Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 25	September 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alpura (company)[edit]

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

Too promotional and the sources are primary. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 19:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just scrolling through the first 3 pages of a google books search revealed multiple independent RS with significant coverage that would easily pass WP:NCORP. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed.4meter4 (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination cites fixable problems rather than reasons for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the above, once the promotional material is redacted and once secondary sources are added (like these ones [1][2]), this could be an excellent article. Sources like those obviously do meet SIGCOV requirements. Patiodweller (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Slott[edit]

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

Bio of a financial planning expert with major COI concerns. Although the subject is an author and prolific commentator I am not finding in depth coverage in RIS to support this. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is a challenging one. PROQUEST/newspapers.com is getting thousands of hits; simply because he is widely quoted in major newspapers (literally hundreds of articles in major American newspapers). However, I am not actually finding much coverage of him directly even though he is frequently quoted for interviews in IRA and tax related news coverage. He's clearly an established expert given the large body of articles for which he has been quoted as an expert (The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, etc.). The only thing I can find is interviews like [3]. Then we have AARP, promoting him as the nation's leading expert in retirement financial planning and promoting his writing [4]. Here is a decent review of his most recent book [5]. Given that so many major outlets are quoting him and going to him for an expert opinion and he appears to have a large impact on retirement planning in America, I am going to say this is a keep per criteria 1 of WP:AUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per 4meter4's analysis. Seems to have made a notable contribution to his field, as confirmed by multiple reliable sources. Significant coverage is the gold standard, but WP:ANYBIO is still relevant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 4meter4, though I personally feel the interview for being WP:PRIMARY and the Forbes Article being written by a contributor, per WP:FORBESCON these aren't of much value while considering notability. But the other references are sufficient to establish his notability. The Public training section should be shortened. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Community Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Ward330 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:WEB per multiple independent refs in the article and those located in google books. Not clear the a competent WP:BEFORE was done by the nominator. Here are a few examples from google books: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc.4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per above references - also I did a quick Proquest search, which finds other significant coverage. Nfitz (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet entrepreneurs[edit]

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

List article does not meet WP:NLIST- lacks clearly defined inclusion criteria supported by sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Search results return lists of Internet entrepreneurs by certain categories, especially by wealth, success or country. Among them are [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18], but I don't know if they're good enough for the article to meet WP:NLIST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One sourced, easily a magnet for non-notables to be thrown onto the list with no scrutiny. The category system works better for a list like this. Nate • (chatter) 00:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Astig. A clearer criteria for inclusion/focus to the list could be sorted out through editorial consensus on the talk page. 4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 23:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should keep lists which can aid navigation or provide information and I would say the list fits in WP:LISTN. It is not indiscriminate and the list is defined. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crombie REIT[edit]

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

Promotional article. Does not meet WP:NCORP since sources are largely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A company that is a component of a stock market index such as the S&P/TSX Composite Index can be expected to be notable. As well, there are several good references in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatically, see WP:LISTED. We need references, I've check for analyst reports but the first quick check hasn't turned up anything although it is "covered" by analysts. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain.4meter4 (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: HighKing's concerns have not been addressed by participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 23:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is a component of a major stock index.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Catechism (Hardon)[edit]

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

This is completely unsourced, and I could do little better. I found one book review of which what I could read was fairly negative. Besides that there were a few mentions in blog posts which appear to have been more about the authr than about the book. The rather purple claim that it "remains a standard work on Catholic orthodoxy even to this day" I could not verify; indeed, it's not all that clear that many people cared. Searching on this was somewhat hindered by numerous false hits if one didn't specify the exact title, and by Google's wish to give me something even if it didn't really match the search, so perha[s someone can salvage this, but thus far the only real source for the article would appear to be the book itself, maybe. Mangoe (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book seems to have a lot of citations on Google Scholar. It's possible that there might be in-depth coverage in some of them, but I'm not quite able to check through all of them quickly. I'd be surprised if this doesn't wind up meeting WP:NBOOK, but I don't have affirmative evidence that it does. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moderately well-known even to non-catholics such as myself. I'm unhappy that this proposal includes the comment "I found one book review of which what I could read was fairly negative": whether a review is positive or negative is not material to a book's notability. I think it's fairly clear that the book meets criterion 3 of WP:NBOOK: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." RomanSpa (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's also worth noting that the book was commissioned by Pope Paul VI himself, which might on its own create notability. RomanSpa (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meet WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews, article has been updated to reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved since nomination by the addition of references to significant coverage such as reviews in reliable secondary publications so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NBOOK after improvements.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:NBOOK.4meter4 (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it has many reviews and citations, and the negativity of a review does not impact notability whatsoever.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Oliver (actor)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his significant roles qualify him WP:NACTOR#1. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't describe a role in a TV show for one or two episodes as "significant"; the role of Joseph Stalin might be significant in Bitter Harvest, but I don't think that significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions is met by the roles shown. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is primarily active as a stage actor; mainly regional things but also the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal National Theatre. I added multiple critical reviews for productions he has been in from respected publications. These are enough to pass criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR in conjunction with the Bitter Harvest film. I would also argue the recurring role on Game of Thrones and the portrayal of Herod in the religious miniseries about Jesus might lend some notability too towards NACTOR criteria 1.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Western Flyer. ✗plicit 23:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Charles (musician)[edit]

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

Autobiography. This lead guitarist and vocalist is not independently notable from his country music band, the Western Flyer. Much of the content on this page is unsourced. Mottezen (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly Redirect to Western Flyer. Definitely an autobiography as seen in the article's early edit history, and besides, who else cares that he once lived in Stow, OH or what he got credit for in college. Outside of Western Flyer, he is only ever mentioned briefly in the credits for other people's works and articles about them, and his behind-the-scenes career has gained no significant and reliable coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious vanity page. No significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Western Flyer; there just isn't anything here demonstrating notability, although I'd be willing to change my opinion if someone provided sources saying otherwise. jp×g 01:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Western Flyer. Not independently notable.4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 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 withdrawn by nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dick van Dijk (darts player)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. A search through LexisNexis yielded the following secondary independent in-depth coverage that makes this darting world champion easily pass WP:GNG (the archives of those newspaper's websites unfortunately don't go this far back):

"Dick van Dijk zit Van Barneveld op de hielen" (Dick van Dijk is on Van Barneveld's heels) – De Gelderlander (6 November 2003)

"Darter Van Dijk wereldkampioen" (Darter Van Dijk world champion) – NU.nl (1 October 2005)

"Dick van Dijk grijpt in Perth wereldtitel darts" (Dick van Dijk takes darting world title in Perth) – Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant (3 October 2005)

"Voorop: Dick van Dijk is opvolger van Barney" (In front: Dick van Dijk is successor of Barney) – Brabants Dagblad (3 October 2005)

"Darter Dick van Dijk voor zware opgave" (Darter Dick van Dijk at the beginning of a tough task) – De Telegraaf (20 October 2005)

"Dick van Dijk slaapt in ander bed bij zijn 'thuiswedstrijd'" (Dick van Dijk sleeps in a different bed ahead of his 'home game') – De Gelderlander (5 May 2006)

Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:35, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Heart Gallery[edit]

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

Defunct gallery with minimum PR and no indication of notability – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor coverage, nothing in depth to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defunct gallery fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:45, 28 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 23:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Territory dependent on the Patriarch[edit]

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

There is no source which defines the subject, and the notability of the subject is dubious. Veverve (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- I would suggest Eastern Catholic territories dependent on patriarchs. This is essentially a list article, so that it does not require sources: the sources will be within the articles listed. Part of my reason for wanting a rename is that there appear to be three patriarchs involved, Jerusalem, Antioch and Babylon (Baghdad). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: This lists five patriarchs. And I do not see why the exact same information one can find on this website should be put on Wikipedia, as it would not provide any added value especially since the article does not reliably define the subject of the article. Veverve (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly a source. However, as I read the linked articles, there are three Catholic denominations (rites), each with its own patriarch, who directly exercises jurisdiction over a non-diocesan territory. I thought this was worth ONE article. I did not find this clearly expressed on gcatholic website. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 26 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) 🐱 18:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete At a minimum this needs some citation for the lead sentence, and yes, there do need to be some sources for the various entries. As it stands, it fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 22:30, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joca (footballer, born 1998)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL. Footballer whose professional play only consists of 71 minutes (no cup matches). Plays on the fourth tier without having broken through there either. Geschichte (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GS above. Nowhere near GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose passes NFOOTY, and has active semi-pro career.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so concerned with NFOOTY? Have you not seen the 100+ AFDs that support this deletion proposal? Geschichte (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem any credible denial of the claims by nom and GS. As far as WP:NFOOTY, at the top of that guideline's page, it's noted that NFOOTY is merely a rule of thumb; passing it does not mean that an article must be kept. Given the facts of this case, deletion is the way to go. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:00, 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 23:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Science Show[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Searching on Google only yields blogs and distribution platforms. Searching on Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News Archives, and the Internet Archive yield no relevant results. Searching on Newspapers.com yields multiple sources discussion a show with the same name, but it appears to be a live show hosted by a different person (Tim Perkins in Florida not the West brothers in Australia). There are very few results when looking at "What links here" and the show doesn't appear to have won any awards so it doesn't pass WP:WEBCRIT. It also doesn't appear that James West is notable so I don't know if it's really worth redirecting or merging any content there. I'll do a WP:BEFORE and probably open an WP:AfD for that article as well. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:05, 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 Rename. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean Catholic Territory Dependent on the Patriarch of Jerusalem[edit]

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

There is no source which defines the subject, and the notability of the subject is dubious. Veverve (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- The article actually says it is dependent on the Patriarch of Babylon, and run since 1970 by officials with various titles, initially vicar-general. It is not a diocese, but might become one. I would suggest Chaldean Catholic Territory of Jerusalem. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 19 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) 16:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Yes, I agree with Peterkingiron - needs a rename. This nameing is awkward - seems to be an official catholic religious area, for which there are references, including - see link here Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:19, 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 keep. Editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in the discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hex (Poison Girls album)[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NALBUM. There have been no significant reviews that I have been able to locate in Newspapers.com or Rock Backpages. I have added the Newspapers.com one to the article, but it essentially just says that the album was "essentially one song" in an article not written about the album.

Rock Backpages only has 7 articles about the band, of which only one mentions the album and confirms the songs.

Trouser Press devoted a couple sentences to the album, saying that it "makes no grand statements" and that that liked its guitar. This is not a non-trivial review of the album.

AllMusic never reviewed the album, so I am confused as to why it would give it 2 stars. As disclosure, I removed a rating from Trouser Press that failed verification as the source never rated the album as was stated in the Wikipedia article.

Based on what I have been able to find, this article does not meet the bar of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." (1), never charted (see official charts having 0 results) (2), was certified gold (3), won a major award (4), performed on a notable medium (5), been on rotation that I can confirm with sources (6), or been "a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network" (7). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though this was released in 1979, it was still selling well enough 2 years later to make the Independent Albums chart. It would certainly have received coverage at the time of its release, and there is coverage online, including a Pitchfork Review of a reissue, a Tinymixtapes review, as well as coverage in Matthew Worley's book No Future, and the aforementioned coverage in Trouser Press. --Michig (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not enough for WP:NALBUM. Spudlace (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Google books also has quality RS which can be used to meet WP:NALBUM and GNG. See [19], [20], [21]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Michig and 4meter4. Meets WP:NALBUM criterion 1. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Mountain Road[edit]

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

Uncited, non-notable local road. Bitmapped (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. It is likely that more are available offline for this long-established road, named after an obsolete name for a local mountain. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited sources establish only that this road exists; they don't provide any reason why the road might be notable. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(highways)#Secondary state highways and county highways, I would not object if this page were redirected to a list along the lines of List of county roads in Hampshire County, West Virginia, if such a list exists or is created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The cited sources do not establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90.4meter4 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mule Creek Junction, Wyoming[edit]

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

Unpopulated named intersection area does not have significant coverage to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. The article is mostly a general overview of regional history and roads in the area, very little of which is specific to Mule Creek Junction. –dlthewave ☎ 15:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This intersection is much better documented than both. It has historical markers: "Several historical and scenic markers at the rest area describe the setting." I added references to an innovative toilet system at the rest stop and to a former diner at this location. I think notability has now been demonstrated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historical markers are common at rest areas, but they're often more about the general area than the specific location. Do we know what the ones here cover? –dlthewave ☎ 18:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see how this area meets WP:GEOLAND. My searches have not turned up anything. Lightburst (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete In point of fact one can look at the various markers through the wonders of Google's picture collectors. One is a standard Blue Star Memorial Highway marker, and the others are the sorts of regional interest stuff one often finds at a rest stop. None of them says anything about a settlement here. It's just a crossroads. Mangoe (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This used to be an inhabited location, and there are 159 newspaper results from Wyoming about it from 1929 onwards. In 1956 it is referred to as "a small community in Niobrara County". In 1964, it was a "little community of 30 people". There's also a mention in 1985. An anti-rustling task force was organized there in 1997, and in 1999 it was referred to as a hamlet which had a store, restaurant and bar (which burned down that same year). jp×g 23:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have been a formerly inhabited place that was destroyed by a fire in 1999. Added some sources to show it meets GNG and GEOLAND. Is notable if nothing else for its rest stop. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was at one point a populated place.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPxG.4meter4 (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Dragon[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else was found on a WP:BEFORE search. The Film Creator (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing that shows this movie passes WP:NFILM. I also didn't see coverage that shows that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 13:35, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Education Otherwise[edit]

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

None of the sources cited were reliable and the article seemed to be written like an advertisment (despite being for a charity.) The first paragraph is directly copied from their website, educationotherwise.org. I couldn't seem to find any reliable sources with any significant amount of information about them, so their notability is doubtful too. Aalaa324 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article leaves a lot to be desired, but this is a significantly notable organisation, with plenty of coverage in printed media. Rathfelder (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What printed media? Do you have any examples?

Cited by Government Committee (PDF)

Referenced by local authorities

The go-to organisation for articles in the press

and The BBC. etc. etc. Lame Name (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having worked to get the initial article into an, admittedly poorly, but often reliably, sourced, acceptable form it is disappointing to see it reduced to its current state. This seems to be in part due to a few minutes of edits by Imaginationeducation who's only contributions seem to have removed substantial elements of this article, including referenced content, apparently because it was "out of date". Lame Name (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Unsigned above appears to be User:Aalaa324 Lightburst (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rathfelder makes a good case that we have RS to V this charity's notability. We have surmountable problems here. Lightburst (talk) 16:48, 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 23:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Davis (attorney)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. I couldn't find much on Google regarding his role as Great Lakes Czar in the Obama administration, suggesting that the role isn't very notable. The sources provided in the article are either non-independent or unreliable. Only one pertinent source (Huffington Post) appears to meet WP:RSP.

His role in the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, a unit of local government, is non-notable per WP:NPOL. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article about a lawyer simply doing his/her job. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. As a Czar he has significant coverage where he is the main subject. The best of which is James Janega (June 21, 2009). "Guardian of the Great Lakes: Obama Names Cameron Davis to organize restoration effort". Chicago Tribune. p. 3a.; a substantial article on Davis. Additionally, he has been criticized in media in that role in major publications like: "Obama's Many Policy Czar's Draw Ire From Conservatives". The Washington Post. 16 September 2009. p. A6 S. The Czar position was controvercial and has gotten significant coverage. This book provides some context to his role in the Obama administration which was divisive This book analyzes Davis's contributions to an article in The New York Times. There is a profile of him in this book. Here are a few articles he was interviewed for: [22], [23], Other coverage, includes [24], [25], [26], [27], Additionally, there are a lot of primary government sources in google books, and there are many articles in Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, and The New York Times in which he is interviewed for his opinions or policy making in regards to water management/ environmental issues extending back to the mid 1990s. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have notability WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Just a jumble of archived PDFs for sources. KidAd • SPEAK 00:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gitali Devi[edit]

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

It was rejected 4 times by reviewers (User_talk:Bhargab.01), and moved to main space without improvements, and issues with WP:NBIO and WP:NM ~AntanO4task (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable still (I already declined twice as Draft:Gitali Devi) - Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - little to no coverage from third party sources.-KH-1 (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS coverage, no indication of notability. The bio on what I presume is the subject's Instagram page suggests that the article writer is her social media manager. Image licencing looks sus too - if he's the SM manager, then the copyright of the image (which is rather obviously a selfie) does not belong to him, and thus is not "own work". W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{t | c} 07:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not any sources, can't pass GNG. ZEP55 (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:25, 28 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 14:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portuguese monarchs by longevity[edit]

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

Absolutely obvious WP:CFORK of List of Portuguese monarchs, which already includes all of this information; and not sorted according to an arbitrary criterion which fails WP:LISTN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other list has the exact same issues: that content is also covered at the main list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree, why have 2 lists of the same thing but in a different order.Masterhatch (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary content fork. Mccapra (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic purpose to such a list unless the criterion has actually been discussed significantly in IRS, which it has not. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. The article is just a useless WP:CFORK with some WP:TRIVIA sprinkled in. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of vice presidents of India by longevity[edit]

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

Trivial cross-categorisation ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which is also statistical trivia. The only cited sources (most of the footnotes are not actual sources) are for non-topic mentioning statements of unrelated facts. The rest fails WP:V, WP:LISTN, and probably violating WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I created this page, but now I realize that it is just trivial information. Per recent deletion discussions of "list of president/prime minister" of various nations, this should be deleted. Though, I should note that this probably doesn't violate WP:OR, as all the facts are indeed verifiable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Masterhatch (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Mccapra (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Listcruft.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:58, 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 23:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of state by longevity (batch 2)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Trivial cross-categorisations ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which are also statistical trivia and which fail to cite a single source, thus mot meeting either of WP:V or WP:LISTN, and probably violating WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. Fails WP:V, WP:LISTN, and likely with serious WP:OR issues. The various related articles, such as List of heads of state of Greece, are all we need and of a far higher quality, not these redundant WP:TRIVIA regurgitations. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all passes WP:NLIST and scrapes by WP:GNG in my opinion 2001:8003:24D1:A000:2CEB:C26A:6ECD:B209 (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC) — 2001:8003:24D1:A000:2CEB:C26A:6ECD:B209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note The above IP had an incorrect and misleading signature. This was corrected. Additionally, on the substance of the comment; opinions that something meets GNG are not worth anything if they are not substantiated by actual sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All pass WP:SYNTH, WP:NLIST, WP:NOTSTATS. Recent precedent shows consensus that these types of lists are definitely encyclopedic. Green Hook 1224 (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC) — Green Hook 1224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Green Hook 1224 Can you provide link to that discussion? — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's simply too many of these list articles, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pratishtha Sharma[edit]

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

She has done dance performances at places and founded a dance college. Coverage is shallow. Not notable for article. Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Efforts have been made over the course of the past 30 months to get the sourcing of this article improved. I reviewed all the sources provided back in 2019 and found nothing usable; and nothing of note has been added since. It seemed to me then that it was possible that better sources might be found in Hindi, but again nothing has been located in all this time, so it seems that Sharma simply isn't notable. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong but we will need much better quality sources for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hindu Article [28] has merit. If similar two more sources were to be found, this could be kept. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom and User:Chiswick excellent comments. The so-called Bharat College of Performing Arts is simply a yoga studio accepting children as young as 3 years old according to their own website. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:56, 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 redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. I discounted the 'close' argument, which seems to me to fall into 'assume bad faith' territory. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. This article would be enough to stablish notability if it hadn't appeared in the Daily Mail. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. A dalliance with a female groom may be fit for a rag like the Daily Mail, but hardly constitutes notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close as out of process. This AFD was launched less than 5 minutes after unrelated edits elsewhere. Absolutely zero chance WP:BEFORE was even considered. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment user:Stalwart111, you are making allegations of what is going on in someone else's head (on several pages) and misjudging it. As has been recommended to WIkiproject Notability before, the aim when assessing CAT:NN is partly to make sure AfD is never inundated, and so I keep an eye on numbers in the system, and delay nominating until there is more space for them, and then put them in together. Monitoring and assessing CAT:NN is a difficult balancing act. We won't always get it right, but are trying our best. This deserves to be judged on its merits, or lack thereof, not on what you guess has been going on in a stranger's brain. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - What nonsense! The majority of your nominations are completed less than 2 minutes after edits elsewhere. With a massive 5-minute gap, this one is an anomaly. There's no way you're completing anything close to what WP:BEFORE requires and your nominations are just disruptive. Eventually someone will have the guts to block you. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Very little of the article is actually about the individual in question.2601:241:300:B610:D158:6D5E:6128:D10C (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets because the Daily Mail is not good enough coverage.--Creoda (talk) 12:30, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dunford Wood[edit]

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

This is partly a procedural nomination. The person exists. He is a chef, but all - or almost all - of the references do not even mention his name. When you do a Google search on his name, you get very little of any value. Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, only one reference mentions this chef. General notability is not satisfied here. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is potentially some quality RS in google books: most notably this French language book where there is a profile of him: [29]. Snippet views/ blocked pages prevent getting a closer look at what looks the most promising. (such as [30]; [31]; My university library search yielded some of his recipes in The Independent and The Guardian, and I did find some interviews in culinary magazines, but we usually don't consider that independent enough to count towards RS at AFD. His 2017 cookbook Modern British Food: Recipes from Parlour may have reviews somewhere to count towards notability. Basically, I found a few good leads but nothing that definitely establishes notability. Not convinced yet that there isn't RS out there to be confident in a delete vote either.4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think he's notable, the French book mentioned is more like a travel guide, the author picks favorite things and writes a bit about them. The rest don't seem more important. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Nocera[edit]

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

promotional biography of a newspaper columnist, sourced to his own work. The purpose of his job is to give his opinions; the purpose of WP is not to repeat them. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He meets WP:AUTHOR with 3 Gerald Loeb Awards and a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary finalist spot, among other national-level awards. At least some of his books look like they meet WP:NBOOK. No objection to heavy pruning. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs with most awards, having a Pulitzer Prize is notable . Being merely a finalist for one is not. The Loeb awards are specialist awards for business journalism given in multiple categories, and therefore less important than thePulitzer Prize whcih represent the peak of the entire profession of journalism in the US. Previous practice at WP confirms it: Looking at he lists of award winners, I notice that only about 1/5 of the people listed have a WP article, and in almost all cases it's for other accomplishments, such as editor in chief of a major news service.

But I would not have noticed this article were it not almost all of the contents were long sections advocating his views, sourced to himself. It is, for example, not encyclopedic content that he supports fracking, or to give a list of the universities whose athletic policies he has criticized. This is spam, and puffery to increase the number of links. My decision whether to bother nominating borderline people for deletion is the degree of promotionalism and puffery and over-coverage in the article. There are far too many articles in WP about people who really shouldn't behere to try to remove them all. (If they are truly very notable it's another matter--then it can be enough to emove the promotionalism --unless the supporters refuse to let it get removed DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Hydronium^~Hydroxide in keeping the article as Nocera has notable achievements but perhaps pruning it. I think points brought up by DGG should be addressed. Tale.Spin (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Prune the article for superfluous content, and what of encyclopedic value is left? Doesn't seem like much at all would be left. Regardless of whether or not the man is notable, is there anything of value to readers to say about him? The article reads like a list of tangential facts about the person rather than anything that distinguishes him. If it would not be acceptable to publish an article consisting only of some notable person's name and picture with a blank article, I presume It should not be acceptable to publish an article with a notable person's name and picture followed by a lot of unimportant or fluff content. 23:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC). (comment by User:Cameron Brow)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First off, there are dead links and sources that are authored by the subject. Those need to be removed or reduced. Furthermore, there are reliable sources, independent of the subject that establishes notability, which includes the Pulitzer Prize nomination and the other award sources. The subject is clearly a highly respected figure in his industry. It should be a keep for now, but there should be more sources independent of the subject added later on. Multi7001 (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This seems like an obvious keep to me. Nocera has been a noted writer and columnist for decades. He would probably be notable even if he'd only ever been editorial director at Fortune. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certain competitive awards are so notable that even being a finalist makes a subject notable. (The Oscars and Grammys come to mind). I would consider the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism in the same league. WP:ANYBIO includes nominations for this reason. Passes criteria 4c of WP:JOURNALIST per being selected as a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. 4meter4 (talk) 00:04, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QuickSun Technologies[edit]

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

Only cites two sources. One is not independent, and the other is just a simple listing of information. Fails our notability standard for organizations. Coolperson177 (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolperson177 (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolperson177 (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non-notable at this time , DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete can't pass GNG. ZEP55 (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails NCORP and GNG. TheChronium 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Muthukumara Samy Temple, Vennandur[edit]

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

Small insignificant temple with no sources available online. Given sources are fake. Venkat TL (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG is not met. Why are the sources fake? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- Appears to fail WP:GEOFEAT. Cannot find significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:lacks coverage WP:SIGCOV fails GNG DEFCON5 (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former heads of state by longevity (batch 1)[edit]

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

Trivial cross-categorisations ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which are also statistical trivia and which fail to cite a single source, thus mot meeting either of WP:V or WP:LISTN, and probably violating WP:OR (along with some outrageously unencyclopedic stuff) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batch nomination; the same concerns apply throughout, and frankly I'd be really surprised if there's any of these "List of [former heads of state/other political office] by longevity" which is appropriate encyclopedic material instead of being mere trivia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We don't need 2 lists of the same thing but in a different order. Masterhatch (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. Fails WP:V, WP:LISTN, and with serious WP:OR concerns. The various related articles, such as List of heads of state of Bulgaria, are all we need and of a far higher quality, not these redundant WP:TRIVIA regurgitations. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NLIST and scrapes by WP:GNG in my opinion 2001:8003:24D1:A000:2CEB:C26A:6ECD:B209 (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC) -- 2001:8003:24D1:A000:2CEB:C26A:6ECD:B209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
- Note The above IP had an incorrect and misleading signature. This was corrected. Additionally, on the substance of the comment; opinions that something meets GNG are not worth anything if they are not substantiated by actual sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All pass WP:SYNTH, WP:NLIST, WP:NOTSTATS. Recent precedent shows consensus that these types of lists are definitely encyclopedic. Green Hook 1224 (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC) — Green Hook 1224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above SPA comment has the additional problem of being entirely without evidence to support its claims. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my goodness, how many of these frivolous list articles are there? GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 00:30, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Valley Camp & Resort[edit]

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

This hotel doesn't seem to have received any significant coverage in any WP:RS. I can find listings in Tripadvisor, Airbnb, Facebook etc. but every hotel has this and it's insufficient to pass WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a hotel directory. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an unremarkable hotel with no significant coverage. I was tempted to tag as A7. firefly ( t · c ) 11:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it come under a commercial organisation for purposes of A7? I know A7 criteria are quite strict so I didn't think hotels/buildings could be deleted under A7. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would likely meet A7 {{Db-inc}} for corporations/business. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per as the nominator. Non-notable hotel. No reliable sources. Does not meet with WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD guideline. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 11:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 28 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. Hog Farm _Talk 06:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koprivna, Oštra Luka[edit]

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

Non-notable village. Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND guideline. References are not reliable. No notability. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 11:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 11:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 11:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty and with respect, this nomination seems to me like a waste of time. The village is "Populated, legally recognized place" and is as such presumed to be notable. Even abandoned places are considered notable and often places without legal recognition. Here we have officially recognized settlement with over 500 inhabitants (per the 2013 census, and I have no idea why Tajwar claims that the official census data is unreliable source).--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Taj: I understand that you're relatively new around here. However, this is one of multiple frivolous nominations that you've brought to AfD recently. There are many various notability guidelines, and many are complex; I urge that you give a thorough read of the respective WP:SNGs, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, before you do more nominations that are, quite frankly, wastes of time. This locale is a legally regocnized populated place, meaning it passes WP:GEOLAND. Curbon7 (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep yet another mundane gazetteer entry per WP:5P1. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement per WP:GEOLAND. May I respectfully suggest that the nominator familiarises himself with Wikipedia notability guidelines before nominating anything else for deletion. On the strength of current nominations, he doesn't have a great deal of familiarity with them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for German-Polish Cooperation[edit]

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

No references for now. Non-notable. Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:ORG guideline. I've searched on google but didn't find any reliable, independent, secondary source. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found references by searching for the German and Polish names of the foundation. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: My language is Bengali. So I can't find references by searching for the German and Polish names of the foundation. Thanks ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 11:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:OR: " the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language" -GorgonaJS (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tajwar.thesuperman I don't read German, but I can still search for something using GScholar, for example, using a German name of the organization, and then google translating the results... just a hint about how to improve your BEFORE next time you want to AfD a topic where some sources may be in a language you don't speak. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also found references by searching for the German and Polish names of the foundation. Polish sources are reliable. -GorgonaJS (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It n ow has sufficient references. Rathfelder (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article is still poorly sourced, but a search for the Polish name "Fundacja Współpracy Polsko-Niemieckiej" reveals some reliable academic RS: [32], [33]. Given that two academic articles seem to focus on this NGO in depth, plus there are various mentions in passing, I think it passes NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hin Dat railway station[edit]

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

Non-notable. Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:STATION#Stations guideline. I've searched 'Hin Dat railway station' on google but didn't find any reliable, secondary, independent source. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All railway stations are automatically notable. You need to consider the references that are already in the article, not just what you find with Google. The two Japanese-language books (I have added translations of their titles) look like very useful references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are three sources already in the article. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed Foursquare, which is not a reliable source. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All railway stations are automatically notable as per Eastmain's argument. I believe this situation is also clear since it is a railway 'station' NOT a railway 'halt', a point of which was raised in the nomination for deletion of Aviation Academy railway halt six years ago and even then, consensus was to keep the article.Bahndosi (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as I know, railway stations are not automatically notable, and a 2019 RfC indeed found no consensus to support the claim. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The station is very much WP:MILL, and I have not seen any piece of information about it that goes beyond the general directory listing. The Japanese-language book sources are inaccessible to me, and I would appreciate if Bahndosi could provide some context as to what degree of coverage they provide that is specific to this station, and confirm that he/she actually used them as sources (rather than just slapping them on as citations without actually having read them). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article has now only 2 sources which have no link. ➤ Tajwar ^Chat? 14:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:OFFLINESOURCES, from what I can see it is not unreasonable that the books could possibly have significant coverage of this station, so will be Wp:AGF that they do. Jumpytoo Talk 19:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. WP:MILL is subjective, personally I value individual station articles and feel they improve Wikipedia. I feel having an article for every railway station is an easy way to create consistency and avoid repeated discussion over what stations are and aren't notable. NemesisAT (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Northeastern Line (Thailand)#Stations_list, which has the exact same information with much less padding. A section on "notable stations" in the article on the rail line implies that this one isn't one of them. And it really isn't hard to tell the difference: notable stations as a rule are notable buildings. Mangoe (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All railway stations are regarded as notable by longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:STATION (an essay on notability) says delete if not a major station or on a busy line. (If not, merge to the line article.) WP:RAILOUTCOMES tells that rail stations routinely survive AfD. However, the best advice is found in in the 2019 RfC mentioned by Paul_012 is that rail stations and halts should routinely survive NPP provided two notability criteria are met. I am going with this last one, it has very good considerations. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:19, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Saraswat[edit]

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

Not a notable lyricist. Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks coverage; couldn’t find secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:1E. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:11, 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 keep: withdrawn by nominator and no !votes to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

R. Radhakrishnan[edit]

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

No independent WP:RS available and article has no sources. Fails WP:BIO. - SUN EYE 1 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, Other users have added awards and sources and updated more of his works since the nomination. - SUN EYE 1 04:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article can use some help but easily passes WP:PROF#C5 The Banner talk 08:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there by independent WP:RS in the first place. As per WP:NACADEMIC, Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable., are there any reliable sources? - SUN EYE 1 10:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The University of California, Irvine, is reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger It is not independent to pass WP:BIO and most of its content is very likely written by him, it even has a section called "My Wikipedia site is: R. Radhakrishnan" and the " Research Abstract" section starts with "I am now completing a couple of booklength manuscripts...." - SUN EYE 1 12:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for WP:PROF#C5 is "reliable", not "independent". It's even explained in black and white in section (a) of that criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 10:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm recusing from this one because I work for the same university, but I added several more book reviews to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is "Chancellor's Professor" considered a named chair? JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That one I do have significant knowledge of (I have both held the title and chaired the committee that reviewed candidates for the title). There's a description at [34]. It's not an endowed chair because it doesn't come with any money (it's just a job title, like "Distinguished Professor"). In practice it's at a level significantly above full professor, roughly corresponding to fellows of major societies (one of the markers the committee looks for in its evaluations). It's a step below Distinguished Professor, though. At the University of California, faculty are ranked at "steps" within each major rank (assistant professor 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, associate 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, full professor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or above scale). At the full professor level the normal time to progress from one step to the next is three years, but progress is not automatic; each step involves an evaluation of recent scholarship and teaching, and if these aren't good enough it's possible to get stuck at some steps and stop progressing. Chancellor's Professor is separate from the step system but wouldn't normally be given until a faculty member has reached at least full professor step six (so, 15 years from promotion to full), and Distinguished Professor is currently equivalent to full professor above scale (one more step past the highest numbered step, step nine); both of those steps involve whole-career reviews like those to associate or full. We also have titles like "University Professor" that are even higher-level than that. You'll have to judge for yourself how that compares with WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Wow, that is a lot more ranking gradation than I would have ever anticipated. It sounds like in addition to now being distinguished there's a good chance he's also a fellow of a major society if that's a criterion for promotion? JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, we go to all this effort and for what? Nobody outside the system can be expected to understand it. Anyway, re the fellowship, not necessarily. If he were a fellow, that would have been persuasive evidence that he was also at the level expected for Chancellor's Professor, but he's in the humanities and they don't have as many fellowship-offering societies as the science and engineering disciplines, so more likely other evidence would have been used to make that decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears that since our article was written he has become a Distinguished Professor; see his name in the list at [35]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep then. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per C5. JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per The Banner. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established in the sources. Multi7001 (talk) 22:52, 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NuWave[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. After an initial search, I could not find any independent sources. ––FormalDude talk 07:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 07:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - however, it is disturbing that formaldude seems to be doing this out of spite because I caught a poor edit made by him about adding a product the company produces. Nonetheless, there are few non-promotional citations and probably chould be deleted. SanVeneto (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SanVeneto: I'm not doing it out of spite, but your comment on my talk page did cause me to look into the article further and come to the conclusion that it should be taken here. ––FormalDude talk 03:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadeesh V Viswam[edit]

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

Most sources I could find are sources related to the subject, eg. social media, and other probably-independent sources I could find cannot establish notability per WP:NBIO or WP:GNG —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 07:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 07:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 07:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage defcon5 (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:BIO. strictly self-promotional Rogermx (talk) 14:14, 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 Withdrawn, sources were found and added to the article--Ymblanter (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikel Zarrabeitia Ipiña[edit]

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

From what I understand, the subject never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:NPSPORTS. The four sources in the article duly mention his name in relation to transfers and do not discuss how he played etc, which means he fails WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets NFOOTY. SD Amorebieta was promoted to Segunda División which is WP:FPL for 2021/2, and Zarrabeitia has already appeared in a game this season in the fully professional league. It is likely he will appear in further games. Also there is coverage of him, such this piece. You need to search for "Mikel Zarrabeitia", because sources usually don't use the Ipiña suffix. He is also one of the team captains for the season.--Mvqr (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, in 2011 Amorebieta was promoted to Segunda División B, which is not a professional league, and only in 2021 was promoted to Segunda División which is fully professional.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is 2011 relevant? Zarrabeitia did not play in 2011. I posted on 2021/2, the current season, in which Zarrabeitia already has a NFOOTY game.--Mvqr (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread your comment. 2021 would be relevant but is not mentioned in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets with WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:NFOOTY. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 11:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL per Soccerway. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as error, and move to omit Ipiña. Geschichte (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:09, 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sosthenes Bitok[edit]

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

The article seems to be written by someone close to the topic or someone who had encountered the person in one way or the other thus the article or part of the article does not seem to be written in a neutral point of view. i.e “He was emotionally and very physically abusive . As a child I witnessed him beating my mun with a dry acacia and see big her bleed from it. ” What does that really mean?? Idoghor Melody (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Idoghor Melody (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What you are seeing just looks like vandalism to me. That can easily be fixed without deletion, and I will do so now. — 2pou (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 2pou. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 08:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He’s an Olympian, so automatically notable. Mccapra (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absent any reason for deletion beyond being vandalised. The creator of the article was a prolific author of biographies of athletes and I'm sure has no connection to the subject at all. Hut 8.5 16:53, 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 snowball delete. Daniel (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Joe Biden[edit]

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

This is a political protest slogan that isn't notable. Some people said "Fuck Joe Biden" at college football games and that's been of course covered by conservative press, there's no long-term significance here or in-depth coverage of the phrase itself. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails to meet WP:GNG. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every big-stage politician has a profane chant; this certainly isn't unique, and has no unique vocal register (I have flags in my neighborhood with this phrase, for instance, which have had it since the moment Biden clinched the nom). Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To quote a character from Full Metal Jacket - "What's that supposed to be. Some kind of sick joke?" GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:NOTASOAPBOX - I'm guessing we can triple the number of current articles if we have one for every hate chant. MarnetteD|Talk 00:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not urban dictionary, and this phrase does not meet the standards for notability. Many things have been chanted at college football games, we don't have articles on all of them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a bumper sticker. Bkatcher (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Semiprotected this AfD for a while to discourage the vandal. Apologies to any legitimate IP editors: please feel free to contribute to the AfD when the protection expires. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the above WP:NOTASOAPBOX,and Bkatcher and Trainsandotherthings. Also, bloody hell, EC x 3. He iro 00:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails notability, currently fits G10 standards. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fuck is a notable topic. Joe Biden is too. A chant combining the two is not. Borderline G10 case. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this time. If there is a phenomenon of these chants occurring at college football games, and these chants gain continued coverage by reliable sources as a phenomenon that's sweeping across college football crowds, then an article on the topic could pass WP:NEVENT without running afoul of WP:EVENTCRIT #4. However, this doesn't appear to be the case for this chant; it seems like this is just reporting on a viral phenomenon (at least for now). Of the articles in the source, the New York Post and Newsweek articles were published on the same day, while an article in a college newspaper published on one week later. I'm also seeing coverage from September 7 from MEAWW, another source from September 13 from a local newsorg, a The Root piece from September 14, and a Dutch(?) sports news site from September 20. I'm not sure this constitutes continued coverage, though if this is something that's popping up again and again, week after week, then it very well could become a phenomenon that's worthy of inclusion. Might that happen? It doesn't matter; we're not a crystal ball. Because the article doesn't currently appear to pass WP:NEVENT, it should be deleted at this time. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This phenomenon is continuing. See https://twitter.com/ScooterCasterNY/status/1441817704483196932?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1441817704483196932%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.complex.com%2Flife%2Fvideo-staten-island-mall-crowd-chant-fuck-joe-biden-food-court-protest-vaccine-mandate, https://twitter.com/OldRowSports/status/1441846723203125248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1441846723203125248%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_. To quote Alice's Restaurant, "You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement." Wait another few weeks and see if this continues. I suspect this is going to become a significant political / cultural issue. Mike Friedman (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn’t a crystal ball, in case you missed it. And please don’t use lengthy song quotes with offensive slurs in them in place of arguments, even if you aren’t trying to annoy or insult people. Dronebogus (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An incredibly mundane combination of words with little substantive basis for an article. "Fuck Trump" was also pretty common for a while, and I imagine we could find sources for "Fuck X person" for any prominent figure with some controversy who's existed in the past 30 years. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under Snow - just a phrase, you hear similar at rallies and the like all the time. Doesn't mean it's anything, it's a relatively standard phrase to come up with, nothing original or new about it whatsoever. Similar has been heard for rallies against almost every other political leader in history. It's not even a phrase, just a common enough sentence construction. Even the original article creator said it's a fad. Canterbury Tail talk 16:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Delete most of the article, however, the information provided can make an appearance on Public image of Joe Biden. Kurt Hartman 17:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some icy precipitation falling from the sky. dudhhr_Contribs 19:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — What Muboshgu said + don’t you just abhor articles with 0 encyclopedic value? coupled with Wikipedia isn’t an indiscriminate collection of any & all articles then this becomes a no-brainer which ought to be WP:SNOW speedy deleted. Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Sanctorum" slur has no encyclopedic value, yet there it sits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ansoumane Fofana[edit]

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

The individual appears to fail WP:NTRACK, and it's an unsourced BLP. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in my opinion he fails WP:SPORTCRIT. A semi-finalist in one European Indoor Championships. If he were more prolific it would be an encyclopedic article, but not now. Geschichte (talk) 18:21, 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. ✗plicit 05:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Ander Olasagasti[edit]

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

Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:NTRACK guideline. The references are details. Not a newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies and academic journals. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 04:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 04:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tajwar.thesuperman: Nonsensical nomination. Subject passes WP:NFOOTY after playing in a WP:FPL. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of what the NFOOTY guideline says, passing mentions in routine coverage of 2nd division football matches does not meet the WP:GNG policy. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - young player who has just made his professional debut and passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Soccerway, he has debuted in the last few days in Segunda División, a league listed at WP:FPL as fully professional therefore meeting NFOOTBALL JW 1961^Talk 10:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GS/JW above. Debut in an FPL means he passes NFOOTY, though expansion is needed. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY subject is 21 years and has a ongoing career see little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTY. Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merle Junction, Iowa[edit]

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

Non-notable railroad junction mislabeled as a community. I don't believe the column in the Lenox Time Table about trivial goings-on in the area [36][37][38][39][40] meets the burden of WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 04:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found this description of the facilities at the junction, which was originally the crossing of two CB&Q line before the westward portion of the one was abandoned in the 1940s. A barrage of rail-related hits (large numbers of which are for the abandonment) but nothing indicating a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that two men were arrested there in 1928, and if I understand correctly, sentenced to 25 years for a robbery amounting to 23 cents, which is pretty messed up. In 1943 it is mentioned again, in the context of being a rail junction. These are the only newspaper results talking about it at all; I do not see evidence that it was a settlement at any point. jp×g 23:41, 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 04:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lapham Junction, Wisconsin[edit]

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

Non-notable railroad junction mislabeled as a community. Found very few newspaper results, none of which cover the location in detail. –dlthewave ☎ 04:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I get a zillion rail-related hits, and nothing that even vaguely suggests a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Increase A. Lapham, as a honourable mention of the naturalist. Djflem (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't strike me as a good outcome, given that Lapham's article isn't going to say anything significant about the place. Mangoe (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to say that the rail junction in the woods was named in his honor, which is about him and the place. Djflem (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two results, both copies of the same article from November 1957, saying that some birds were released there once. Nothing to me indicates that anyone ever lived here, or that it was used as a landmark. jp×g 02:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm getting passing mentions as a rail feature, and those two references to releasing wild turkeys there that JPxG found. Coverage is not significant. Hog Farm _Talk 05:36, 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus Cervas[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Google search turned up only mentions, no significant coverage so far as I could see Java Hurricane 04:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per JavaHurricane. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JavaHurricane. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he worked on notable shows and films, I couldn't find anything other than the usual databases, social media, retail sites and trivial mentions. Most of the time he appears in the context of Spongebob, so expect to see his name in a lot of sites related to the sponge. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:19, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Hosford[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks independent coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan J. Brothers[edit]

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

WP:AUTO and fails WP:ACADEMIC notability tests --LStravaganz (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Note this has been previously discussed for deletion, but that was 15 years ago and notability criteria have progressed significantly since then. Reasons for nominating for deletion:
- Clearly an WP:AUTO because its main contributor is User:Hjb, very likely the subject himself given the initials. There is a second contributor who makes frequent edits (User:GiantSteps), whom I suspect knows HJB personally. Both means that there is a serious WP:CONFLICT.
- HJB fails the WP:ACADEMIC notability tests:
  - His mathematical contributions, while impressive-sounding to the layperson, are relatively small-scale within the discipline itself.
    - His main contribution is discovering a slightly-faster converging sequence for the Euler constant e. Firstly, this result has only been cited 34 times since its publication in 1998, which is a tiny number and suggests it is not exactly a breakthrough in maths. Secondly, incremental improvements in algorithms are published all the time; there is nothing really that special about HJB's work beyond the pop-science "wow" factor of the Euler's constant.
    - There is a blatant embellishment where the article claims "these methods subsequently found their way into the standard college calculus curriculum by way of two popular textbooks on the subject." This implies HJB's results have become standard teaching in university mathematics. However, if one actually looks in the cited R.Larson textbooks, HJB's series expansion for e isn't listed anywhere. Instead, on pg. 638 of the 2014 edition, where the Maclaurian polynomial for e^x is introduced, there is a footnote encouraging students to see "how to use series to obtain other approximatins for e", with a reference to HJB's 1998 paper. This reference is probably more because the paper contains a lot of known series in its background sections; Larson at no point actually refers to HJB's original research.
    - One does not become notable by collaborating with famous mathematicians (one of whom isn't even named, instead referred to only as "a well-known mathematician at Scientific American"). Should we write Wiki biographies for every undergraduate who does summer vacation research with famous mathematicians?
    - Nor is being an amateur mathematician with no formal training noteworthy, especially when the corpus of one's work is small, only totalling 113 non-patent citations in 23 years. Regular academics publish multiple papers annually, each with tens/hundreds of citations. Countless people publish outside their fields all the time; for example, medical doctors frequently publish in bioinformatics. I also don't know why going back to uni to study (presumably undergraduate) calculus is a particularly impressive feat.
  - There is almost zero secondary-source coverage for "Harlan J. Brothers" or "Harlan Brothers" on a Google/Google Books search. There is a very small nod to HJB here, but it is buried among others about amateur mathematiciains in general and does not actually discuss the impact of his work. To meet the notability tests, there needs to be a lot more secondary and independent commentary, especially important for an autobiography.
- When this article was first nominated for deletion in 2006, the editors suggested that a lot more work be done to improve the language and turn it away from being a vanity article. However, the text in today's article is largely unchanged from a 2005 version. Moreover, previous recent edits (such as this one) contained blatantly self-promoting sections, possibly indicating the authors' intentions of using this BLP as a vanity piece.
- TL;DR His amateur status is admittedly interesting, and so is his work on the music+maths intersection, but the corpus of his work needs to be far greater and way more independently-commented upon to deserve notability. No amount of article cleanup or rewriting can change the underlying reason that HJB simply isn't notable enough at this stage to deserve a biography here (let alone an autobiography) -- LStravaganz (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs some cleanup due the reasons given above, but I think it should be kept as interesting. --Bduke (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per LStravaganz. It's possible to be notable as an amateur mathematician, but you have to be noticed by someone other than yourself. Almost all of what I can find on him appears to be his own publicity. That he is so little cited, despite working in the sorts of areas that normally attract enormous amounts of amateur-maths attention (relationship between maths and music, fractals etc., areas where every discount bookshop has half a shelf of popular maths texts) indicates that he hasn't really made a splash. I can't see any way this article will ever be more than an ill-referenced vanity piece. Elemimele (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments of LStravaganz above. It's not our job to say that what he's done is potentially interesting if other people haven't written about it and demonstrated their interest first. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's admirably well-cited for an amateur mathematician, but not enough for WP:PROF, and we also don't have evidence of the kind of in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LStravaganz and Elemimele. JoelleJay (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant secondary source coverage as discussed above. Danstronger (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No demonstration of significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Multi7001 (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LStravaganz and fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LStravaganz. The subject (HJB) certainly did interesting things and made a small contribution to Mathematics (which is nevertheless admirable, given that most people have made none), but many people are interesting and they don't have articles in here. Av = λv (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello. I’d like to echo Bduke and offer a different perspective from the Editor (LStravaganz) regarding deletion. I believe it would help matters to clarify and correct the claims of the Editor before the community weighs in.
- First, the Editor is correct that that article is autobiographical. I switched my username to GiantSteps about 8 years ago - it seemed at the time like most users do not use their actual names. As a jazz musician, the name sounded more fun than “hjb.” I’d be happy to delete “hjb” (which I never use anymore) if that is the appropriate thing to do. Also, it appears that while autobiographical work is strongly discouraged, it is not in and of itself automatically disqualifying (though the rationale for this guideline is certainly sound).
- After reading the WP:ACADEMIC criteria, it *might* be true that “HJB fails the WP:ACADEMIC notability tests by miles,” but my achievements are in fact more far ranging and significant than what is presented by the Editor. One question is, “Why is WP:ACADEMIC the appropriate metric?” Perhaps there is something here I don’t understand about the classification system, but might this work?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amateur_mathematicians. The description seems perfect: “This is a list of amateur mathematicians—people whose primary vocation did not involve mathematics (or any similar discipline) yet made notable, and sometimes important, contributions to the field of mathematics.”
- The fact that an untrained mathematician, through his love of math, came to work with Benoit Mandelbrot would appear to be noteworthy by itself. My research regarding fractal structure in music was started at the request of Benoit. The importance of my work in the field is significant enough to have warranted an invitation to author a definitive chapter on the subject for the World Scientific memorial volume “Benoit Mandelbrot - A Life in Many Dimensions.”
- As for the impact of my work, for my paper “Structural Scaling in Bach’s Cello Suite No. 3, according to Altmetric: “Altmetric has tracked 18,950,555 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.” Altmetric also shows that the paper is #5 of 122 outputs from the journal Fractals: https://www.altmetric.com/details/1509464#score
- It seems the Editor missed the point here: “One does not become notable by collaborating with famous mathematicians (one of whom isn't even named, instead referred to only as "a well-known mathematician at Scientific American").“ I definitely did not collaborate with the mathematician in question - he ignored my communication! This the story of an unknown amateur attempting to reach out to the mathematical community. As in publishing, the same work can be dismissed by one referee and praised by the next. The important message here is to simply keep trying.
- Of course, the well known mathematician I *did* collaborate with was Benoit Mandelbrot - at his request. There is abundant evidence of the closeness of our relationship, including the fact that I was invited to contribute to the Notices of the AMS for a memorial article about Benoit. See https://www.ams.org/notices/201208/rtx120801056p.pdf. Reliable secondary sources can confirm that relationship was hardly what the Editor uncharitably likened to “every undergraduate who does summer vacation research with famous mathematicians.”
- The Editor is mistaken about this: “His main contribution is discovering a slightly-faster converging sequence for the Euler constant e. Firstly, this result has only been cited 34 times since its publication in 1998, which is a tiny number and suggests it is not exactly a breakthrough in maths. Secondly, incremental improvements in algorithms are published all the time; there is nothing really that special about HJB's work beyond the pop-science "wow" factor of the Euler's constant.” To be clear, this is not my “main” contribution - it was simply a early contribution. Also, the characterization of the family of series as a "slightly-faster converging sequence" is just plain wrong. Last, given that not all fields are of the same magnitude, the absolute number of citations is not necessarily the important metric. What is more relevant here is that it appears that virtually *every* paper on the subject of approximating e now references my work.
- It is not clear why and on what basis (e.g., number-theoretic, computational, educational) the Editor appears to minimize the significance of my work on e. For reference here is a substantially different take from the well-respected and accomplished computer scientist Damian Conway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Conway) from October 2019:
- Hi Harlan, Thanks so much for taking the time to read my article, and even more so for reaching out to offer the correction (which I deeply appreciate and have now applied).

Your actual paper on the new series was a joy to read, and gave me that rare but exquisite moment of "D'oh! Of course!", at the point where you explained that the improved formulations derived from the simple process of combining adjacent terms from Newton's original. I feel that it is the mark of true genius that this idea is so patently obvious...but only after you had pointed it out. :-) As a computer scientist, rather than a mathematician, I was perhaps more interested in the computational efficiency of the new approaches, but that will certainly not stop me from stealing this lovely "shoulders of giants" example and turning it into an exercise for my CS students (now with correct references and attribution). So thank-you for that opportunity as well.

- Finally, it’s not clear why the Editor makes the claim that there is “almost zero secondary-source coverage” and others appear to echo that concern. To start, there are seven older examples in the “Further Reading” section. In addition to numerous and more recent independent web articles (in several languages), my work on fractals and music was written about by Stephen Ornes in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (https://www.pnas.org/content/111/29/10393) and by Michael Frame and Amanda Urry in their book "Fractal Worlds: Grown, Built, and Imagined." My work is also referenced on the Yale Fractal Geometry website in the section on fractals and music. These are, by any measure, high-quality, reliable sources.

While page in question would clearly benefit from editing, the story of someone with no standard mathematics training who makes notable contributions in the fields of both number theory and fractal geometry is unusual and would therefore likely be of general interest. At minimum, it appears to meet the criteria to be listed under amateur mathematicians.GiantSteps (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)GiantSteps[reply]

Comment: Thank you GiantSteps (HJB) for your rebuttal. I understand that this page means a lot to HJB and I can't imagine it's easy to see a nomination for deletion after 17 years of work. I commend him for his civility and good faith when engaging with this discourse. However, for the benefit of other editors, I might make a few comments myself in support of the nomination. I believe there are four main issues in this topic, and the community should judge based on these questions.
- Q1) Should we support an autobiography? While WP:AUTO is not an immediate criteria for deletion, Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies for obvious reasons, with those reasons being apparent in this article. There is only one main contributer, HJB himself, with virtually no independent commentary or editing for this page. Moreoever, I pointed out a blatant embellishment in the article regarding Larson's textbooks, which clearly only arose because there were no checks to stop HJB from making this embellishment, hence creating a conflict of interest. I note that HJB provided no defence for this. Even if Damian Conway does use his results in his computing class, it by no means has "found their way into the standard college calculus curriculum" as you claim. This article is a bad example for Wikipedia; allowing it to stand implies we tolerate unaccountability and vanity like this.
- Q2) Does WP:ACADEMIC apply? I imagine there are two schools of thought here; the hardliners (with whom I agree) will stand by the letter of the policy, and say that everyone whose article is based around their academic career should follow this policy; otherwise, what is the point of having a policy? However, I acknowledge that the alternate thinking is to relax those criteria slightly to accommodate amateurs. The problem is, nothing he raised really strikes me as outstanding enough to pass even a lowered bar. There are tons and tons of people who publish and work and collaborate outside their fields. I know anecdotes are bad, but I personally know medical doctors who publish in biostatistics and bioinformatics. Using his language, they are "untrained biostatisticians, through their love of biostatistics, came to work with famous mathematicians like ...". Their papers are highly cited, more so than yours. The "undergraduate vacation student" might have been a tad uncharitable I concede, but the point still stands; we don't write biographies for postdocs even or outside collaborators, just because their "Mandelbrot number" happens to be 1. To qualify for notability as an amateur, one's work REALLY needs to be outstanding especially if one wishes to circumvent WP:ACADEMIC, which brings me to...
- Q3) Is HJB's work notable or impactful?
  - HJB attempted to brush off my comment about his work on e as "not his main work", but half his claim to notability comes from this. The 1998 paper is only cited 34 times in 23 years, while the 2004 Newton's series paper is cited 7 times in 17 years.
  - He also claims that "virtually *every* paper on the subject of approximating e now references my work" and provides no evidence of this. The onus really is on the author to provide this evidence, not me to go search for it; poor referencing like this is, in itself, criteria for deletion. Thus, either it is untrue that HJB's work is authoritative, or it is authoritative but in a miniscule field, as suggested by the incredibly low number of citations. Both scenarios fail notability. I want to note that there are millions of sub-sub-sub-disciplines where someone is authoritative; that is literally how academia works. Every researcher is, by definition, the "best" in their sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-field. Field size absolutely does matter for notability!!
  - The other half of HJB's work is on fractal geometry. The Altmetric stats on the Bach Cello Suite paper really aren't flattering; 5th out of 112 suggests a tiny discipline, while being in the 84th percentile overall means there are 3 million more impactful papers, yet we don't have 3 million Wikipedia biographies!! It also has only 21 citations on Google Scholar and 6 on Mendeley since 2007.
  - "It is not clear why and on what basis the Editor appears to minimize the significance of my work on e". On three bases:
    - 1) Citations. As much as you claim "the absolute number of citations is not necessarily the important metric", it is unfortunately the *only* metric most of us have to work with to judge the contribution. The field size absolutely does matter too, as I have commented on already.
    - 2) Once again, as I wrote in my original post, the discovery of a faster algorithm happens all the time in science. I've seen an undergraduate student in my lab write a faster algorithm to analyse RNA sequences, which was subsequently published. Why is e that much more important? The only answer I can think of is the pop-science "wow" factor.
    - 3) Lack of secondary sourcing and independent commentary, which leads nicely on to:
- Q4) Has there been adequate secondary coverage? The answer, at least in its current state, is no, because in the article there is a clear lack of independent sourcing. However, ignoring that, HJB still lacks independent coverage in general.
  - He points to [this], which contains a paragraph he wrote about himself.
  - He points to Damian Conway's email, which clearly can't be independent as it's personal correspondence (just because Conway called you a "genius" in an email does not make you one!).
  - No. 1 and 5 in Further Reading are broken links
  - No. 2 in Further Reading is by someone who address HJB as a "colleague"
  - No. 3, 4 and 6 have no links and cannot be verified, although only one-page citations probably means not much is discussed there. All are by the same author (Pickover), suggesting they probably all contain the same content.
  - No. 7 is by John Knox, his collaborator
  - This does seem to be independent coverage I agree. However, you need *a lot* more coverage to qualify as Wikipedia notable (so, even fixing some of those links will not be enough). HJB has not addressed all the previous editors, who have found very little on a cursory search of Google, clearly not a good sign. Even *if* there is a hidden trove of secondary sourcing, it really really *really* isn't my job to scour the internet for it; it is HJB's responsibility to provide as many of these as he thinks would qualify for notability!
- To summarise this comment, I think that judging on the four questions I posed, HJB has not yet passed the bar. HJB seems to have drastically underestimated the stringent standards required from a biography, let alone a single-contributer autobiography. While it is true that he has made original contributions to mathematics, which is certainly an achievement, the key point is that this is *not enough* to qualify for a Wiki biography, especially given the context of how academia works, which is why we have WP:ACADEMIC in the first place. As I and all the other editors have mentioned, there needs to be a lot more to show for it in the way of accepted metrics and commentary; we are currently unconvinced that there even is anything really more to be shown, however.

I once again thank HJB for his civility, and I hope I have been able to reciprocate.

LStravaganz (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While an amateur mathematician can certainly pass WP:NPROF (which explicitly does not require a professor job title), this would require more evidence of impact (in the form of citations etc) than is presently in the article, even in a lower citation field like Mathematics. No signs of meeting other notability criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will respond in detail to the comment of the Editor (LStravaganz) in response to my rebuttal. The comment contains demonstrable errors which I will document. In the meantime, I will begin to edit the article to address the concerns expressed above, including the apparent question of impact. Given Wikipedia's fundamental focus on neutrality, I hope I will be given a reasonable chance to meet the stated concerns. GiantSteps (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)GiantSteps[reply]
Comment autobiographical articles are always high-risk, but in this case the author does seem to have made an honest attempt at removing self-advertisement and adopting a neutral position. The article in its current, cleaned-up state is not all that bad. I'm sort of wavering; I don't think the subject meets PROF, but the question is whether, and how far we reduce the bar of PROF to take into consideration amateur status? Elemimele (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If ACADEMIC is not the standard (and I have no idea why it shouldn't be), then we should fall back to WP:GNG: Does significant, reliable, independent coverage exist? I am grateful to LStravaganz's in-depth analysis of this question, and agree with their conclusion that it does not. I would also suggest that the blatant WP:COI editing of this page makes it a very misleading source of information about the notability of the subject. (I'm not denying an honest attempt has been made; the point is writing neutrally about oneself is nearly impossible.) To be specific, the page currently states that "he went on to pubish the fastest known formulas for approximating e." This claim needs a recent, independent, secondary source to persist in an NPOV version of this article, but the only source is Brothers's original article from 2004, which, aside from being an old primary source, a) doesn't even make that claim, and b) is published in The_College_Mathematics_Journal, which (according to that wiki page) is "an expository magazine aimed at teachers of college mathematics, particular those teaching the first two years". My "delete" is unwavering. Danstronger (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danstronger’s point is a good one re: language. I thank him. I have edited the description so that it describes an incontrovertible fact that will remain true for all of eternity, regardless of the age of publication. Perhaps Danstronger will agree that the referees used by the Mathematical Association of America are likely qualified as anonymous independent parties to pass judgement on the content of the primary source cited. And yes, writing objectively about oneself is difficult which is why constructive criticism is helpful. Please note that time is the limiting factor in my ability to respond - addressing this issue was certainly not on my calendar, though I am trying to make it a priority. I will continue to make a good faith effort to edit the page so as to meet community standards and, in the process, hopefully provide interesting content for Wikipedia's readership. GiantSteps (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)GiantSteps[reply]

The claim in the article has now been weakened to the point where it is, in my opinion, clearly not notable. The MAA accepting the paper into this magazine does not tell us anything about its notability. In this case, it especially doesn't because the purpose of the the magazine is expository. That's exactly why wikipedia policy requires secondary sources to establish notability. See the policy at WP:PRIMARY. Let me also echo that wikipedia policy (see WP:AUTO and WP:COI) strongly discourages you from editing the page about yourself. I believe that your continuing to do so can only hurt your argument here. If you have additional significant, independent, secondary sources that support the existence of the page according to WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC, please feel free to add them to this discussion, but the page itself should only be edited by editors without a conflict of interest. Danstronger (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) I disagree that mathematical results derived by an amateur who improves on and is recognized for work that’s been known and examined by professionals for 350 years are not in some way notable. 2) My apologies for continuing to edit - I thought I was helping the process by directly addressing the concerns stated here. I shall refrain as you suggest. 3) I indeed have identified additional significant, independent, secondary sources. Perhaps I can find a sympathetic editor who can edit and add relevant information without any conflict of interest. GiantSteps (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)GiantSteps[reply]

Thank you to GiantSteps, Danstronger and Elemimele for the vibrant discussion. I think it's important to distinguish Wikipedia notability from general notability. The reason WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG exist is because not everyone who does something cool, or interesting, or has newspaper articles written about them is automatically eligible for a Wiki biography. No one is doubting that HJB's work is original, interesting and deserves commendation; however, we must not lose track of the broader view that academia is, by definition, full of interesting discoveries that are subsequently reviewed, yet. Amateur status by itself honestly doesn't increase notability, as I have pointed out time and time again using examples of undergraduates and cross-disciplinary scientists. So, while HJB is rightfully proud of his achievements, he must understand that it does not automatically catapault him into Wiki notability. We cannot accept any argument made about HJB's notability in the absence of the broader context of academia.

It is good to hear that HJB has found more secondary sourcing, and I urge him to post them here to contribute to the discussion. However, I must advise that the sources must not only be significant in quantity, but also quality, which the community will judge. I also stress that the existence of mere academic review papers, or papers that cite HJB's work, is not enough to establish notability even though they are 'secondary sources', as this happens in academia all the time to every single researcher. There must be substantial analysis in provided secondary sourcing about the actual impact that one's work has made to one's field; for instance, has it radically altered a discipline? As I've mentioned again and again, a faster algorithm is not notable unless it has really really affected the way we think about the discipline; this is what we need secondary sources to confirm for us.

I also want to again point out that the issue of the Larson textbook embellishment has yet to be addressed, either in the article itself or in this discussion. In my mind, this severely undermines HJB's claim to be writing about himself in good faith, and is exactly the reason why WP:COI is a massive consideration in this discussion here. I hope his anticipated response will address this issue satisfactorily. LStravaganz (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has obtained some interesting results in numerology but they don't really amount to a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nom w). Geschichte (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shades (1999 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:UNSOURCED, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and there’s no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Review at CineMagazine [41]. Not enough on its own, but a start. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the above source, this one, and this. SL93 (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to the additional sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'll admit when I did the WP:BEFORE search on Google, I only found insignificant coverage results found in the English-language (after all, this is a Belgian production). I withdraw per consensus and per WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 12:45, 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rohingya Language Academy[edit]

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

I found no notability per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BEFORE yields no useful results. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NCORP; can't find any quality sources Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Can't see anything even remotely usable as a source on Google. Java Hurricane 04:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No independent, reliable sources listed that demonstrate notability. Multi7001 (talk) 22:58, 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.