Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 23	September 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by length[edit]

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

This is, without any further context, an incomplete trivial list of 8 long songs. Not to sound like a smartass, but a list of songs by length would include every single song ever made, sorted by length. Honestly, I'm not sure if most of these are even actual songs or just projects promoted as songs by their creators. WP:LISTCRUFT will likely apply here, especially since anyone can go ahead and make "the longest song", dethroning number 1. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally I am not anti-list (I've started a few myself), but I am anti-list when it could be thousands upon thousands of articles long. Lists need to be well defined and this one is not. Masterhatch (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SBKSPP (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Also no mention of that song about a cake being out in the rain which goes on FOREVER. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is probably a topic some of these songs could fall under, but definitely not a list with this title. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic list and such a list may never end either. Mukt (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Lightburst (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just to pile it on. Everyone above listed the reasons for doing so. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. 'Nuff said.TH1980 (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surprised that the list stayed here for this long. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; while there would be, perhaps, a basis for creating a List of longest songs (with some inclusion criteria), this is not that. Above concerns about the impossibly broad scope of the list, and the unencyclopedic nature of its arbitrariness, are correct. Furthermore, it doesn't even have the Zeppelin version of In My Time Of Dying in it. jp×g 01:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is no evidence that this term exists. Adding mention to the 'Light engine' articleis judged to be inappropriate, as this appears to be a hoax, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jewell train[edit]

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

Zero coverage of the name "Jewell train" in any reliable sources (or any sources at all for that matter), or any evidence that this term is ever used. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm having a hard time believing this term is real. There is a city called Jewell so there's a lot of false results around the search term "Jewell train", but with some filtering and such I can find no mention of the term for this context outside of Wikipedia results. Alternatively, redirect it to light engine (itself a redirect, which is probably proper) which is the only sourced part of the article. Possibly a hoax. -- ferret (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Redirect~~ to Light engine (or, more accurately, to Glossary of rail transport terms#L). I can't find any support for the term Jewell train, but the article gives two alternate names. One of those names, "light engine", seems to actually be the common term. It appears in published glossaries of railroad terms (in addition to the one already cited in the article), so it passes WP:V. Then the question is, does it pass WP:N? At first I thought the answer was yes, because I was coming across short descriptions about how light engines are different from other railroading setups, like the paragraph on page 245 here. I also was finding laws in different countries that specifically single out light engines for different regulations, like these three examples 1 2 3. But unfortunately I can't find any secondary summaries of why those laws treat light engines differently (and including them directly in an article would require WP:OR), and I'm coming up empty on any actually in-depth discussions of light engines. So I think it's most appropriate as a subsection of the glossary, and there probably isn't sufficient coverage for a standalone article. But if someone does a better job of finding coverage than I did, I could be convinced pretty easily, since honestly I think it's just short of GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Light engine is a real term, and covers the subject of this article. "Jewell train" is a term that cannot be proven to even exist. We should not keep material that meets the definition of a hoax, and considering light engine already exists (as a redirect), there is no reason to keep this even as a redirect since it is a duplicate and not a plausible search term which would justify a redirect. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant merge, not redirect. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose redirect/merge. Likely a WP:HOAX. None of the sources provided above by Astrophobe contain the term "Jewell train". Both glossaries listed above have entries on the Jewel railroad company, the term hot jewel, and the use of the word jewel to refer to "journal brass" (whatever that means) but not "Jewell train". No mention of "Jewell train" in the context of light engines in the glossaries either. All the other sources have to deal with light engines, but not "Jewell train". There's no evidence that this is a real term or that its used in connection with light engines. It's concerning to me that Astrophobe is providing supposed "evidence" (some that requires subscription access which luckily I have) which does not even contain the term "Jewell train" anywhere in the sources. 4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 30 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 23:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devansh Dabas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Appears to be WP:TOOSOON has not appeared in a first class match yet, the best my BEFORE comes up with is his Soccerway profile which indicates only unused substitute appearances JW 1961^Talk 22:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 22:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 22:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 22:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query. According to the infobox, he played twice for Minerva Punjab and these appearances may have been in the I-League which is listed FPL. Can we ascertain if he did play in those games and if they were I-League? No Great Shaker (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker - According to the usually reliable Soccerway, those two matches were unused on the bench cup matches (shouldn't be in infobox) - see under domestic cups on his profile there JW 1961^Talk 10:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JW. No appearances fails NFOOTY and not enough coverage for GNG so delete. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no first-team appearances per Soccerway, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet the criteria yet as far as I can see in searches, similar case to Balaji Ganesan and Aqib Nawab Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFOOTY and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the article as it stands does not meet the requirements for inclusion, and the content is too copy vio'd to be able to merge with another article directly. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourism in Thailand[edit]

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

I've just removed most of the article, which was duplicated from elsewhere and irrelevant to the topic, and found that the entirety of the remaining content is nothing but a close paraphrasing of each of the sources. The current scope is too narrow, and while an Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand article would be desirable, it would have to be created from scratch to address the copyvio issues. I believe this is a case for WP:TNT. Paul_012 (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect and selective merge to Thailand#Economy There is room. Lightburst (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Removing close paraphrasing/copy vio concerns trump our need to preserve content through a merger. Best to start over freshly without those issues present.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 30 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 four, no consensus for 2021 Marshall Thundering Herd men's soccer team. ✗plicit 00:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Drake Bulldogs men's soccer team[edit]

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

Fails collegiate sport season notability guideline at WP:NSEASONS. No evidence of season's notability, which is currently ongoing, and in my opinion borders on both WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOSTATS. Existing consensus for delete here and here. GauchoDude (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same criteria as above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot speak for the other seasons, but I do think that Marshall's season has notability. Marshall was the consensus preseason No. 1 team in the country for the first time ever. I think that gives it some notability, but then again, I may be biased. Eknight2012 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect all same rationale as the recent Ohio State and Penn State AFDs and per nom. RE: the Marshall season, I don't think WP:GNG has been established for this particular season, even if they came in as defending champions. I personally prefer deletion but redirects are fine as well. Jay eyem (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marshall Redirect Others. Other articles fall in same consensus as Ohio State and Penn State. Marshall being the media preseason consensus #1 by definition meets bullet 4 of college season WP:NSEASONS, "regardless of outcome". Maclid (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of fail to see how one national championship qualifies Marshall as "elite" in NCAA men's soccer. Something like Indiana would be much closer, and I don't think even they would qualify under that criteria. NSEASONS also talks about weighing both the sport and the season itself, so I think it would be very difficult for ANY NCAA DI school to qualify under that for men's soccer. Jay eyem (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Going to be a hard no for me there as well. The common denominator for bullet point 4, in my opinion, is sustained greatness over a long period of time to boost those programs into that "elite" territory. This example does not that meet that. I think there are mayyyybe a few programs that could meet that for collegiate men's soccer and Marshall is not one of them. GauchoDude (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but Marshall, Keep Marshall – The other four seasons clearly fail GNG and NSEASONS as per the previous discussions and nom here. I think Marshall has a case on GNG (see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], or the number of articles here, or even the attention given to their losses). At the least, I'd like to see the Marshall season split off from this discussion so it could be argued on its own merits, because I think it has much more of a GNG argument than any of the other articles. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Marshall has some merits while the others appear not to so should not go down with the rest of them. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also rather see a separate discussion for Marshall's season than to see this thread get resisted for another week, since I think there is consensus on the other seasons. Jay eyem (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If these are deleted. so too must be the 2021 season articles for all 208 NCAA Division I Men;s Soccer Teams... If all are not deleted, these SHOULD BE KEPT... GWFrog (talk)
- Comment: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there, but I'd also be in favor of this. First off, there are only (at least as I can find in the category) 41 total encompassed currently. Of those 41, the overwhelming majority of them are redirects. All others are included here, to my knowledge, with the exception of ACC conference teams which, as bigger schools with potentially more coverage, would be better served in a separate conversation. GauchoDude (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I too would support the proposal to delete all other seasons until WP:GNG can be established or until there is sufficient basis under WP:NSEASONS. At this point I don't believe there is any real basis for any of these articles from what I have seen. I also personally see no reason the ACC would be an exception, as I have not seen significant coverage in said articles. All of these articles scream WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL to me, and I would support the deletion (or redirect) of all the ACC articles at this point in time as well. Jay eyem (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Marshall per Keskkonnakaitse.4meter4 (talk) 21:38, 30 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Critic (modern magazine)[edit]

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

Questionably-notable periodical, astroturfed by billionaire who (per the magazine's editor, as quoted in the article) wanted "culture wars content". All coverage actually about the magazine appears to be around its launch publicity. In particular, in a WP:BEFORE it seems there has been no coverage of The Critic since the launch publicity round. This fails to meet any of the prongs of WP:NPERIODICAL. If we look at the magazine as an organisation, the promotional tour of the press at launch is the only coverage in RSes; this fails to show either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Occasional mentions in diary sections in The Times or on a podcast are all that can be found, per the talk page. It looks like you can't buy notability. I'm willing to be shown wrong on this, but it would need to be shown with RS coverage that demonstrates meeting the prongs of WP:NPERIODICAL or WP:CORPDEPTH, which the current, proffered and WP:BEFORE sources fail to. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DisagreeThe proposal to delete appears to be because an individual editor thinks the circumstances of a publication's founding to be discreditable. Many newspapers and magazines have similar stories for their beginnings, but that is irrelevant. It is the current position of the publication which is important. If The Critic were a mere vanity publication, then this would be a fair objection to its inclusion, but it has grown swiftly in just two years into a mainstream publication with a circulation higher than many longstanding magazines featured, and that over the lockdown period: that is an achievement.

The last published figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations (UK) show has a substantial circulation, of close to 20,000 (ABC Data: The Critic). Even The New Statesman has over a century climbed only to 36,000 (current figures). The Editor of the New Stateman, politically poles apart, has praised The Critic, just this month: a quotation cited on the page.

The magazine has top-level contributors, including David Starkey, Douglas Murray, Peter Hitchens and Toby Young, which is notable in itself.

Magazines rarely hit the news themselves, as their job is to report and provide commentary on current events and culture, not to be the news: if creating news were a required criterion of notability, very few newspapers or magazines could have articles. It can though be quoted as a trusted source for other publications, and this is where you will find citations. Articles and commentaries in The Critic have frequently been referenced in other periodicals, which shows its influence. In half an hour's browsing the other night I came across:

Abba returns.. in The Week, quoting Alexander Larman in The Critic;
The Times, 18 February 2020
The Times Diary in 2021
Red Box Podcast (from 00:16:10; Panel with The New Statesman, The Spectator and The Critic

Hogweard (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are the diary mentions and a podcast mentioned in the nomination. You're not showing how this addresses any of the prongs of WP:NPERIODICAL:

The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education.
The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level.
The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society).
The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works.

If it's as important as you claim, and you're not just arguing WP:ILIKEIT, then please show from RS coverage how it meets any of those prongs. Note that WP:NPERIODICAL has examples of how to apply these correctly. - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:WEBCRIT. This is the second conservative leaning magazine at AfD that I have come across. Not sure what to make of that. Lightburst (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was thinking the same. Both have been nominated by the same editor after failing WP:PROD deletions (I know you know, but just mentioning it for those who are unaware). I will abstain as I have no strong feelings one way or another on either of these, and I don't have a good track record when it comes to judging the notability of Wikipedia articles – but I am a little concerned about the motivations here, and am finding it hard to assume good faith for this coming up at AfD. –Bangalamania (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to both of you that in general, positing a political conspiracy theory for a deletion nomination - particularly one with detailed reasons set out - is not a well respected argument in deletion discussions - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets requirements of WP:N and WP:WEBCRIT. Sources used comply with WP:V. (It's a blessing that the National Review preceded the existence of Wikipedia – and I'm not even a conservative.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's for people who like their politics as extreme-right as The Spectator (if not even more extreme), but prefer a veneer of impartiality. It's definitely notable by any reasonable definition of notability for magazines, though. RomanSpa (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the criterion for notability for a magazine like this is here: [7]. Annoyingly, The Critic probably satisfies items 3 and perhaps 5 on the list. RomanSpa (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:N and WP:WEBCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPERIODICAL is an essay, but even if it were a guideline and wasn't met, this satisfies WP:GNG regardless. This can be seen via the sources in the article reviewing the periodical. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seattle Kraken draft picks[edit]

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

~~This has been sitting at the back of the new pages queue for months. I’m very doubtful that the topic is notable but bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, did you look at the other articles on the Template:List of NHL draft picks? Hwy43 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DetroitFan7 (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Sorry, bad nomination. Mccapra (talk) 02:19, 25 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. Withdrawn. I might even visit a castle in Belgium later today so I’m not really independent but the outcome is obvs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of motte-and-bailey castles in Belgium[edit]

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

List completely lacking sources which appears to be original research. I sent this to draft so the creator could source it, but they just moved it back into mainspace without improvement. My preferred outcome is draftify. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Draftification is disruptive because it removes pages from the place where readers and editors expect to find topics and buries them where they just gather dust and then get speedily deleted. The topic in this case is clearly notable per WP:LISTN; a list of sources follows. The claim that this is completely lacking in sources and OR is false because most of the entries seem to be supported by listings of the Flanders Heritage Agency. Policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE therefore apply, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:ITSACASTLE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrated Castles in Belgium (2004)
Castles of Belgium (1980) by Julien Van Remoortere
Castles of Belgium (1967) by Joseph de Ghellinck d'Elseghem
Castles of Belgium (1998) by Georges Henri Dumont
Castles of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1996)
Fifty Castles Bring to Life the History of Belgium (1971)

Comment The edit history tells a different story: as it goes, the creator created articles in both the draft and mainspace, and your only edit there is an attempt at speedy deletion. Care to clarify? Avilich (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that’s correct. The article was copy pasted from draft to mainspace. I attempted to draftify it but was unable to do so as a draft already existed, I then sought to have the article speedily deleted as an unsourced article where a draft existed. Mccapra (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could've just redirected to the draft or moved to a similar title. Avilich (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would the nominator please explain any attempts to verify that sourcing does or does not exist per WP:BEFORE? Being unsourced is not a cause for deletion, being unsourceable is. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I searched for “mottes castrales en Belgique” and “ mottes en mottekastelen in België” and found nothing that discussed these sites as a list. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These search strings seem too narrow – I have no difficulty finding sources such as Mottes castrales des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux. Note that Belgium is a comparatively recent creation and so sources may refer to earlier geopolitical boundaries. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The table contains numerous sources such as this. Per WP:CITEVAR, the fact that this is not done as a footnote does not stop it being a source. So, people who claim that there are no sources either don't understand what a source is or haven't looked at the page carefully. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that Motte-and-Bailey castles are of great historical significance across the whole of Europe (as is Belgium, though we in the UK tend to pretend otherwise), and castles are generally fairly verifiable objects. Elemimele (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify topic appears notable and sources seem to be available, but apparently no effort has been made by the page creator to reference the list. Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "Heritage" column seems to contain quite a few sources (example—which, unless the machine translation I got is way off, verifies the key info), even if they're not explicitly labelled as such. Not all entries are sourced, but that's a cleanup issue rather than a deletion issue. TompaDompa (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Mztourist accurately summarizes the current state of the list, the solution to such is editing, not draftification. There are clearly articulated reasons for removing uncited material listed in WP:BURDEN; these castles meet none of them. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our guideline WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination with thanks to everyone who has commented above. Mccapra (talk) 00:40, 26 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arctica Finance[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in the Icelandic media abouts profits and business, staff hirings and legal troubles, including but not limited to [8][9][10][11][12][13]. Alvaldi (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malvinsub3. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if it passes notability delete per WP:TNT. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101: I have to disagree on that point. Despite the authors' behaviour, the page was never hopelessly irreparable as the WP:TNT essay reffers to. When it was proposed for deletation[14] it was an undersourced stub that had four statements which all where factually correct, that is what kind of company this is, location, when it was established and by who. As a firm believer in that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, I did a short search for the company in the Icelandic media and found ample coverage and improved the sourcing and added a few other statements. As it stands, the subject of the article passes the general notability guideline and the article's past problems where easily fixable with search for sources per WP:BEFORE and minor style cleanup. Alvaldi (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG, WP:TNT and WP:NCORP --Donjohnsosn5 (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC) — Donjohnsosn5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Closing admin should note that User:Donjohnsosn5 was created today and has made few or no other edits outside of this AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Donjohnsosn5 after this comment then edited some more articles so the above comment is no longer true in the sense that they no longer appear to be an SPA (but that could be bc they are trying to not look like an SPA). Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - taken it to SPI to see if it is sockpuppetry though, given the fact that sockpuppetry has occured on the article. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument to keep doesn't make sense your saying it passes WP:TNT which is a deletion argument? Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~It was a misunderstanding on my part regarding the argument WP:TNT, I take back the WP:TNT. I am recommending to Keep article.--Donjohnsosn5 (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Sock vote stricken. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are lots of foreign language references cited in the article. In such cases, the burden of proving that an article fails NCORP/GNG requires a detailed source analysis by the nominator (or other delete voters). In the absence of a convincing source analysis, I'm not seeing a convincing argument for deletion. Likewise, the article does not have any glaring issues that make a TNT warranted. 4meter4 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG due to an abundance of sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Since this is about a company/organization, then we look to WP:NCORP as the appropriate Guideline (as per GNG) and not vanilla GNG. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

There appears to be sufficient references that meet NCORP criteria, for example the Timarit.is reference and the vb.is reference. Topic meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep per WP:FORUMSHOP. With an ongoing active merger proposal this was an improper nomination. No prejudice against renomination once the merge proposal is closed. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Commission for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes[edit]

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

Firstly, there is no development in this article since 2017. The article has no relevance as the government has created another body with different name, whose article already exists. So, keeping this article, is baseless. Sony R (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sony R (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep it is not very collegiate to take an article to AfD when there is already a merger proposal active. I support the proposed merge as an alternative to deletion. Mccapra (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: Bad nom, as no valid rationale provided. It's probably gonna be merged anyhow. Curbon7 (talk) 20:46, 26 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Bolton[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor who never dubbed a single notable character. Not notable as a production staffer either. Mottezen (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment. He has a very long resume of parts, and is listed as a producer in some notable franchises. I"m confident he fails WP:SIGCOV, but not so confident that he fails WP:NACTOR (particularly since he has been a panelist at some regional anime conventions; and from what I can tell he has performed many recurring supporting roles). Not supporting keeping or deleting at this point.4meter4 (talk) 23:40, 23 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) 17:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the cast announcements which don't really establish notability and the marriage announcement, there's no other sources. Esw01407 (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think they meet WP:NACTOR off of their roles in Psycho-Pass 2 and Death Parade, both of which seem to be more than minor characters off of their description and placement in the character list. Link20XX (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no knowledge of Funinmation but when I created Hei (Darker than Black) I managed to provide a small comment about Bolton's work with the English cast.Tintor2 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in productions. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have any WP:SIGCOV. ––FormalDude talk 05:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - WP:CSD#G4. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pavilion Bukit Jalil[edit]

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

Promo of an upcoming mall (WP:ADPROMO). In general it fails to meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4 and speedy close. I have tagged the article accordingly. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:21, 25 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 null outcome with no objection to immediate renomination. I have to agree with Djm-leighpark that major changes to the nomination after others have already commented is disruptive to the process. This would likely have ended up at delete in any case, but it may not have done. Inserting a source analysis matrix post-nomination at the top of the page might lead later editors to disregard keep arguments which apparently ignored that analysis. The nominator is entitled to submit a source analysis or make further comments, but these must be placed in the appropriate place (ie at the bottom of the discussion an indented reply) with a new signature and date stamp so that everybody can properly follow the development of the discussion. I also think it is especially egregious that the nominator refused to discuss this issue when requested to do so on their talk page, simply deleting the post with an insulting edit summary. SpinningSpark 17:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Rai Menges[edit]

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

Page Sources Analysis by Multi7001

Source Sites	Links	Date of Publication	Written by Staff Writer	Reliability as per WP:RS	Significant Coverage as per WP:SIGCOV	Comments by Multi7001
AAAS	LINK	Apr 26, 2019	No	No (AAAS is open to public for memberships. The link is not a news, it is a blog post; any member can subscribe and volunteer)	No	Does not meet WP:People, WP:BIO or WP:GNG.
The Space Show	LINK	Mar 27, 2015	Yes (Article was filed in their main editorial space)	No (Source is weak and has nearly no notability)	Yes	The source cannot be used 'standalone' to establish it meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG.
Learning with Lowell	LINK	Aug 17, 2021	No	No (Source is not reliable and possibly spam).
NIAC	LINK	2005	No	No	No	PR booklet (in PDF) of an annual convention with nearly no mention of the subject. Poses COI with subject and does not demonstrate significance.
University of Cincinnati	LINK	Mar 2, 2021	No	No	No	Brief Uni profiles where the subject studied is unreliable and often self-publish. No indication as independent, reliable source with significant coverage.
Spaceplanes: From Airport to Spaceport	ISBN: 9780387765105	2009	--	No	--	Only mentions a few sentences of the subject. The company mentioned did not meet WP:GNG and the articlespace was deleted. Does not meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG. (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.)

Delete: The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. One of the sources is not reliable, the other of University of Cincinnati has a COI with the subject and is not reliable. See deletion discussion of Aerospace Research Systems, Inc., as another articlespace has been nominated for deletion with the same references. Multi7001 (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment:*Speedy keep: There appears to be a case for SK under WP:SKCRIT 2a obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured content or April Fools jokes) though perhaps obvious may be disputable. The article was newly created. The nomination is erroneous in claiming another articlespace has been nominated for deletion with the same references ... the difference here being Menges, Pamela (17 August 2021). "Dr. Rai Menges on Aliens, UFO/UAP, and Multidimensional Life #127" whereas uses Menges, Pamela (3 September 2019a). "20 years in Space with Female Founder, CEO, and Doctor Rai Menges Part 1".. I've really only become actively involved when the nom. here may a speedy deletion !vote at the ARSY AfD: [15] and also felt appropriate to raise a concern on their talk page ... dismissed as "Spam" [16] Following multiple changes to the initial nomination here, finally topped by this at the ARSY AfD, after having pinged me specifically, [17] concerns were dismissed with the comment: "removed spam from unknown user" [18] ... it is difficult for Multi7001 to claim I am an unknown user to them at "22:00, 16 September 2021‎". There are indicators (but not proof) the AfD nomination was prepared in haste and possibly in "red mist" ... This was initially raised at "01:33, 16 September 2021" ... the previous contribution was at "01:28, 16 September 2021" albeit at the ARSY AfD; a mere 5 minutes earlier. The ten minutes it look to keep adjusting the nomination is hardly a consideration of a considered before. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing speedy keep !vote relevant when made at Old revision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges when it was relevant, but now made to look daft by untimestamped alterations above this !vote. The relist gives this nomination a chance for a baseline fresh start, with the matter disruption to AfD to be dealt with at ANI/DRV at conclusion of the AfD. Thankyou. 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Two references were removed; the first is of an unreliable source and the other has nearly no mention of the subject and is a PR booklet for a convention. The remaining listed do not provide significant coverage from reliable sources, independent of the subject. The University of Cincinnati source is considered self-published due to COI, it is not independent of the subject, but may be used to verify biographical information. Overall, there is no established notability in the sources listed that indicates the subject's significance and fails WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a disruptive removal showing a lack of WP:COMPETENCY so I've reverted it. For people who are trying trying to delete an article there is generally no need to edit it unless there is a specific worry it might be retained. I am going to take a wikibreak to avoid being uncivil. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removed one likely spam link that was reverted from my edit; the source is unreliable. More independent, reliable sources are needed to establish it meets WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Multi7001: That repeated removal was distruptive per CITEREF and CITESPAM. I've put it back, The CITEREF disruption is not showing COMPETENCY and suggest referring for advice e.g. TEAHOUSE or if you think you are right feel free to take me to ANI on this for a PBLOCK on this article for myself. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark: Keep in mind: Wikipedia is a site open for any user to give their opinion. All opinions propagated in these AfD processes should be respected and be free of subjectivity. I assert that your edits/revisions lack objectivity; your behavior is also reminiscent of a user with a COI to the subject of the articlespace. Since I opened this deletion request, please allow the potential spam link to be removed from the articlespace without a revision and let the AfD process progress in a non-biased fashion for a decision if this subject should be deleted or kept. At this point, there is no indication that the subject meets WP:BIO, nor WP:GNG. Let other users decide. Multi7001 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Multi7001: I declare I have no more COI than on any one article I've heavily contributed to in a major fashion, save those mentioned on my user page, and perhaps trains related in general. OK I did briefly and fleeting consider leaving the missus and hopping on a transatlantic to the Bengals land on the off-chance of a possible liasion but felt the Lavant needs me. There's WP:COIN if you feel that way; if I self reported there on this I'd probably been seen as more super-weird than normal. I've again reverted as you seem to wish to continue to keeping breaking CITEREF on the article, Broken CITEREF can't happened, a bot might (or might not) revert it anyway, though I think it is dudes who eventually fix it. While you attempt to seemingly BLUDGEON that and the discussion here, I'd prefer to leave the matter here for other's to look at but if you wish to EDIT WAR the process to look at you're preferred version and to have the last work at this point that is your choice; there may be consequences. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark: I respect your opinion. I've already made multiple revisions and do not intend to continue with this tug-of-war-like revisioning. I've already listed my comment above on the possible conflicts with the subject and why it does not meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG, and will now let other users decide this AfD process. Multi7001 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on the following issues with the listed sources, in the same order that they appear [19] on the page as of this revision:

This is basically a blog and, if one reads carefully, likely a glorified interview made to look like an article. Not a reliable secondary source.
The subject appears twice in the book, once as a thank you for providing information and once as being the lead on a design project. No in-depth coverage and passing mentions only.
Interview, not a reliable secondary source.
Again, another interview. Not a reliable secondary source.
This is perhaps the strongest source; while it only mentions her on the title of one of the slides, I did a bit of research and this was when she was awarded a Phase I NASA grant (50-75K, according to the grant website). However, it appears that she never went on to Phase II of this program. So it looks like she was on the way somewhere, but I'm not sure if anything came of it. There were no other related news sources connected to this grant, that I could find anyway.
This bio page from the University of Cincinnati is also a primary source. Not good for establishing notability.

So far, one source only gives passing mentions, one source is a bio page, one is a preliminary grant that perhaps did not lead to further advancement, and the others are not reliable secondary sources. Of course, the fact that the article does not list sufficient appropriate sources does not, in and of itself, mean that it should be deleted. Keeping that in mind, I have tried finding other sources to establish notability, but have come up with nothing. No significant news items, no scholarly articles. She may have undoubtedly done good work, but she simply does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia; there needs to be more reliable, independent, secondary sources. Perhaps this is simply a case of WP:TOOSOON? -Pax Verbum 22:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pax85, in my opinion, this seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, the subject can't have its own articlespace over a pdf formatted PR booklet with nearly no mention of it. As I've said before, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, there needs to be in-depth coverage from 'multiple' reliable sources to establish it needs its own articlespace. Multi7001 (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD has been seriously, and I mean very serious, interfered with, and the nomination changed under minor edits. And that is a very, very serious matter as it disrupts the discussion. The book, (Bently, 2009) is sufficient for RS - it is to be remmembered this article encompasses both Menges and her companies. It goes beyond passing mention of the project, it is significant. The NIAC grant, which makes her a fellow is sufficient for RS. (Adkins, is not simply a blog, and her selection for that is important as is the advice, so it is not just glorified. Then comes onto the matters of the articles that link in here. Her 1995 report to the AAIA is significant. All interviews are WP:V for comments made by Menges herself, if attributed to her; her selection for interview however and research behind that can be a matter for RS; good journalists will identify the difference between what they have verified and what is attributed to the interviewee. She has claims her ARSY company was the first private venture space launch vehicle; its a credible claim but not a verifiable claim. However the flapping wings" are verifiable. The hocus pocus of the appearance of the out of order table at the start of the article attempting to re-incarnate the diabolical before is another matter. Of course in the end the onus is on the keeper. But I've turned to other matters while CIREREF's were being broken. I guess Menges was unluckly to be a woman in a male dominated profession, she blogged on that of course and that was picked up and re-published by an author. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note: The following user: Djm-leighpark, has had WP:COI with various past drafts moved to articlespace, possibly monetary trade. In my opinion, there may potentially be a conflict of interest between Djm-leighpark and the subject of this articlespace. Multi7001 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multi7001: I regard that as a personal attack but you are welcome to your concerns and please raise them WP:COIN or WP:COI; add a {{uw-coi}} to my user page or the paid equivalent to my user talk page or add {tl|Undisclosed paid}} to this article as you think fit. Indeed review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and follow procedure there. I hope I have been relatively clear to the community of how my disclosures on my userpage have arisen. Thankyou. 17:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following bundled article for co-consideration past this point, I expect it to fall if Pamela Rai Menges falls; if Menges remains it should be a redirect, and probably does not need disucssion unless someone objects to that: Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial neural membrane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following redirects for history will also fall if this article falls:Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aerospace Research Systems, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Star Sailor Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I contend the previous round of discussions had serious interference to the discussion process and also to the article itself resulting in withdrawal from both discussion and article improvement. However it is ultimately totally reasonable the fate of this article is considered at AfD to see the viewpoint of the community. However I would hope disruptive interference to the discussion and to the article will be dealt with promptly and severely. For the avoidance of doubt I strongly recommend the article Artificial neural membrane is considered at the same time, with that article having a result of redirect if Pamela Rai Menges survives at and delete if it does not. There are two key redirects (with history) that point to Pamela Rai Menges, namely Star Sailor Energy (SSE) (where I have commnets on the talk page) and Aerospace Research Systems, Inc (ARSY) ("Overturned to merge from delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc). From an RS point of view there is little additional directly present in the history of those articles that I can see but there are leads to stuff ... and dead-ends also at a ratio of e.g. 1:10+ ! ). For the avoidance of doubt I will likely be improving Menges article with WP:V sources and there is little point bringing those here, at some point in the next 168 hours, probably midwayish through it but subject to RL, my intention will be to bring the best sources here, there is no point CITEBOMBing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV per the source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. We have the (NIAC, 2005) grant, associated to a degree with her 1995 work; The (Bentley, 2009) reference remains good, significant mention of the subject. Menzies has more significance being the owner of company than than the brief mention; the article is a totality of Menzies and her companies. The AAAS (Adkins, 2019) work cannot be other than a moderated blog therefore RS; and backed by (Thompson, 2019). The Star Sailor work is fascinating but certainly over egged with limited trials that are difficult to cross verify; though the the SSFE PR claim should be cross verified that would be significant. The claim Los Alamos award might be notable; except that I haven't been able to find it or cross verify it. Menges was/is to a degree a master of getting innovation grants, getting patents, trademarking slogans, protecting innovations, claiming partnerships, and egging up future products. The irregularities with the first section seem to have continued influence here .. which remains an unbalanced. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Per source analysis but there isn't great consensus bop34 • talk • contribs 12:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fireal[edit]

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

There is no evidence of notability on the page. I tried proposing it for deletion but it was removed. I searched it up and most of the sources were just their YouTube channel or Facebook page. Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This page has existed for years and the band has given recently interviews to notable sources such as Metal World and EatMusic sites. They have won the Best Nordic Song award with Ana Johnsson (Spiderman 2). There is no reason for this deletion. TheInkakaiRises (talk) 24 September 2021 (UTC) — TheInkakaiRises (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete This page should not be deleted. Fireal has co-written "Breathe" with Max Martin which is shown in Max_Martin_production_discography. This was also announced in notable source Blabbermouth as shown here that also mentions Fireal featuring in the movie Priest of Evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leek36 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC) — Leek36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Striking. The SPI has concluded that, regardless of whether this !vote was made in good or bad faith, it is clearly either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry for a blocked user. This AfD has been semi-protected. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG by a long shot. - Aoidh (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails WP:GNG, WP:BAND. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: the SPA above has now been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Richard3120 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note possible sockpuppetry going on see the word for word "no delete" votes by two different users and this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheInkakaiRises. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "no delete" vote removed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPI closed with no action as canvassing cannot be ruled out based on evidence. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And re-opened and closed with some action; see above. :) Please report any further disruption. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BAND. If their popularity increases then they might merit an article in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination for deletion and all delete votes were placed before the article had been updated. New content has been added to bring the article up to compliance with WP:BAND, specifically sections 1, 2, and 10. The article currently documents several independent published sources featuring the band as a subject. As also documented in the article, the band had an album on Finland's national music chart and they have performed for 2 films (once under their former name and once under the name Fireal). This alone should constitute notability and should be enough reason not to delete the article. While they do not technically meet section 5 of WP:BAND because they only had one album, it was released under a major record label (Warner Music Finland). Additionally, under section 8 of WP:BAND, under the former band name, Fireal frontman Lit won a major award (an NRJ Music Award). Section 11 of WP:BAND is true but I am having trouble finding corroborating sources. If given more time, I believe a source could be found. Please note that I have been a longstanding fan of the band, however I have no external personal or professional relationship with them.Dragonsnowballcat (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC) — Dragonsnowballcat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article still fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND by a long shot, even with the new edits. - Aoidh (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why. "Musicians... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria... Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." At the very least, it meets that. Can you please be more specific? Thanks.Dragonsnowballcat (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets WP:GNG with three separate news releases from blabbermouth.net with non-trival coverage of band. Blabbermouth is listed as a reliable source at WP:MUSICRS. Meets criteria 1, 2, and 10 of WP:BAND and has had an album charted on IFPI Finland which is listed at WP:GOODCHARTS. These guys aren't the Beatles but they are notable by our own criteria and the article should not be deleted just because a few new users misbehaved.--John Cline (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases are not eligible for GNG; and the supposed meeting of NBAND is of purely academic interest if they fail GNG; as indicated at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria: " meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)" WP:N Additionally, the articles in question are independent, verifiable sources and not press releases ("any information deliberately sent to a reporter or media source").Dragonsnowballcat (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and said criteria clearly indicate that they are not absolute; so I don't see why you're insisting on that; and yes, the articles in question look like press releases, and even if they are not, they're really just routine announcements of upcoming albums - not significant coverage in the sense of GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Nominator requested to withdraw AFD discussion. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EPAM Systems[edit]

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

The article relies on primary sources and press-releases for verification. This company does not appear to meet our notability standard for corporations. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, I just read the previous 2 deletion discussions.

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) 06:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saandeep patel[edit]

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

This article is created with the first letter of the last name in small to bypass the deletion review. It was PROD deleted only a few days ago due to notability concerns and I am not seeing any thing different now. Reference 1 does not address the subject directly and in detail, Reference 2 & 3 talk about the films he directed rather than himself and mention him in passing. Fails WP:GNG & WP:FILMMAKER. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've also moved the article to the correct capitalization in the event the article is kept. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The concensus is that this meets the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dillinger And Capone[edit]

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

This would appear to me to fail the WP:NFILM test and most probably any other policies and guideline for film and television related content. It would appear that this was a just "direct-to-video" film. I can see that the article Jon Purdy has never been created. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Entertainment Weekly review cited in article. Another one at TV Guide [20]. Being "direct to video" does not automatically deem something non-noteworthy and should never be used as a deletion argument. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: I added the Entertainment Weekly reference. I'm just about to add a Rotten Tomatoes mention and look at your suggested reference. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not !voting; just merely wanted to state that this is like the 6th version of this article created (into mainspace) by the primary editor over just the past 2 days. There are a number of versions floating in draftspace under various names (just check the user's talk page for the links), so those should be checked if they have any valuable content this one left out. Curbon7 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: I believe that the creator copied the article content from the primary draft, Draft:Dillinger and Capone, see diff between draft and initial revision of this article. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've deleted 4 or 5 broken redirects for this article as it was moved around from main space to Draft space several times. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been history-merged into the article. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks notable, good references. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film was screened at multiple notable film festivals, including the Cannes Film Festival and MystFest in 1995. It then was acquired by Cinemax in 1996, and then HBO in 1997. I added refs to the article for those, and a review by critic Leonard Maltin. As such, it was not "direct to video" and with multiple independent reviews passes GNG and NFILM. My guest is a less then stellar reception at the film festivals led to the decision to shop the movie to cable tv instead of doing a release in theatres. 4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Renominated at MfD (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Turna (musician)[edit]

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

Music artist item which does not demonstrate notability. This has been moved back and forth between draft and main, without much improvement, and has also previously been deleted. See more at this version and also creator's TP. Eagleash (talk) 11:00, 24 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) 06:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian presidents by longevity[edit]

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

Useless list given the existence of List of presidents of Iran 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contentfork from List of presidents of Iran. Listcruft. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete we already have a list here: List of presidents of Iran#List. Masterhatch (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial cross-categorisation ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which is also statistical trivia and which fails to cite a single source, thus mot meeting either of WP:V or WP:LISTN, and probably violating WP:OR RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the reasons above. Spudlace (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all of the above reasons. I would add the article bizarrely states it is a list by longevity, but actually default-lists Iranian presidents by the date they assumed office. A 48-year-old man is ahead of men in their 60's, 70's, and 80's, and the article has been this way since its inception 11 years ago. The creator of the article was also perma-banned for being a sockpuppet less then two weeks after creating this article. All we need is List of presidents of Iran. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Girard[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a person with no strong or reliably sourced notability claim. The stated notability claim is that he once gave a TEDx talk, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- and other than that, the article is just an advertorialized résumé of every individual thing he's done in his career, referenced entirely to directory entries and staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own past or present employers rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about him or his work in real media to establish that it's been externally validated as significant. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG on media coverage about him in sources independent of himself. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to locate any independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt - No evidence of WP:SIGCOV can be found. The article reads like a resume. Gentleman wiki (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources that can be found anywhere else, and absolutely nothing in the article whatsoever that demonstrates any sort of notability. jp×g 01:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus expressed to delete the article, perhaps due to coverage under a different alias and nominator has since expressed favour at retention if renamed, which is supported by the only !vote offered. The renaming of an article is not a matter for AfD and if considered controversial could be discussed at WP:RM. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anwynn[edit]

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

An IP editor attempted an AfD here but left it incomplete, which led me to try to straighten things out. This band changed their name to InHuman in 2020 and got some reviews under that name. As Anwynn they got very little reliable coverage. All I could find was a brief review in a long list of other bands: [21], and this interview: [22]. All else is from the usual metal directory sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to InHuman - if the band has received coverage in its new form (and so is notable) then the article should be kept. But we should reflect the band's current form and name. What's the coverage like? St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews of InHuman's 2021 album seem a bit more robust than anything Anwynn ever got, but they should still be inspected for reliability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a search is really difficult because "inhuman" brings up so many unrelated results. But I assume you mean stuff like this? St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator - If there are no further votes, I can accept the idea of transforming the article to focus on the band's current name with a "formerly known as..." history, and can do the move/update myself. Their current incarnation still has questionable notability though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 24 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. No current delete votes and nominator withdrew in statement below. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Health Trust[edit]

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

Seems to be wholly unnotable, with next to no reliable sources discussing the trust, as well as a before search turning up nothing of relevance for sourcing. Seems to be heavily contributed to by editors with conflicts of interest. Perryprog (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perhaps a before search should include Proquest or newspapers.com. Here's some good sources - and the last two should have in Google: ProQuest 243825723, ProQuest 219441600 three, - okay, this one's a bit of a puff piece, but who can resist a headline. Nfitz (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, I did include a newspaper search and found nothing of relevance, but I can do a more thorough search when I wake back up. I unfortunately can't access either ProQuest article you linked, and it seems you linked the same thing for numbers three and four. The Calgary Herald source is useless for notability as it was paid for by the trust—this is stated both at the top and bottom of the article. Perryprog (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Perryprog! Thanks, I fixed the link for four! And I missed the paid bit - and I wasn't particularly serious about that one. There's other Calgary Herald articles - in particular this one - ProQuest 243825723. You should be able to get access to Proquest through the Wikipedia Library. Nfitz (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, oh, awesome, I totally forgot Wikipedia Library included ProQuest. This document seems to be moderately okay although I don't think it's really significant coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. Link four is probably the best here so far (I'm not sure why my searches didn't turn up any Calgary Herald stuff?), but it's also on its own. This still isn't close to being notable enough, as far as I can tell. (Even if you include the survey ProQuest article, it's still all from the Calgary Herald which isn't too desirable either.) Perryprog (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Weak Delete~~ Since this is an organization, the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP. Only one of the references posted by Nfitz above appears to meet the criteria for establishing notability. This ProQuest 243825723 reference starts out with a comment from the CEO but the rest of the article is in-depth and does not appear to be simple company boilerplate description. But the other references fail WP:NCORP in some form - either a simply business listing or no-indepth information on the company. Happy to revisit if someone turns up another reference but I'm unable to see anything other than announcements and passing mentions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be some coverage in this book, but I don't read French, so I can't comment on whether it supports notability in relation WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks 4meter4! Starting on page 158, there is a profile of a campaign run by the topic company called P.A.R.T.Y. (Prevent Alcohol and Risk-related Trauma in Youth) and although it does not have a lot of information about the topic company per se, in my opinion it just about squeaks it. I've changed my !vote accordingly. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @HighKing and 4meter4: oh, awesome! I think that's enough for me as well; I'm definitely swayed by your argument as well, HighKing. Perryprog (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) keep/withdraw: thanks to both HighKing's and 4meter4's votes and comments, I'm convinced enough that the corporation is notable enough. Perryprog (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aperregi[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations). ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 08:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 08:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the National Statistics Institute of Spain, ([23] (type "Aperregi" in the box that says "Nombre de la población")), this is a legally recognized populated place, meaning it passes WP:GEOLAND. Curbon7 (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly a recognised settlement. See this image of its nameboard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 29 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. This is a close and contentious one, but the weight of policy-and-guideline-based arguments seems to fall on the side of a redirect to a suitable place - the article subject prima facie passes a notability guideline, but vanishingly little content has been brought up that could be put into such an article. Deleting and/or redirecting also seems more favoured numerically. Bison X has asked that the history be preserved for a merge, so I won't actually be deleting - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC) David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jones (third baseman)[edit]

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

A baseball player about whom nothing is known except his last name and that he played one game. This makes him fail WP:GNG, and the article fail WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NOTSTATS. There is just not enough material about him to write a biographical article, as this article proves: it is essentially only about his one (unremarkable) game and his team, rather than about him as a person.

I assume that there is a special notability guideline that presumes the notability of somebody who played baseball at this level, but this presumption of notability can be rebutted if it is shown that the substantial coverage in reliable sources required by WP:GNG does not exist. In this case, the author of this article has apparently extensively researched the subject and has cited all kinds of match reports and baseball statistics, but nothing resembling substantial coverage of the man himself. Any presumption of notability has therefore been rebutted. Sandstein 08:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 08:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 08:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Passes WP:NBASE so this is a GNG question. I'm undecided for now. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore redirect. Fails GNG. The article pads out three short sentences and a line of statistics from a brief match report. I would restore the former redirect rather than delete in case his first name and other biographical details should ever be found. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the fluff that had nothing to do with the player which was about 40% of the article. Still could be trimmed down, but if his first name was known then we'd keep the article. It was an achievement to get almost 10K bytes about a 4 AB career - maybe written on a dare? ~~Keep but pare.~~ Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I want to look at this when I have more time. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bison X: I've restored the removed content; I don't see it as fluff, especially considering that Lewis (baseball) has very similar information. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He and players like him are already listed at List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. As currently written, the article and its listed sources seem more like a WP:COATRACK for his team's season and the lone game he played in, and little about Jones. The guideline WP:WHYN seems relevant: We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. I'll see what other sources can be identified.—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am currently working on this article, and I fully believe it should be kept. If it is deleted, what is to stop Lewis (baseball), a virtually identical article and a FA from being deleted as well? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a similar previous AfD for the aforementioned Lewis article had consensus to keep as well. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an extra note, since I removed the redirect, I've brought the article to B-class rating and a DYK appearance, and I plan to continue expanding it soon. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're missing the point. Half of that article isn't about Jones, it's about the Mets' season. You should be expanding and adding that to 1885 New York Metropolitans season. And bringing up another article only brings the questionablilty of that article into light. It seems the FA folks were focused on format, prose & sources, but not on content relative only to the player. I mean, since when do we consistently write about our references in the context of the article: baseball-reference was mentioned 6 times. Most of that article would be better off in 1890 Buffalo Bisons season. I believe expanding these articles is well-intended, but misguided. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Bison X: Yeah, I can see where you are coming from, although I do think that at least some background context surrounding the circumstances should be provided. In any case, if the content is to be removed, then it should be removed in both articles. I still am firmly against deletion. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - You could expand List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names with a few paragraphs on each player, and then a more detailed write-up on the team's season article (or even the team's main article). You could cross-reference the content with {{Main}} or {{Further}}. The content in this article seems salvageable split between the aforementioned pages. Just a thought. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - In any case, if the content is to be removed, then it should be removed in both articles: It's not necessarily WP:ALLORNOTHING. We need to evaluate this page on its own merits and context.—Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This guy is a very obscure player who had vanishingly little impact on the sport of baseball. The problem is that American baseball fans are religious about players and compiling stats & information. This makes it a virtual certainty that any player, no matter how obscure, will have enough written about them by reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. I also think it's bullshit to nominate someone for deletion solely because we don't know his first name. We don't know Jesus' "real" last name or even if he had one. The "true name" of the Abrahamic God (the Tetragrammaton) has been lost to time. While I don't think this player is on the level of importance of those two figures, the idea that because parts of someone's name were lost means they're not notable is not based in reality. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This makes it a virtual certainty that any player, no matter how obscure, will have enough written about them by reliable sources for a Wikipedia article: Feel free to identify the significant coverage of the person.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's length masks the fact that it contains only four sentences about Mr. Jones: "Defensively, Jones recorded two putouts and four assists." "When batting, Jones had one hit at four at bats, for a batting average of .250." "Both The New York Times and Sporting Life remarked that Jones had played 'a very good game'." "The New York Times said that Jones was expected to join the Metropolitans; however, Jones never played for the team again." This is not enough for an article, and I doubt that anything more will be found. Mlb96 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlb96: Yeah, I hope to expand the article with more information about Jones himself in the future. I only just created the article, and so there is not much info on the page yet. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to use some newspapers from Newspapers.com for the info, in case you are wondering where I am getting it from. A search for the keywords "Jones New York Metropolitans" from the year 1885 on the site yields many results. It is also worth noting that Lewis (baseball) is a very similar article and a featured article, and I hope to model my expansion of Jones after that. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also information in the sources listed in the article about Jones that I have not added yet, such as some statistics from Baseball-Reference. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A search for the keywords 'Jones New York Metropolitans' from the year 1885 on the site yields many results: The problem is that Newspapers.com searches look for those words on a page, not necessarily a specific article of that page. Jones being a generic name results in lots of pages seeming to match. A cursory search did not yield any relevant pages for this baseball player.—Bagumba (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Despite being 10 years old, consensus from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) is still sound, and applies to this article as well. However, I would have to agree with some other participants that much of this article is unfocused on Jones himself. Curbon7 (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointing out that the notability requirements in the 2011 Lewis AFD were different than today. The change took place in 2013. If I am reading correctly, one game alone is not notable: To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. [....] Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.[7] [Note-7 reads: Articles that are not sourced to published material providing significant coverage of the subject (beyond just statistics sites) may be nominated for deletion.] That same notability requirement in 2011 applied only to minor leaguers. I do not believe this player has enough independent sources about him (and him alone). Based on this, I would say Restore redirect. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Bison X: So are you saying that Lewis (baseball) should be redirected as well? Because if so, that brings up the topic of deleting a featured article. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Never said that. I said "Pointing out that the notability requirements in the 2011 Lewis AFD were different than today." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The rationale for the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) was basically Should we really be adding ones where baseball scholars have never been able to find the guy's name? This AfD is different, positing that the subject does not have enough coverage, not merely that we don't know his full name.—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NBASE, and the sources in the article are enough for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or restore redirect Fails to meet WP:GNG without significant coverage of the person from multiple, independent sources. The article is a WP:BOMBARDMENT of sources about his team and the lone game he played in, forming a WP:COATRACK for anything tangentially related to the person. Some have cited WP:NBASE, a subtopic of WP:NSPORTS, which states: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline ... conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. While the SNG is a shortcut that shows the subject is "likely to meet" GNG, examination of GNG itself shows the contrary. If the trivial details are removed from the bio, we are left with a stub. Per WP:WHYN: We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. WP:PRESERVE is already met by existing mention at List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names, which apparently this use to redirect to.—Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or restore redirect per Bagumba.4meter4 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or restore redirect. He played one game in a major north american professional league. Masterhatch (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it kind of silly? Yes. Is there some content here that isn't directly about Jones? Yes. But I see that there is an article at this title, and I'd go so far as to say it's a pretty good one, warts and all. Sure, there is not a lot of information available about the guy, but there's plenty of coverage (from the New York Times and Sporting Life). This seems to interface well with WP:GNG and WP:NBASE. I'm not sure how well WP:NOTNEWS applies to events which happened in 1885, and my coatracks don't feel particularly bombarded. It feels like the real issue at hand in this discussion is whether the article is silly; or, rather, whether it is silly for us to have an article about this guy. That's arguable, and it may even be true, but I don't think it really matters if our notability guidelines occasionally cause us to have a weird edge-case article that is kind of silly (not even bad): this is certainly not a bad enough article that we need to WP:IAR to delete it. jp×g 08:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NBASE. We have at least one featured article on a player who played only one game and is known only by his last name. For a subject over 100 years old the sources are not always readily available. Rlendog (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with redirect to the page of players where only a last name is known, but deletion without a redirect would be inappropriate. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect. NBASE provides a presumption of notability, but it's a rebuttable one. Jones fails the GNG, as Bagumba explains: some stats and a few sentences in the press do not significant coverage make. While the coatrack-esque tangents aren't necessarily bad, they don't contribute to notability, which is of course based on what reliable sources say about the person himself. Redirection ensures that no directly pertinent content is lost. And finally, this is hardly a novel position: precisely the same arguments carried the day at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball), which hasn't been mentioned above but seems directly on point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect as the subject does not meet the general notability guideline. The only sources which provide prose coverage about the subject are the New York Times article ("A new man covered third base for the local team. He is an amateur, and gave his name as "Jones". It is believed that he will join the Mets. He played a very good game") and the Sporting Life article (which says almost exactly the same thing and therefore likely isn't a separate source anyway). This is not significant coverage of the subject. The other sources are either statistics databases or are included for background only. The article is a good illustration of why the GNG exists, because with so little information about the subject to work with the article is instead almost entirely about his team and the (unremarkable) game he played in. I disagree that more sources are likely to exist, any sources would be published in the United States, in English, and would be in the public domain, making them likely to appear in digitised newspaper archives. Nor is it surprising that someone only known for playing in one unremarkable baseball game would not get much biographical coverage. WP:NSPORT is not a substitute for the GNG: "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". In this case the subject barely passes NSPORT but does not meet the GNG. Hut 8.5 07:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. I participated in the recent DRV, and !voted to overturn the close as keep. Just to confirm, I believe the correct policy decision here is to redirect, given that the article is not a bio - it's just an extended discussion about one baseball game - and there is no evidence that any sourcing exists on which a properly structured bio could be created. Thus it fails WP:GNG and it doesn't seem like the SNG applies in this particular instance. — Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin If the redirect is restored, I would like to merge/copy some condensed content into the New York Metropolitans article, 1885 New York Metropolitans season & List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names, so please preserve the page history for attribution. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NBASE#2 "...played one game with the New York Metropolitans". WP:N is specific that a subject must pass our SNG or GNG. This one passes our SNG. Lightburst (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS allows discretion: conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.—Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have used my discretion and interpreted the guideline. You are very active in this AfD refuting rationales that say Keep. Perhaps start an RFC like the one for Olympians. The guidelines show that an article has to pass one or the other. Those who favor deletion say they must pass both. And as always, one can find a rationale to delete or save any article based on the obfuscated guidelines, policies and essays. It is all about who shows up to argue in an AfD. Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: found The actual local clipping ~~bit more information about him~~- Apparently a very good player who would only give his name as Jones. Lightburst (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the source that was already in the article from the beginning. It's the only one with any actual information about Jones and there's basically nothing other than that. Silver seren^C 23:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Silver seren That was not the actual newspaper as seen in the article. I am finding a player who appears in 1885 right after this, who only went by Jones played for Cincinati. I am checking if it is the same person. My newspaper account, it is a tough slog. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is the same as this article, which is currently Reference #6 in the article. They are the same. Silver seren^C 00:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing that User:Silver seren. My point is that the article's clipping is not actually attributed to this newspaper - it says Sporting news - so I searched for the actual local newspaper. A small detail - I am still looking for more news of this Jones. Lightburst (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I love about research is finding odd news. People poisoning each other, and getting run over by trains - just sitting on tracks, and this little boy killed by a baseball in 1885. And some kind of baseball scandal in 1885. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Silver seren Thanks for that, I see that the same article is the one you showed me. I think I got mixed up only looking at the Sporting News article displayed in the article. Thanks and sorry I did not look closer at the existing refs or the one you shared with me. Lightburst (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect Most topics' SNGs serve only as stand-ins for the GNG, and for those topics the GNG has the final say; this principle is quite well-established. As pointed out by Bagumba, the first sentence of WP:NSPORTS (which contains NBASE) makes it extra clear that this is also the case here. Thus, keep opinions which are only based on the SNG (this seems to be most of them) ought to be disregarded when closing this AfD. Despite two reliable secondary (or are they secondary?) sources being cited, I don't think the amount of content in those sources can be considered significant coverage, so I think this fails the GNG. PJvanMill)talk( 00:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PJvanMill Or SNG is for pre twitter and internet folks. 1885 you didn't even have to give your full name to play in the bigs. Lightburst (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst No, the GNG is leading for the pre-internet era, too. The whole point of notability is to exclude subjects about which a proper article cannot be written. Everything in a Wikipedia article ought to be cited to reliable independent secondary sources, so I don't see how we can write a proper article about someone when very little content about the person exists in such sources. PJvanMill)talk( 10:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PJvanMill it is a longstanding disagreement. SNG - NBASE says he has to have played in one game, WP:N says subject must pass sng or gng. But we both know a person can turn up a contradictory essay, guideline or policy to support their delete rationale - or a redirect which is essentially also a delete. I have likely devoted enough time to this Jones character, there are articles to work on. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for an SNG to give a subject notability independent of meeting the GNG, e.g. WP:NPROF does this. The bit of WP:N which says that subjects can be notable through meeting an SNG means that SNGs can establish notability like this. However WP:NSPORTS does not establish notability independent of the GNG, the introduction makes it clear that it aims to set out when subjects are likely to meet the GNG. Hut 8.5 14:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you are exactly right, and I am exactly right. The myriad of possibilities creates obfuscation; especially at AfD. All that matters is who shows up to weigh in: and after any sort of backchannel Wikipedia process like ANI or DRV, the organic AfD process is sullied. Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst I am sure that you are exactly right, and I am exactly right: there is no right and wrong here, but there is consensus, which we're supposed to base our decisions on. Maybe you can get consensus to change the first sentence of WP:NSPORTS to turn it from a normal SNG that include[s] verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic into a special one that operate[s] according to principles that differ from the GNG (quoting WP:SNG), but until then, your argument is not based on the relevant guidelines. PJvanMill)talk( 15:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PJvanMillRight- we see what we want. You make my point. I see this. WP:N

A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and

2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. And NBASE which clearly says:

Baseball figures are presumed notable if they: 2. Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup, or Olympics) as a member of a national team.

My point is that we can raise the hurdle as high as we want based on our predisposition, or we can ferret out a sentence to support our position. But this one is over. The same occurred with Footy. Editors raised the bar, and it was the same four editors creating their quorum consensus. Carry on- there are other articles for us to visit. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst One key word in both of your quotes is "presumed". The point I'm making is that the presumption of notability offered by passing a normal SNG (normal, so not the specific exceptions which operate on different principles) can be overruled by failing the GNG. Yes, the the GNG and the normal SNGs both provide a presumption that the subject is suitable for an article, but a normal SNG offers less of a guarantee. The normal SNGs are subordinate to the GNG. This principle enjoys consensus, it is in the WP:SNG guideline and it is specifically stated in WP:NSPORTS as well. So no, it is really not in line with the guidelines to say that NSPORTS can overrule the GNG. PJvanMill)talk( 16:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: You quote WP:NBASE #2, but leave out the qualifying paragraph after the bulleted list: To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. [....] Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.[7] [Note-7 reads: Articles that are not sourced to published material providing significant coverage of the subject (beyond just statistics sites) may be nominated for deletion.] So, no: one game alone is not necessarily an automatic keep. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is as you say. Whatever consensus is established here or there or anywhere. It is rather pedantic to say SNG is trumped by GNG because it is exactly not what is stated in N. Look at the many Olympic athlete stubs - there is presently a discussion about their presumed notability. It is automatic? Or must we find non-trivial articles about pre-1924 Olympic athletes. I found it interesting anyway looking for clues about this Jones character. Lightburst (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst I will just point out that I have explained how your quotes are consistent with my view of the guidelines, but you have not explained how my quotes fit with your view. You have tried to 'counter' the parts of the guidelines that I pointed out by citing another part of the guidelines which you thought contradicted the parts I cited, but I've explained why there is no contradiction. So, I'm somewhat hopeful that if you just let your mind rest on the sentences The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic and This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person [...] is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia (emphases mine), you might come around to the same understanding of the guidelines as me. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 10:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PJvanMill I understand completely, that if you want something deleted...you will find something in the servers of Wikipedia to support that outcome. SNG exists for automatic notability. One game played in the NFL for instance. Automatic notability. You can raise or lower the bar based upon minutia or you can follow the SNG. It is a debate, and we have different interpretations, there is no reason to dumb down your argument for me, I have several college degrees. Seems several other participants here agree with me. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Now hving made my argument I have moved on. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect - there is not enough biographical information about the man to enable us to write an article about him that is verifiably accurate and suitably detailed. He fails GNG. I'm entirely happy that brief details from this attempt should be added to the list article etc..., but this is not a suitable subject for a full article in my view. I doubt the game - which is what the article is actually about as written - could justifiably be considered a notable one so that doesn't give me confidence that we should write an article about it either. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is common for people in past centuries to have little known about them because record-keeping was more onerous and the passage of time tends to destroy information. But the older the subject, the more cachet it acquires an antiquarian way and so that offsets the loss of information. The career of early sportsmen is of particular interest to sports historians because they were the pioneers who established foundations of the sport. And, as such articles are not BLPs there is no pressing reason to make them disappear. While notability is just a guideline, our policies such as WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE are supportive of retention in such cases and policies trump guidelines. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An option listed at WP:PRESERVE is having the original article turned into a redirect.—Bagumba (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- comparisons to Lewis (baseball) are inappropriate and a bit misleading. That player was notable for his very bad play, which sources commented on extensively. This sort of coverage does not seem to exist, and you wouldn't expect it to for someone who was OK but unexceptional in their only appearance. I also think if this article is retained (and the information is probably best presented in a list), all the extraneous blurble needs to go. Excessive discussion of the team's mediocre season, and the spelling of the name of the umpire in that one game (?!) are just there to pad the article out and mask the lack of content. That too is a bit misleading. Reyk _YO! 17:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. Apparently, in the period 1870 at to 1900, the unknown first name happened a lot in baseball. See the 34 names at List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. His existence is well enough documented. Baseball statistics (even obscure ones) are part of the fabric of baseball and its lore. WP:Not paper. You cannot say that Water babies do not exist unless you have seen them nonexisting. We ought not to rewrite history and make him disappear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not being disappeared; he's being preserved at the aforementioned list. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:PJvanMill User talk:Bison X User:Hut 8.5 User:Bagumba Can I have some other editor's eyes on this book reference? Jones may have been a formerly blacklisted player. The reference cited here says Cincinnati ~~traded~~ sold him to the Metropolitans in 1885 7 which ~~would~~ may square with our Jones here. He Went on to become an umpire? Yesterday I found quite a few news articles for a Cincinati player named Jones as well. Lightburst (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Lightburst (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It says Cincy sold him to NY in 1887 — I think you missed the period after "in 1885." I believe the player in your link is Charley Jones. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I was laboriously correcting that. This may be the same person - Charles Wesley who took on the name Jones is how I read it. Im am sad about the pepper in his eyes. lol Lightburst (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like original research to me, unless the source actually says they are the same person and not a different person who happens to have the same very common surname. As has been noted a bunch of baseball statistics sites don't list him as playing in any other game. Hut 8.5 08:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NBASE, which is adequate according to WP:N ("It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)"). This sort of content is what makes Wikipedia special to me, and why it is fantastic that it is WP:NOTPAPER and thus we do not have to limit ourself to well-known and popular topics. Plus, the article has been improved since nomination with sources such as [24] added by 7&6=Thirteen. NemesisAT (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "improvement" you refer to is WP:REFBOMB fluff that he's trivially mentioned there, there, and there, and then WP:OR that he's not to be confused with another player with surname Jones that no source says that there is any confusion to begin with.—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, evidently I was confused as I had thought that article was referring to this player. Regardless, I stand by my keep vote per my above comment and disagree that the addition of two references is WP:REFBOMBing. NemesisAT (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same team, within a year, and same last name. In a newly formed league. Easily confused. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect I've just finished removing all of the padding fluff about the team's season and extra information that has nothing to do with Jones (such as the umpire's name being misspelled added in as some sort of relevant information). There was an amazing amount of padding material put into this article to make it appear Jones was more important than he was. He absolutely fails the GNG, which is the only notability requirement that matters in the end. The SNGs only exist to give presumed notability to an article subject, suggesting that there would be sources out there to meet the GNG. But if an actual exhaustive search is given for such sources and not found, then the SNG is ultimately failed and the presumed notability found to be wrong. Hence, the subject is non-notable. The closer should disregard any Keep votes above trying to say the SNG overrides the GNG. These claims are a complete failure to understand notability on Wikipedia. Silver seren^C 18:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N reads "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right" (emphasis mine). I think it is fair to interpret that as passing WP:NBASE is enough, and I disagree with your comments about what the closure should or shouldn't do. NemesisAT (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is because of the presumed notability of the SNGs. Read the first line at the top of WP:NBASE (which is actually WP:NSPORT), "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." Every article on Wikipedia has to meet the WP:GNG. That is how notability is determined on Wikipedia. The only purpose of the SNGs is to give presumed notability that an article subject would meet the GNG. But if an actual search for sources finds that to be wrong, then the GNG is failed, as is the SNG and its presumed notability. Silver seren^C 19:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people argue the other way with WP:NCORP. They say meeting GNG is not enough because the article must meet NCORP. So after reading these conflicting views, personally I'll stick to what it says at the top of WP:N which is that meeting either GNG or an SNG is enough. NemesisAT (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's because most of WP:NCORP specifies how the GNG should be interpreted for that topic area (what kinds of sources are acceptable for showing that an organisation meets the GNG). WP:NSPORTS is very different, it explicitly sets out criteria which are supposed to indicate the subject is likely to meet the GNG and doesn't pretend that they automatically make something notable. Hut 8.5 19:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Silver seren I never understand why editors becomes so invested in a deletion. Like your comments, telling a closer to dismiss rationales that do not shout demand we scrub this article from the project. A phrase comes to mind: You don't have to blow out my candle to make yours glow brighter. You have made your rationale clear, now you demand in bold that the closer jettisons this article and poor Jones into oblivion. Let's move on. Lightburst (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, schmotable, this is not an article about Mr Jones. It's an article about a single game of baseball played on 30 April 1885. We've published that article under Jones' name, but if we changed the title to what the article's actually about, then suddenly the whole matter becomes incredibly clear: a description of one baseball game can't survive as a separate article. Of course, we could change its scope to focus more on Mr Jones, but at that point our article is about one person's role in a game of baseball played on 30 April 1885. So I think we've exhausted all the alternatives to deletion. Delete. —S Marshall T/C 22:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect If someone played one game and no one bothered to even record his first name, there's inherently a lack of notability. The concept that playing a single game – significant coverage be damned – means automatic notability is misguided and antithetical to encyclopedic standards. While playing in Major League Baseball today may give a presumption of coverage, it's intellectually lazy to equate that level of skill and experience to an amateur who stood in once in 1885, and NBASE is irrelevant. User:S Marshall is correct: this is not a biographical article and there is no basis to apply notability as such: it's a mere statistic of one player in one game. Reywas92^Talk 02:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me - Delete/redirect The true gymnastics of the absurdity of this article and the blatant OR (namely WP:SYNTH) violations are astounding. He played one baseball game, and the only things known about him are what he did during that game. The substance of this article about him can be boiled down to a mere two sentences: "A new man covered third base for the local team. He is an amateur, and gave his name as "Jones."" Defensively, Jones recorded two putouts and four assists. When batting, Jones had one hit at four at bats, for a batting average of .250. The rest is all fluff about the teams or the match, not about our anonymous protagonist. Maybe an article ought be written about this particularly baseball game. This is WP:1EVENT at best and simple trivia at worst. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun pal singh[edit]

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

not notable by usual wp standards. No clear sources. DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual, fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7. Mccapra (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced autobiography, fails GNG JW 1961^Talk 10:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 19:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JW 1961^Talk 19:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, honestly I think this could have been speedied under A7, no sources and no claims to notability whatsoever. Just some guy. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think there's enough of a plausible claim to significance (a very low bar) to save this from A7 speedy deletion, but I don't see much of a case for WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or any other actual notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or userfy. WP:TOOSOON, bad formatting/style, likely self-promotion, but can archive it under the creator's userpage. Could be reworked into something over the years to come. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should have been A7'd. Zero notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:17, 27 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 List of hospitals in Guatemala. Withdrawn - redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Medico (Guatemala)[edit]

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

No significant sources located on a search. Even searching in Spanish for "Centro Medico"+"Ciudad de Guatemala" I didn't find any substantive independent coverage of the hospital. It exists, certainly, but it doesn't appear to be reported about in any depth that I can find.

There is a lot of noise from the fact that "centro medico" is itself a common phrase meaning "medical centre" but even adding the city doesn't help.

The reference to the Rough Guide to Guatemala appears to be in error - page 69 is all about accommodations and taxis and doesn't even contain the word "medico" let alone anything about a hospital.

When it was de-PROD'd, it was suggested to be merged to List of hospitals in Guatemala - but that's a cross-namespace redirect to a category with only two members in it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. I'm happy to reconsider if further references are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC) Hello PMC, yes I am happy to! Redirecting or merging is a good solution here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrsSnoozyTurtle, are you ok to strike or change to redirect so this can be withdrawn as redirect/merge? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of hospitals in Guatemala. This is a major hospital in a country with very thin medical facilities. It would be ridiculous if Wikipedia does not even mention it somewhere and our "list" is reduced to just one item. By comparison List of hospitals in Manhattan has hundreds of entries. The page is capable of some expansion, from [25] for instance, as well as from its own website [26]. The guatemala.com site (my first link) would also serve to start to fill out an initial list. SpinningSpark 08:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying to merge it to this list, but there is no list to merge it to, as it is a redirect to the category. "Capable of expansion" is not a notability criteria, and the city guide website you linked to isn't on its own sufficient coverage for a keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realise the list is actually a redirect. I am suggesting create an article there. There is easily enough in sources to justify that even if individual hospital articles cannot be supported. Either way, deletion is not the answer here per WP:ATD. SpinningSpark 08:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw if you'd like to create the list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, deal. I've created the list page with the two we have articles and will list more tomorrow. SpinningSpark 21:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to list I looked for coverage and didn't find anything besides two (if i'm remembering correctly) regurgitated press releases. In theory, I think most hospitals should have articles (they're important to communities and usually receive news coverage), but we really don't have enough to write an article here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to list agree with Calliopejen1 and Spinningspark Heythereimaguy (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list – It is an important hospital here, but the few results that are not directory listings seem to be press releases as stated. I'll be happy to help expand the list when I have a chance. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:55, 25 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) 02:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Research Asia[edit]

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

Thisis essentiallyadvertising, and in any case not worth aseparate article DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- promotional article, topic is best covered in the existing Microsoft Research article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom BJackJS talk 19:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Clearly does not warrant a distinct Wikipedia article. Gentleman wiki (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom - no rationale for deletion after a revert to a clean version. Editing at late night caused me to confuse "created in August" with "maintenance tag added in August" so I forgot to check the edit history. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gentrification of Portland, Oregon[edit]

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

An essay that says almost nothing about the nominal topic of gentrification in Portland, Oregon. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an older version may be acceptable; it's still a one-paragraph stub but that is a massive improvement over the current mess. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Just Google "Gentrification Portland, Oregon" -- you'll see there are plenty of sources. Also, this nomination offers no assessment of secondary coverage or lack thereof. ~~Feel free to revert the article to an older version.~~ I've reverted the article to an older version (leaving the AfD tag on top). This article just needs work, not to be deleted. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 04:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has been covered several times in The New York Times (examples from 2018 and 2008) and Washington Post (example from 2015), including a book review about a novel where gentrification in the city apparently plays a key role (I have not read it, so I'll trust the reviewer). Sounder Bruce 04:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is clear coverage in RS, even in the revised stub. Please read AFD is not cleanup before nominating additional messy articles, and please withdraw this nomination to reduce unnecessary work for closers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. @力: I've reverted to the version you say 'may be acceptable'. If you don't think sourcing is a concern here, please withdraw the nomination, otherwise you're wasting editors' time. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 05:06, 24 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) 02:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. The article is a summary of a news story from 2014, with minor updates that don't reflect any further investigations. We should not have a news ticker of hundreds of non-notable cases. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:LISTN. KidAd • SPEAK 04:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my only issue with the article is the inclusion of the term ‘open’ in the title, which as the nominator says, would make it a news-tracking piece. In fact the text of the article makes clear it isn’t news and the cases discussed aren’t in fact all open. The topic of which institutions since 2014 have been under investigation is sufficiently well sourced to be notable. I’d just move it to a new title without the word ‘open’. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation (trivial cross-categorisation based on an item which fails WP:NOTNEWS). There's no indication of lasting significance of this (WP:NTEMPORARY), and although I can find coverage of Title IX itself (including in academic sources - for ex. [27]), I can't find anything that suggests a list of all institutions which were at some point in time subject to an investigation under it is an encyclopedic topic (thus failing WP:LISTN). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:RandomCanadian's well-articulated comment above. It is unimaginable (and contrary to the role of Wikipedia) for this article to be updated actively enough to remain current, and even if sources existed that could be used to do so (they don't, as far as I can tell), this is the core of WP:NOTNEWS. While we're at it, we also have enough sources to write and maintain Current length of Taylor Swift's hair, List of planes currently in the air and Most recent hamburger eaten by the President of the United States. jp×g 00:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a CSD G11. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelous MMW[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NMUSIC, sources are self published and don’t meet WP:GNG. A Google search doesn’t provide anything. Xclusivzik (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep still notable BrightjY (talk) 7:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete This article was entirely copied from the Simple wikipedia and already Tagged for deletion by RFD.This article seems to be self created article (promotion of this artist)}} no reliable sources, this is entirely a promotion delete102.23.96.18 (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Not copied from simple Wikipedia BrightjY

(talk) 4:10, September 2021

BrightjY, you are welcome to add a further comment in answer to another editor's post after your first comment, but you should give a bold "keep" or "delete" only once. That makes it easy for editors to see at a glance how many people have indicated support for each of those options. JBW (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - not even close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO and makes no actual claim to notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Simply not notable. An autobiography presumably. Wishing the subject success. Princess of Ara 19:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Doesn't claim notability. There are no reliable sources about them at all, so fails the general notability guideline. Also note the cross-wiki spam... --Ferien (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Still notable and on webstrian news BrightjY (talk 5:37, 25 September 2021

Hi @BrightjY you are allowed to make further comments but !voting twice is not allowed. Kindly take note. Princess of Ara 19:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article creator now globally locked as a spam-only account. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotion or spam105.112.106.62 (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's more of a promotion adding all his social media profiles as external links plus the topic is not even notable.-Idoghor Melody (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion - non notable KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious case of G11 (tagged as such) and trout the nominator for wasting everyone's time when this did not require AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:21, 30 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) 02:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WinZO[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this since it was restored considering there was not enough participation at last AFD and was closed as soft delete. Same rational, no WP:CORPDEPTH. Seems to written to promote the company. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, does WP:REFUND not have any consideration to deny for a clear COI editor? The editor in question works for the company. At least 3 others are in the edit history, one of which was already indefinite blocked and the other had the company name in their name. -- ferret (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I've indefinitely pblocked the editor who requested refund from the article. -- ferret (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ferret. There are so many such restorations. I have to keep going back to my logs to see if something I PROD'd was brought back. I think when restoring, there should be a discussion on notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment it can be keep on WP because of Awards, however, sources are not good!. ZEP55 (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CORPDEPTH and the example list of trivial coverage, including brief/passing mentions for non-notable awards. These are all non-notable awards. -- ferret (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 22:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Gentleman wiki (talk) 19:02, 30 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.