attempt to provide a guide to Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos since Lin Carter's "The Godes" and "The Books" ... This book collects data on the books, gods, characters and places which make up the Cthulhu Mythos." I assume it contains mostly plot-summary, but also, according again to this review, which pieces of fiction the elements come from - which should be worth something in this prototypical leviathan of a shared universe. As usual, I think such a source can very well contribute to notability - as long as other sources can provide the necessary complementary information so as not to run afoul of WP:ALLPLOT. Which we have in this case. All that said, I am not against a merge at this point, even though I can imagine keeping the article for future expansion just as well. Daranios (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RamotHacker: What about the coverage in secondary sources discussed above? Daranios (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Daranios. This needs a rewrite to be considered for a keep, but I'd think redirect would be better than outright delete even if no editing is carried out. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. There's nothing in the article worth salvaging. If the above sources can amount to anything significant, it's best to start fresh in the main article and go from there. TTN (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like a keep per the sources identified above. No need for WP:TNT, just need to strip out all of the cruft and make a more focused article. However, on the editing side, I feel the parent article (Cthulhu Mythos) could support this content as a section with a brief summary of the importance of cults in the mythos and a few bullet points on the most relevant individual fictional cults. So, I would also support a Merge if that were preferred. Suriname0 (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daranios.4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge topic can be adequately covered within the Cthulhu Mythos article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the good reasons given by Daranios. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge To Cthulhu Mythos as an WP:ATD and since the parent article is already fairly short as-is.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SIZERULE and preserve any worthwhile content to Cthulhu Mythos. While I disagree that a discussion about fictional cults in the Cthulhu Mythos is non-notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and in my view this should not have gone to AfD, the readable prose for the Cthulhu Mythos article is actually quite short at less then 9kb, and this article is roughly 6.5kb. Combining both articles and trimming prose anything deemed to be superfluous is a good editorial decision in my opinion. Haleth (talk) 07:49, 21 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mlb96 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satomi (singer)[edit]

Satomi (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has had 0 sources since it was created, and for good reason: I can't find any reliable sources about this person that aren't just Wikipedia mirrors. Meets none of the criteria in WP:NMUSIC either. (Full disclosure: If this article is deleted, I plan to write an article about a different singer named Satomi under this same title.) Mlb96 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mlb96 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mlb96 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mlb96 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question To help in sorting sources, who's the other singer you want to make an article about? Jumpytoo Talk 06:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Satomi. Mlb96 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I had to do that. Check User:Mlb96/sandbox for my draft. I should stress that I genuinely believe that the person the article is currently about is not notable, irrespective of my desire to reuse the article title for a different person. Mlb96 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has three charting titles on both the Oricon albums and singles charts, respectively [29]. She meets WP:SINGER#2. There are some sources at ja:SATOMI', but as a mid-2000s act, I wonder if coverage is lost in offline sources. ✗plicit 12:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, you're right. Well now that I know that, I no longer think that the article should be deleted. Given that no one else has !voted in favor of deletion and there is no active discussion, I'll withdraw my nomination and close as speedy keep. Mlb96 (talk) 22:33, 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 redirect to Indian Idol#Season 12. ✗plicit 12:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pawandeep Rajan[edit]

Pawandeep Rajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:SINGER. The subject of this article is only notable for participating in a reality television series. Therefore this article should be redirected to Indian Idol Season 12 per WP:REALITYBIO. Eevee01(talk) 02:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eevee01(talk) 02:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eevee01(talk) 02:56, 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) 03:13, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zetwerk[edit]

Zetwerk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entity's page is promotional one. Lacks indepth / significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Possible WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hatchens Can you provide a more detailed source analysis? From just looking at the first few sources, they seem to be independent quality RS that would be perfectly suitable for establishing GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 12 Septembe*r 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep (1) The subject complies to WP:GNG being described by the country edition of Forbes as being one of the world's largest in its speciality. (2) Presently there are six reliable neutral independent sources cited whose subject is the subject of this article. So it complies to WP:SIGCOV. (3) The allegation that I am connected to the subject is false. I have no connection whatsoever. The allegation conflict of interest is unfounded. No WP:COI (4) The article blandly states facts based on independent reliable sources, it is not promotional. (Article creator) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 4meter4 thank you for asking. This entity is very much similar to an article that I have mistaken to be notable and approved it. Afterward, the page got nominated for an AfD discussion and during that "discussion" many good reviewers (and admins) came and discussed the RS links originating from India and how companies are misinterpreting the notability clauses. You can access that discussion at the following link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplilearn (2nd_nomination). Now, let's focus on this page and list the RED FLAGS.

Page Sources Analysis by Hatchens

Source Sites Links Date of Publication Written by Staff Writer Reliability as per WP:RS Significant Coverage as per WP:SIGCOV Comments by Hatchens
Forbes India LINK Aug 30, 2021 / Last Updated on Sep 3, 2021 YES YES (Only if the article is written by an editor or a staff writer) YES Despite written by a staff writer, I would consider this as a general announcement/PR. Fails WP:ORGIND (Part of a coordinated PR campaign)
TechCrunch LINK August 23, 2021 YES NO YES Announcement/PR. Fails WP:ORGIND (Part of a coordinated PR campaign)
LiveMint LINK August 24, 2021 YES NO (LiveMint is not considered reliable source YES Announcement/PR. Fails WP:ORGIND (Part of a coordinated PR campaign)
Business Standard LINK August 23, 2021 YES NO YES Announcement/PR. Fails WP:ORGIND (Part of a coordinated PR campaign)
Business Line LINK August 24, 2021 YES YES (Only if the article is written by an editor or a staff writer) YES Can be considered as reliable but it's still is a part of a coordinated PR campaign because of sharing the same date publication with rest of the sources. I was not hoping this from The Hindu especially after following this closure Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#The Hindu

From another angle, if we consider this article as the "Interview of the CEO", then it definitely fails WP:ORGIND.

LiveMint LINK May 27, 2021 YES NO YES Announcement/PR. Fails WP:ORGIND (Part of a coordinated PR campaign)

Now, here would be a question popping up in everyone's mind? Why we should consider this page a part of an elaborated PR campaign? My reasons are as follows;

Check the date range of the majority of sources - Aug 23 to Sep 3, 2021. Out of 6 sources, 5 shares that common date range - some sort of paraphrased/part-by-part news releases talking about the company's plans for the future (incl. CEO's interview). It qualifies for WP: ADMASQ - a PR tactic in which press releases are masquerading as valid/credible as news articles. So, the sudden rise of press releases disguised as credible news and at the same time launching of a Wikipedia page... simply raises major RED FLAG which we can easily designate as - "A well-coordinated PR campaign".

The second important act of smartness by the creator is to pass the entity's article as a stub. So, that if any unnecessary heat is generated it can be deflected via draftification. Also, a well-experienced editor will never create a page of the size of lede. He/she may experiment and expand it in the draft and then move it into namespace (AfC submission route can be taken, but not mandatory). But, this is the opposite of what the creator's editing history shows. - Hatchens (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) On what basis is say TechCrunch considered an unreliable source? (2) The unicorn status obtained by the subject gave it media attention and eyeballs, like an Olympic medal or an Everest ascent, however the notability isn't the unicorn status but that it is considered as one of the world's largest in its speciality. Certainly encyclopaedic. (3) Wikipedia is a collaborative project and an eternal WIP, the subject is encyclopaedic, article has been created others will expand it. That is how it works. (4) Some may prefer the draft path, I don't, I use my judgement as regards to notability, and create article in main space, my choice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checked Mint's article there is said, "After struggling in the initial years, the Livemint website now gets more visitors (9 million more, per source) than the former leader, Economic Times." By what yardstick is Mint a market leader not a reliable source.? Thus the claims of lack of reliability need to substantiated to be taken seriously. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created because writing gives pleasure to the creator. Finally it is said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source even for a school essay, the subject received 150 million USD and has been valued at 1.3 billion USD before the article was created. If an understatement be made, it is clear as daylight that the subject doesn't need promotion from Wikipedia, so whatever the fate of the AfD, chill. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dear Yogesh Khandke, for your kind information please refer to the following links; 1.LiveMint's reliability discussion (from Archives). Click the LINK; 2. TechCrunch's reliability discussion (from Archives). Click the LINK. Kindly keep a tab on "source reliability-related" discussions. It will help you in performing the correct assessments. And it's a humble request - please, refrain from having these kinds of articles created as per your "false assumptions". No matter what, how experienced we become - the WP:TEA is the best place to get our doubts cleared. Ask somebody and then proceed. -Hatchens (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You assume I haven't seen it, it doesn't mean anything, if anyone wishes to deem any source unreliable, it needs more than stray comments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yogesh Khandke - if you are aware of the reliability-related discussions on your mentioned sources, and the results are inconclusive. Then, so what is the logic you used for creating the article in the first place? Just because "the subject received 150 million USD and has been valued at 1.3 billion USD before the article was created" - your words. Is this that logic? I'm sorry for asking this question. But, here is another question (I'm unable to stop my curiosity, please forgive me) - "The article was created because writing gives pleasure to the creator. Finally, it is said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source even for a school essay..." Further, "If an understatement be made, it is clear as daylight that the subject doesn't need promotion from Wikipedia, so whatever the fate of the AfD, chill i.e., WP:CHILL." So, here are few more questions, do you believe in the concept of Wikipedia? or the Principles of Wikipedia? Or are you harboring any notion that editors like you are doing mercy to Wikipedia by creating such substandard pages? Or are you lending a "Hand of God" to the "subjects" like Zetwerk? Now, I'm extremely curious because at a personal level I never fathomed myself to be bigger than this platform. So, for me, your arrogance is very hard to digest. Technically, I surrender in front of your kindness and now please let others assess this page. -Hatchens (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hatchens One more time; chill, be civil, please, "let others assess this page" are golden words. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehehe. Good one. Indeed, very smart you are. I agree with your agreement on my golden words. -Hatchens (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I am still considering what to suggest for this article but regarding the source analysis, Hatchens, in the RSN discussion on Livemint, the consensus seems to be that it is a reliable source. Also on what ground are you saying Business Standard is unreliable? There is no significant discussion on it. If anything Forbes India (post–2013) may be a problematic source here, note it's only a franchise over which Forbes doesn't have any editorial control. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate, note: The Indian edition of Forbes is run by Network18, which transmits visual programming for child consumption in their regions as well as musical programming (e.g., MTV India). It should not be a problematic source in this instance. Multi7001 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multi7001, the fact that Network18 also operates music and children's channels is not really relevant to the reliability of Forbes India. This is also a bit offtopic at this point, if you want to discuss reliability of particular sources, I would suggest starting a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, otherwise I don't mind continuing it on my talk page either. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In support with the nominator's analysis of the citations. The company is failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 13:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How are LiveMint and BS held to be unreliable? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I slightly disagree with the page sources analysis by Hatchens. Some of the sources cited, including Forbes and Business-Standard, are reliable and demonstrate notability. Articles that read with a slight PR-tone but are published by news staff or editors are not different from other articles written by news staff. Many articles in news are written because of PR outreach or other similar reasons and hundreds of thousands of such links are in big Wiki articlespaces. Nearly all newsrooms have some extent of close relations with PR firms. OP clearly has very minimal knowledge of how journalism works. I agree, however, that TechCrunch and LiveMint are less reliable, but could still be useful to verify biographical information only if no other sources exist. Multi7001 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Livemint seems reliable enough for the information in question. That said, I disagree with the analysis done above. Also see coverage by CNBC TV18. LearnIndology (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've spent some time looking at references for this and the ones included here. First off - since this is a company/organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which provides more details on how to assess references to establish the notability of companies/organizations. Two critical sections of that guideline are WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND (and especially the definition of "Independent Content" in ORGIND). I'm going to assume all references are from reliable publications. Hatchen's table above makes the same points but I've reframed the discussion to focus specifically on NCORP. With that in mind, I've redone the analysis table above:
Reference Date of Publication "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND In-Depth Coverage as per WP:CORPDEPTH Establishes Notability
Forbes India Aug 30, 2021 / Last Updated on Sep 3, 2021 No, it relies entirely on information provided by company employees. It is a (fairly standard for Forbes) promo piece to "profile" the company, vision, founders, etc. Yes No, Fails WP:ORGIND
TechCrunch August 23, 2021 No. There are dozens of "articles" all making the same "announcement". For example: Economic Times India, BusinessAPAC, EnTrackr, RedNewswire and loads more Yes No, its all and entirely based on announcements from the company and/or their investors, fails ORGIND
LiveMint August 24, 2021 No, entirely based on an interview with the CEO Yes Fails WP:ORGIND
Business Standard August 23, 2021 No for the same reasons as the TechCrunch reference above Yes See reasons above, fails WP:ORGIND
Hindu Businessline August 24, 2021 No, entirely based on interview with the CEO Yes Fails WP:ORGIND
Livemint 2 May 27, 2021 No, it is a PR / Company announcement also covered by Economic Times India, CIO Insider India, etc Yes No, entirely based on PR, fails WP:ORGIND
CNBC Aug 20, 2021 No, it also relies on the same PR / Company announcements as above No, only refers to one funding round, not even a basic company description No, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH
In addition, as per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet all the requirements therefore meeting CORPDEPTH but failing ORGIND means that the references may not be used to establish notability (although may continue to be used to support facts/information within the article assuming they meet WP:RS, etc). With the above in mind, pinging Yogesh Khandke who relied on WP:GNG and LearnIndology who only looked at Livemint from a WP:RS point of view and included another reference which doesn't appear to meet NCORP either. I say the topic is WP:TOOSOON but its rapid growth suggests it may soon appear in analyst reports on the sector and will more than likely be written about outside of company announcements and PR. HighKing++ 21:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, that is a good, informative chart. Just to be clear, most of those sources are not reliable nor should be used to establish meeting WP:GNG. However, Forbes India, LiveMint, and Business-Standard are useful for verifying biographical info, if no other sources are found. Multi7001 (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Multi7001, at AfD I'm only concerned with whether the topic meets the criteria for notability and to a much lesser extent whether the facts and information contained within the article are accurate (and not just promo). Therefore when I say a reference "fails NCORP", I am not saying it cannot be used within the article, just that it cannot be used to establish notability. In effect there are two types of requirements for reference - one type for facts and info and another for establishing notability. GNG is a generic guideline for topics that don't have a speciality guideline (see WP:SNG) and NCORP is the SNG for companies/organizations. NCORP does not add additional requirements but it removes some ambiguity and confusion in interpretation and provides contextually relevant examples for applying the guidelines to companies/organizations. HighKing++ 11:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HighKing, if you take a look at this page moved to articlespace -> Pamela Rai Menges, it apparently did not fail WP:GNG, however, it relies on similar PR coverage as this subject. IMO, Zetwerk should not be considered for deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Multi7001, clearly you don't realise that the criteria for establishing notability for people is governed by WP:BIO and the criteria for organizations is WP:NCORP. These guidelines are very different and place emphasis on different aspects of requirements for establishing notability. The reason we have different guidelines is because a "one size fits all" results in some topics being overwhelmed with poor quality articles or promotional spammy articles. HighKing++ 20:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HighKing, I am aware of the different guidelines. I was referring to the credibility of the sources, not the notability of the subject or the source's contents. Multi7001 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the appropriate page to discuss other topics. I was responding in the context of this AfD only. And the fact you references GNG which isn't the appropriate guideline for either this topic or the one you referred to. HighKing++ 21:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per HighKing's table ironically. The so called "PR/Announcements" are all different outlets covering the same stories such as Zetwerk becoming an unicorn or the company entering the aerospace industry, etc. The language used and details provided are vastly different in each of their articles, which indicates that the individual stories are being covered independently rather than the articles being reproductions of a press release and the like. If they were so they'd all more or less resemble each other but they clearly don't, the fact that the articles also have bylines indicates the same. Disincluding the interview based ones, most of these meet WP:ORGIND. I don't see any reasonable justification for claiming that everyone who has covered them is not independent or as was previously being claimed not reliable. Though honestly in terms of WP:CORPDEPTH the articles are pretty borderline but they do provide somewhat of an overview. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Just to clarify, the articles actually say that the company and/or the lead investor made announcements/statements in relation to the "unicorn" valuation.
  • For example, the second sentence in the first paragraph of the TechCrunch article says Bangalore-based Zetwerk said on Monday it has raised $150 million in a Series E financing round. So there definitely was an announcement or Press Release. Later on in that same article there is also reference to a statement from Jeremy Goldstein of D1 Capital Partners.
  • The Business Standard article in very first sentence says Zetwerk, the world’s largest custom manufacturing platform, on Monday said that it has raised $150 million in an equity round led by New York-based D1 Capital Partners. Also note it was published on the same day. That's not a coincidence.
In tems of the move into aerospace:
  • The 2nd Livemint article says in the very first sentence BENGALURU: Zetwerk Manufacturing, a contract manufacturer of capital and consumer goods, on Thursday said it has forayed into aerospace and defence sectors to develop and build products and technology for Indian and global customers. So also very definitely based on a PR from the company.
All of the articles include the exact same information highlighting the "unicorn" status rather than the amount/timing of the funding and to a large degree the same tone and phrasing. Some of the articles include quotations from involved parties, some provide an additional boilerplate description of the company or refer to older announcements (also not "Independent Content"). I don't think your analysis stacks up very well when you read the articles in question but I just have to reject your vague dismissal with inaccurate summaries of the detailed analysis of sources. HighKing++ 20:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no, the articles don't say that it itself is the announcement. The presence of a line with an attributed quotation in the coverage of an event is a standard journalistic practice and doesn't make the entire coverage, non independent. Press releases tend to be short pieces with a disclaimer that it's one, certainly not bylined articles as they exist here.
As an example from the articles you picked out here, the Business Standard article has 4 paragraphs entirely composed of secondary description which bears no resemblance with anything on the TechCrunch article. The particular quotations in the articles are likely being sourced from a press conference. And no its not a coincidence that the two articles are published on the same day since you know they are covering the same event, i.e, valuation as an unicorn which is a newsworthy event in business journalism, perhaps the answer to your question on why it is being "highlighted" is somewhere in there. Same would apply to the Livemint article, which contains multiple paragraphs describing their operation.
Maybe somewhere there is an arguement for this being too soon and not being in-depth enough but the company is certainly receiving independent coverage. Your source analysis essentially boils down to describing all news coverage as non-independent, which doesn't appear very reasonable when one does actually look into the articles. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tayi Arajakate, ok I'll bite. I've taken another look at the Business Standard article and I've tried to identify four paragraphs that meet your description. Paragraphs 1 and 2 contain the same information as the other "unicorn"-referncing articles with the same date/time. The next three all rely entirely on quotes from the CEO and their lead investor and therefore not "Independent Content". The next (beginning with "Zetwork has demonstrated") is also based on the announcement - that information is confirmed to have originated from the company in this article from the Economic Times. The next paragraph (beginning with "Zetwork's custom manufacturing platform...") is generic boilerplate and you can see it repeated in this Capital Quest reference on the same day. So that leaves the final paragraph which lists the investors included in the round and that information is also repeated in several other places. Can you take another look because I really think that once you have read the various articles from that date you will quickly see that they're all related and not one has any "Independent Content" which can be used to establish notability. HighKing++ 21:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject has references by reliable sources that cover it significantly, however, there many need to be more reliable, independent sources to establish notability. It nearly meets the criteria: WP:CORPDEPTH but not WP:ORGIND. Multi7001 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references tend to repeat each other, showing their common origin in press releases. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 22 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) 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Soccer Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Luca Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Im renominating this again as I believe the last AFD was not properly discussed. Below I list the reasons

  • The club fails NFOOTY as it hasnt played in any fully professional leagues listed by wikiproject football. Kerala Premier League is not a fully professional league. It is played by teams like Kerala Police which is not even a football club. Here the players serve as the police officers in Kerala Police.
  • Failing NFOOTY means it has to pass general GNG criteria. The present sources are not enogh to meet GNG in my criteria.
  • User Swd7391 who voted as keep in previous account is clearly a single purpose account. Their first edit is the keep vote in the first AFD. [30] After 20 August they have made no edit. I would like to suggest a detailed discussion here as the previous one was not properly done. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails NFOOTY as per the nom. Regarding GNG, my analysis of the 11 sources in the article are listed below.
  • Source 1: Just a news report about Kerala Premier League.
  • Source 2: Club website
  • Source 3: Interview with club CEO
  • Source 4: Routine Coverage and not a reliable source
  • Source 5: Have some coverage but not from a reliable source
  • Source 6: Routine coverage and the bridge is not a reliable source
  • Source 7: Incidental coverage about foreign investment
  • Source 8: Interview and not from a reliable source
  • Source 9: Club website
  • Source 10: News about foreign signings by the club
  • Source 11: Website of club owners
From this it is evident that the clubs fails GNG. Henriklars (talk) 06:40, 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) 06:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly fails GNG citeria based on the source analysis by Henriklars. The Footballean (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments in last month's (!!!) AFD. GiantSnowman 17:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the club is so irrelevant we dont even know the full names of the players????Muur (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was not happy with the previous discussion. The club fails NFOOTY as well as GNG. The present sources are not good enough to meet GNG.Poppified talk 20:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this nomination is borderline disruptive. Nominating something for deletion a month (a month!) after the last AFD because you didn't like the result is just silly. And its exactly what we have WP:DRV for. The analysis of sources above is disingenuous; there's nothing wrong with interviews and there's no analysis of why different sources are apparently "unreliable". The sources highlighted in the last AFD (a random sample of the sources included in the article) show this passes GNG. NFOOTY might be helpful for defining secondary criteria that allows a person or club that otherwise doesn't meet GNG to instead meet arbitrary subject-specific criteria. In this case, NFOOTY is irrelevant, and !votes that rely on it (and the disruptive nomination) should be disregarded, and this should be closed. St★lwart111 09:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let me clarify my statements. I am really concerned with significant coverage here. As per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. I will try to explain how the article doesnt satisfy SIGCOV. There are 11 sources in the article out of which 3 are not independent ones. The 4th citation from Spotik is only a short paragraph. The first citation is about the Kerala Premier League. The 6th citation is an incidential coverage regarding clubs withdrawal from the league de to Covid 19. Another one is about a player signing. All these only gives routine coverage. So how can we say the club is passing GNG. Two sources seems good here. But they are not secondary sources. As per WP:PSTS, secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. Here these two citations are interviews with the club's CEO which makes them primary sources. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it makes that portion of the content within those sources a primary source for the purposes of verifying information in the article. The CEO didn't interview himself, decide the questions being asked, or publish the interview on his own website. An independent journalist has decided he is noteworthy enough to be interviewed (about the club), and has retained editorial oversight with regard to what is published. Your suggestion that otherwise reliable sources should be treated as being not independent because of a format choice is the "novel interpretation". If "two sources seem good here" then it passes WP:GNG. Besides which, short paragraphs and articles about the club's operations (as distinct from efforts by the club to promote itself) show that reliable sources have deemed the subject important enough to cover. And you still haven't addressed the nature of this nomination; the contribution of one SPA doesn't invalidate an AFD result, nor does it invalidate DRV's role in the deletion review process. St★lwart111 02:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm against the opinion that this nomination is disruptive. It's evident that the previous AfD nomination wasn't properly discussed. The sources cited in the article doesn't help the article to meet either GNG or FOOTYN. The included sources are just random ones like player signings and club takeovers. This article clearly fails FOOTYN, and must be taken down from the mainspace. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 13:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should be taken to WP:DRV. WP:RENOM: "If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months." Waiting just one month is incredibly poor form. St★lwart111 06:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG with numerous sources, including five I just found, one, two, three, four, and five - ProQuest 2460216943. And then there's the procedural issues ... why no DRV? Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Except the citation from Indian Express (which is also giving routine coverage)the remaining are the same ones already present in the article. Still the article fails GNG
  • Comment - I've listed this at DRV so that the last close can be reviewed (as should have happened instead of this immediate renomination). St★lwart111 06:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:If the majority of the participants are leaning towards delete, whats the point of opening a DRV. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have it backwards my friend. This should never have been opened. The fact that "participants are leaning towards delete" is more about people clinging to NFOOTY when that guideline is irrelevant if the subject passes GNG. St★lwart111 00:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Henriklars's analysis of sources calls some of them unreliable. Specialist websites such as https://khelnow.com/ and The Bridge can be notable, and https://khelnow.com/ and The Bridge both seems to be reasonably professional. I agree that the club's own website and that of its owners is not independent. Even routine coverage can add up to in-depth coverage, and foreign signings are a sign that the club recognizes that it needs international talent to compete and is prepared to pay for it. As for Muur's point about surnames, many football players adopt what actors would call stage names, which may have been what happened here. I would add that this AFD should not have been begun less than 6 months after the previous one closed as keep. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ah yes, 30 people who all just happen to go by a stage name. do you not see how ridiculous that is?Muur (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per comments and discussions in the last AFD, per the fact that this should not have been renominated, and per vapid "analysis" of sources above. Interviews are not automatically not independent because the interviewee is connected to the subject. The journalist and publication (the actual source) are still independent. The sources included in the article are coverage of the subject club; the fact that some of them cover operations that are normal for a football club does not mean they are WP:ROUTINE (which covers things like statutory announcements and sports scores). The fact that something was announced by the club and then the subject of coverage by reliable sources does not make it the sort of announcement ROUTINE is talking about. The subject need not pass WP:NFOOTY if it already passes WP:GNG so arguments as to the professionalism of the league and other arbitrary football-specific criteria are irrelevant. As are arguments about not knowing the names of players; we're not discussing their notability and the club doesn't inherit notability from them any more than they from it. St★lwart111 00:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to DRV, which is the correct venue for appealing a "keep" closure last month.—S Marshall T/C 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was, but that has now been closed. Does someone want to procedurally close this too? St★lwart111 00:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be weird because then it would be discussed nowhere. This should probably run its course now but it'll likely end up at DRV no matter which side this discussion falls on.—S Marshall T/C 08:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The club doesnt have indepth coverage from the citations. Fails the WP:GNG criteria. Lorenzo the great (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Above; I supported Stalwart111 on "XFD renomination" statement. But, I cannot understand this - "The subject need not pass WP:NFOOTY if it already passes WP:GNG so arguments as to the professionalism of the league and other arbitrary football-specific criteria are irrelevant". A question for Stalwart111 - Does this club passed GNG in the first place? Do you ever read wikipedia guidelines properly? or do you have an habit to make such interpretation which sometimes look extremely brilliant and as discussion progresses... they suddenly sounds extremely stupid or compromised one. I'm least bothered about the outcome of this AfD, but I'm seriously concerned about your poor interpretation of guidelines which I've witnessed in an another ongoing AfD. -Hatchens (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained there, my argument is that WP:GNG should apply because WP:GNG is our baseline notability criteria. My argument is the same there. It doesn't matter if this club doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, because it already passes WP:GNG. And it doesn't matter if that sporting team isn't considered a sporting team or doesn't pass WP:NCORP, because it already passes WP:GNG. It's pretty simply, really. As a side note, I'm pleased you've decided to let your personal attacks and bad faith ooze from one AFD to another. It's disgusting there and equally unbecoming here. St★lwart111 00:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails WP:GNG - No credible/independent media citations as per WP:RS, Lack significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Since it fails in GNG, lets assess it under WP:NFOOTY as an SNG - The club is not part of any national league (of India) or any professional league as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues. It fails to qualify under NFOOTY too. Note: When an entity fails to qualify under WP:GNG, the best alternative is find an appropriate WP:SNG or WikiProject guidelines for the assessment - not vice versa. However, there is a possibility for this club to have a Wikipedia page (in the near future)- under the WP:NFOOTY as soon as they qualify for I-League 1 or any national leagues. -Hatchens (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the nominator; Indianfootball98 - please avoid renominating page which had just passed through an AfD. If you have any suggestions or something you would like to discuss within 6 months of keep, then please follow the WP:DRV route, thats the correct venue. Closing admin should take note on this too. - Hatchens (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the closing admin should take note of the obviously pointy nature of Hatchens' !vote here. St★lwart111 00:18, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SteveWillDoIt[edit]

SteveWillDoIt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 02:48, 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Avery (speaker)[edit]

Ryan Avery (speaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a non-notable businessperson. Declined a couple of times in AfC; no changes since the most recent decline, the article creator decided to move it into articlespace. The only claim to notability is winning the Toastmasters International championship of public speaking in 2012, but since that has not resulted in any significant coverage in independent sources, the person still doesn't meet WP:BASIC. A Guinness World Record (or even several) is not a sign of notability unless there is significant independent coverage in reliable sources, and again, there isn't. bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that the article's creator has disclosed their COI, which means that they shouldn't have moved the draft to mainspace, but now that it is here I think it is just as well to determine whether Avery is notable. I have cleaned up the article a bit to remove some promotional links and text. --bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources used in the article lack independence and are therefore not considered reliable per our verifiability and notability standards. Article is largely self promotional. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that the tone is promotional. Neither the Toastmasters championship nor the Guinness world record automatically confer notability, and there does not appear to be significant independent coverage about the subject to support an article per WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 07:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - paid-for spam. MER-C 18:23, 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Acres, Delaware[edit]

Green Acres, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run-of-the-mill subdivision fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Although the article is more than just a stub, it's sourced almost entirely to the neighborhood civic association with no significant independent coverage. The only newspaper results I'm finding are real estate listings and articles about the local swim team. –dlthewave ☎ 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GEOLAND, has some architectural significance. Subdivisions are hit-or-miss but I think this one is notable. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GEOLAND. Djflem (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: most of these geostubs are nothing beyond a GNIS entry, but this seems to be fairly fleshed out and has a number of actual sources talking about the history of the place. jp×g 20:31, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_September_12&oldid=1045818206"