Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 27

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

James Purdum

James Purdum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP that has only ever been sourced to IMDb, fails WP:GNG CiphriusKane (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete a quick Google search and I am unable to find news sources. Fails WP:GNG. Trakinwiki (talk)
• Delete. Zero hits in ProQuest, EBSCOE, JSTOR, google books, newspapers, etc. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Admittedly some of his work is well known enough to pass GNG (the individual episodes wikilinked in the article) which means an argument could be made that he passes WP:CREATIVE. However, those article's sources don't mention him personally and we are relying solely on primary sources (i.e. episode credits) to connect him to those works. Without any sources on him specifically I don't see how building an article is possible.4meter4 (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences

Albert Einstein Academy for Letters, Arts and Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This school existed for a mere 7 years and its "article" is 3 sentences long. Doesn't warrant an article. Should be merged into the William S. Hart Union High School District article. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 23:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable school. Not likely to be a search term. Not clear that it's all that significant for the school district either. See no reason to merge or redirect.4meter4 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Closed school unlikely to gain notability. Orientls (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

B-Goss

B-Goss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Created by a confirmed sockpuppet under B-Goss (musical artist) presumably to avoid detection following previous deletion under this name. None of the sources demonstrate WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO and nothing better found in searches under his stage name or his actual name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Source assessment Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. This looks like shameless self-promotion, and none of the sources appear to be very good ones. His role on Top DJ appears to have been a 30-second interview on one episode, giving his opinion about the contestants – he certainly was not one of the presenters or main judges, so his role on the show appears to be exaggerated. For anyone thinking, "wow, he's worked with some big names in Flo Rida and T-Pain"... he hasn't. He's simply remixed an existing track, "Ride" by J Rand featuring Flo Rida and T-Pain, and placed his name at the top of the credits, and the video for "his" new song intercuts scenes from the original J Rand video into some terrible acting from him and his celebrity friends. One of those friends is a football player from the top Italian football league, which is probably the major reason the video was played on MTV, rather than the song – the claim of being played on MTV claim may be true, but the one working citation just shows the lyrics of the track posted on the MTV website, which anyone can do, and the other citation is the personal website of an Italian TV football pundit, so probably not the best authority on MTV screenings. Richard3120 (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the claims to notability are heavily exaggerated upon closer inspection and that the celebrity name dropping borders on WP:NOTINHERITED. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per all above. Source analysis is convincing.4meter4 (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ami McKay

Ami McKay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NJOURN. Lacks notability and sources. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Below, I list some SIGCOV. Since there are so many, I've restricted it only to articles which include her name in the title:
  1. Noakes, Susan (November 9, 2011). "Ami McKay's The Virgin Cure". CBC News.
  2. Donaldson, Emily (October 28, 2016). "Ami McKay conjures witches". MacLean's.
  3. Elliott, Wendy (September 7, 2019). "Ami McKay is a Daughter of Family G". Saltwire.
  4. Calder, Anne (February 28, 2020). "The extraordinary evolution of author Ami McKay". Saltwire.

  I also noticed that one of her books is being turned into a Netflix series. I'm curious to hear the nominator's reasoning for discounting these sources which must have shown up in WP:BEFORE. pburka (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Also, she has an entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia, passing WP:ANYBIO#3. Suggest speedy close. pburka (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject passes WP:NFILM as it has multiple independent critical reviews. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That Malicious Age

That Malicious Age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. This article is present on other Wikipedias, but none appear to have enough RS citations that pass the bar for significant coverage. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BEFORE. It was reviewed by Paolo Mereghetti for Il Mereghetti (has an entry in its 2001, 2002, 2006, 2016 editions), by Marco Giusti for Dizionario dei film stracult, and under its French title in La Revue du cinéma num. 368. It was also reviewed by influential Italian critic Francesco Savio for Il Mondo, his review being included in the book Il mondo di Francesco Savio: recensioni, 1973-1976 (pp. 215-6). Considering it has a notable director and two major stars of the Italian cinema of the time and it was released in numerous countries there is certainly a lot more digging (eg. I have not searched under its English or German titles, and Google Books suggests it was reviewed by other notable publications like Bianco e Nero and Cinéma but the lack of previews make it inconclusive), but I think there is already enough for regard it as notable. I have added a critical reception section to the page. --151.53.78.153 (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as per the reviews by notable critics detailed above. This seems to be a higher quality production in terms of artistic merit than the general erotic trash, passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM per multiple independent critical reviews provided above.4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Amirreza Amirbakhtiar

Amirreza Amirbakhtiar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Sources cited are either not reliable or not enough to establish notability. Pahlevun (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails GNG and NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of independent and reliable references.Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Mmoloki Chrystie

Mmoloki Chrystie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE just showed minor trivial coverage. Given the unusual name, if there were any significant coverage I imagine it would have come up quickly CiphriusKane (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Played major roles in two highly notable children's drama series which were household names in their day. Easily enough for notability. Unlikely to find much on the internet, given he was well-known before it existed but hasn't done anything significant since. But notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes criteria 1 of NACTOR per Necrothesp. Additionally, I added sources to the article.4meter4 (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, major role in major children's television series.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Gentlemen Prefer Nature Girls

Gentlemen Prefer Nature Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete didn't find any significant mentions in academic/book searches. The film is referenced in relation to others' credits and the like, but it doesn't seem like it made a major impact itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn. CiphriusKane (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Kate Rogers

Kate Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BEFORE revealed a lack of significant coverage, and while there are some album reviews there's hardly anything of use in those. Also unsure if she passes or fails WP:NMUSIC, especially as all her albums were released by labels that she has some connection to CiphriusKane (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Album reviews count toward criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO if they are non-trivial (by music review standards, i.e. not press releases, aggregation, just tracklistings, etc.), independent, and from reliable sources. Such reviews are used less for biographical information and instead indicate that reliable publications have deemed the subject notable. I found several of these:
• The Guardian
• Exclaim
• Rogers' website mentions the existence of additional reviews in NME and Q Magazines, also reliable and prominent national music publications.

In addition, I found other, more biographical coverage:

• Sunday Times feature (paywalled)
• Feature in Waterloo Region Record
• Manchester Evening News feature

I am not sure what you mean by "labels that she has some connection to." All musicians have a connection to the labels they are signed to, by definition, and Grand Central Records is a legitimate, notable label. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I meant she had a personal connection to the labels, being either the label owner or the cousin of the label owner CiphriusKane (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY, because I started incorporating material found by Gnomingstuff as well as another article from Exclaim!, so based on those sources, she appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO#1, as noted above, and per WP:MUSICBIO#6, she also appears to be a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Beccaynr (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Perhaps User:CiphriusKane can withdraw. Nfitz (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Madeline Bell (hospital executive)

Madeline Bell (hospital executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Forbes is one article that could count. But other than that, sources are either not reliable or not independent. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I removed the Forbes ref. They produce a huge number x of y articles and its not-notable. In 2018, they produced 1471 of them, so they are very poor quality, as a ref scope_creep^Talk 20:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. CEO of a significant institution, subject of reliable source coverage from the Philadelphia Inquirer and health industry publications. Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Not only female CEO of a significant institution, but also serves on the boards of several influential and important institutions such as the Philadelphia Fed. Merrilee (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I retired after a 3 decades career in healthcare administration, mostly centered in hospitals. I can tell you I have never heard of a hospital CEO being a nurse; the position is ALWAYS held by a physician. This fact alone leads me to believe that the biography is of an exceptionally notable person. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - I can understand the concern here, but the sources and notable contribution get the subject across the line for me. I like to see some more substance in the article (especially for a BLP) but I think the subject meets our inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY, I have added some independent and reliable sources and more substance to the article that I think help address the concerns of the nom and help support WP:BASIC notability for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Now richly and adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: These trade publications certainly pass for RS. --WomenProj (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Very well! There is a clear consensus then. This was being moved to and fro from drafts; now that we are clear at AFD, that should also be settled and page should stay at mainspace. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep and agree with Nomadicghumakkad to keep the article in mainspace. It looks solid. -- econterms (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Earl Shilton#Sport. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Earl Shilton Albion FC

Earl Shilton Albion FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

According to FCHD, they have never played at level 10 or above nor have they ever been eligible for any national cups like the FA Vase or FA Cup so doesn't meet the WP:FOOTYN rule of thumb.

I found some mentions in Stamford Mercury and Rugby Advertiser but this depth of coverage in local papers is not usually sufficient for WP:GNG. More of the same in ProQuest. Similar discussions on clubs like St Agnes A.F.C., Old Bradwell United F.C. and Loughton Orient F.C. all resulted in deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Just questioning if there is a way for this article to either stay or be merged with another. I just think that there is some depth and reason to this article, and references are included. BMB YT 50000

The only alternative I can think of is redirecting the article to Leicestershire Senior League although, as per the similar cases above, we usually just delete articles on clubs outside the threshold. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Merge basic facts (i.e. not the list of players) to Earl Shilton#Sport -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The References list is not in accordance with wikepedia referencing style- footnotes Olugold (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess we could put the basics into Earl Shilton#Sport User:BMB YT 500000 8:01, 28 September_2021

• Merge essential information into Earl Shilton#Sport per Chris above. (I also cleaned up the horrendous mess this discussion was in, ha!) No Great Shaker (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Merge selectively into Earl Shilton#Sport, as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested above. Not notable enough for their own article, but appropraite to have some coverage at Earl Shilton. Dunarc (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Communist Party of Brazil#Schisms. I'll add a mention there. Sandstein 06:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Communist Party of Brazil (Red Fraction)

Communist Party of Brazil (Red Fraction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I did not find reliable and independent sources in a search in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. MarioGom (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Though Redspark openly supports the CPB-RF, the two are not associated, at least not as far as I can tell. Most of what's published about the party on RS comes from a brazilian newspaper named A Nova Democracia, also a supporter of the group. These two sources are definitely small and politically niche, but I know at least AND to be a reliable source. Woodsmokeblog, though, is a self-published source and including it was a mistake. Servir ao Povo de Todo Coração is the official website of the party, but I only used it as a source to their self-declared ideology, which I think is justified in this context.

If the article is to be deleted, I think the better argument is lack of notability. The CPB-RF is a small clandestine political party/proto-guerilla. It was mentioned on the article for Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but only in passing, and unlike the Communist Party of Ecuador - Red Sun, it hasn't been responsible for any terrorist acts thus far. For these reasons, it has not attracted a lot of media attention other than as a footnote to more well known maoist groups, such as the Shining Path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityBreakingDown (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

CityBreakingDown: Servir ao Povo de Todo Coração can be used in the article (see WP:ABOUTSELF), but it does not count when measuring notability. Notability is measured, primarily, by reliable (and independent) sources that cover the topic in depth. I have doubts about A Nova Democracia reliability for notability purposes, but further comments by other editors are welcome. MarioGom (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Redirect back to the main Communist Part of Brazil page so the history of this page is kept for context. Potentially this fraction is added as a sub-heading/ note within the Communist Part of Brazil page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamzze (talk • contribs) 08:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Switch to this tab

Switch to this tab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable browser feature. Has a few short mentions in reliable sources but that doesn't make it notable for its own article - this isn't a revolutionary feature or anything. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Being listed on a Tech website list of interesting features is not a claim to fame. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, article definitely not justified here. It would still be excessive being just a section within an article because it's so specific. This is better off as a simple mention in an article since it's two sentences long. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and contributions above. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Angel Fire (Miscione novel)

Angel Fire (Miscione novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NPLOT and WP:NBOOK, couldn't find any reviews or other indications of notability in any reliable sources Avilich (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I've added critical reviews and sources from Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Kirkus Reviews. This meets WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT #1. DanCherek (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• These sources are all 'trivial' as per NBOOK, their reviews are often short and indiscriminate and Kirkus does paid reviewing. Avilich (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Paid reviews are published by Kirkus Indie Reviews. Those are specified on the review page under the "Review Program" field, such as this one. The review of Angel Fire was not a paid review. DanCherek (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it's unlikely that the author paid Kirkus to publish a review that calls the book "predictable" and "flatly written". pburka (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Multiple independent reviews in reliable sources. Easy WP:NBOOK pass. pburka (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sources like PW and KR put out massive numbers of short book reviews every year at the behest of library book-buyers and the publishing industry, they alone are not adequate for establishing notability in an encyclopedia. Avilich (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• There's extensive AfD precedent contradicting you. Even with those "massive numbers" most books aren't reviewed by a single influential source like PW, LJ or KR, let alone all three. pburka (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, meet WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews ie. three of them, although afd is not an article improvement forum, this is another one that has been improved to reflect its wikinotableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

A Gladiator Dies Only Once

A Gladiator Dies Only Once (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:PLOT and WP:NBOOK, couldn't find any review or other indication of notability in reliable sources Avilich (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I've added critical reviews and sources from Booklist (where it received a starred review), Kirkus Reviews, and Publishers Weekly. This meets WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT #1. DanCherek (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Trade publications which constantly put out short reviews indiscriminately, they do not establish notability. Avilich (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NBOOK does not preclude trade magazines/journals so this is a non-issue, as to "short" again nbook does not preclude reviews that may be deemed "short", a subjective term i like to use the term "concise":). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and I disagree with Avilich on the sources provided by Eastmain. The three appear to be long-running magazines, not "trade publications". NemesisAT (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• the audience of these magazines/journals are primarily librarians, booksellers, and educators, so they can be called "trade" journals/magazines but this is not an issue as nowhere in nbooks are they precluded. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, meet WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews, whether the journals/magazines are a trade magazine/journal (they are) is not an issue, the issue is whether they are independent of the book being reviewed, they are. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 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. Daniel (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ivan Dimov (weightlifter)

Ivan Dimov (weightlifter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable. Sources aren't reliable. Doesn't meet with WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG guideline. I'm not a Bulgarian. So, I've searched in English. But I didn't find any reliable, secondary and independent and significant coverage source. But also I've searched in Bulgarian language but didn't find any reliable, secondary and independent and significant coverage source (by translate). If anyone find any reliable, secondary and independent and significant coverage source in Bulgarian language or English or other, please add them to this article. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Why you have deleted the article ?it is 100% true, what do you know aboub bulgarian weightlifting, everything can be checked in competition results lists Extreme01 (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar.thesuperman ^Talk 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, too young, has not competed on the highest level of his sport per WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to COVID-19 protests in Australia with history preserved. Daniel (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Harrison Mclean

Harrison Mclean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of the article was recently charged in relation to an anti-lockdown protest in Melbourne that he organized. After a BEFORE search, I don't think he has received enough depth of significant coverage in reliable sources (i.e., excluding passing mentions, interviews, and brief articles simply announcing an arrest) to warrant an article. Much of the current article is about the protests and doesn't even mention him. DanCherek (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:COVID-19 protests in Australia. Reason: Directly related article, per WP:APPNOTE. DanCherek (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yeah, not worthy. Maybe one day, but for now, delete. Masterhatch (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I strongly disagree. There is significant current and historical sources detailing the subject of this article. Perhaps DanCherek is under the mistaken belief because they conducted a cursory search from a foreign location? An internet search from the country where the subject is located (Australia) returns extensive credible news sources explicitly detailing the subject over the past several months. Regarding the current state of the article, DanCherek requested it be protected immediately after deleting large portions of it (albeit for valid reasons). At that time, I was in the process of adding significiant content (through IP 139.218.25.98) and will enact these edits once permitted. Deleting this article will achieve nothing more than stifling the publication of knowledge about what is a notable subject of interest to local residents and the wider Australian public. Edit: to address the 'note' added below, I am not the subject of this article; I am a local resident who was affected by the illegal demonstrations and consequent closures of major roadways. I chose this username simply because I lack creativity and feared reprisals from alt-right activists if I used my own name. Judging from the edit history, I believe the subject is actually 'Haz150'. HarrisonMclean (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Note: quite obviously, the commenter is likely the subject. JavaHurricane 16:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Struck per above. Apologies for the misidentification. JavaHurricane 17:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Noting for the record that I delet[ed] large portions of it because there were significant copyright violations, and requested it be protected immediately because the copyvio was repeatedly restored by IP/non-autoconfirmed editors before it was finally revision-deleted. DanCherek (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Note: I have requested my username be changed to avoid confusion. Thanks DanCherek and JavaHurricane for the heads up. Also, I believe the repeated copyright violations were implemented by bad actors attempting to have this article deleted. Shortly after the article's creation, the subject was recorded in a Telegram livestream stating he was planning to engage in an edit war and "dox" the original creators of it. This was forewarned by Scuba156 on the talk page. HarrisonMclean (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• The protests in Australia have received nationwide coverage and the instigator behind them was Harrison Mclean. Mclean had been arrested recently and was released on bail but will no doubt continue to receive further media attention as the protests are still ongoing albeit on a much smaller scale. I hold the view that this article should be kept as it is inevitable that there will be more information released on this individual Melbournecoffee — Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 28 September 2021‎ (UTC)

Delete This individual is a private citizen who was allegedly involved in organising a series of protests in Melbourne, Australia. As this person is solely notable for their role in said protests, his individual page violates WP:ONEEVENT and any pertinent information here should be rolled into the article for the Melbourne protests. As above commenters have confirmed their closeness to the events in question, the article appears potentially politically motivated and therefore should not remain due to violation of WP:NPOV. As this individuals's notability does not extend beyond the protests, and he is not known for any other reason, this page also violates WP:NTEMP.119.18.17.67 (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Hi, I am the article subject, Harrison Mclean - Haz150 (talk) 5:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the article should remain, with some serious editing to improve the neutrality and sourcing of the material. The Subject has been covered widely in Australian media in relation to involvement in the World Wide Rally for Freedom, and media coverage is likely to continue into the future. The image is highly manipulated and does not accurately reflect the appearance of the subject. A more accurate image has been added with my edits, but they have been reverted. The article presently details a historical recollection of the Victorian Workers Rally for Freedom, and the events that followed before and after the involvement of the subject that were not related to him individually. Article content should include more background information and material from the subjects website for a more holistic approach. My edits removed the copyright violations, and included additional information from the subjects website, and from more authoritative sources such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Article should stick to neutral information, and articles from sources that do not misconstrue the views of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haz150 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Note: Image has been fixed, and Guardian Article content has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haz150 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• delete

He's not known in Australia, infact the first I heard of him was one of his mates mass messaging a group telling us to save his wiki page. He's been covered in very few Aus articles and media coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.141.241.211 (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Masterhatch. That he has been charged can be mentioned in COVID-19 protests in Australia.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Fails notability, the article has only two reliable sources from two seperate publishers and also uses the subject's own website. Also could be seen as WP:ONEEVENT. Bidgee (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Tiruppur District Police

Tiruppur District Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Technical nomination only. Iflaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) tagged the article for AfD but did not complete the AfD proccess. No opinion yet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

District police is not an Independent body, this article talks more about parent organization Tamil Nadu Police. A separate page for District police seems too much. Besides the article is more like a phonebook. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 17:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Not only fails GNG but also WP:NOT & WP:DIRECTORY - Wikipedia is not a directory. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:BRANCH and violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Dunmore: Augustinian Friary

Dunmore: Augustinian Friary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is an unsourced, worse duplicate of Dunmore Abbey Xx78900 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - as duplicate of Dunmore Abbey. Lacks important history and not fit for redirect due to the strange disambiguation used. Not suited for CSD since it's about 8 years old. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: essentially it's just the same subject. ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - my only hesitation is that this "article" has existed for 5 years longer than the article it is supposed to have duplicated. I agree its not really a worthwhile redirection, but wouldn't disagree strongly with a redirect to the newer, better article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 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. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Arif S. Kinchen

Arif S. Kinchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable voice actor. Has apparently been in a lot of things, but often as "additional voices", and nothing that establishes notability. No sourcing to pass GNG or NACTOR. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Classic case of "not every actor is notable". Some people work for years, get a long CV of minor credits, but no enduring recognition. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yoo Yeon

Yoo Yeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable enough, roles are of supporting and guest appearances. Article is also poorly written with all sources within Biography and career section containing the same news report reposted by multiple news agencies with all of them failing verification and has zero context to what was written. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Roles should be significant, which includes many supporting and guest appearances. I think they pass notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Eastmain Doesn't notability also include having sources to support it? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Actress who has appeared in only minor supporting roles that lack significance. No significant independent RS. Fails WP:NACTRESS and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Yoo Yeon has done Theatre plays and as well musical plays.(AkaneNel (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC))

  @AkaneNel Not unless you can prove it with reliable source backing it, you as the article creator should provide sources to backup what you written however none of sources, you have included in the lead section and Biography and career section supports what was written. In addition, 3 of the 6 new sources you've just added to filmography section, does not support her appearances in the television series, meaning failed verification. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - only minor roles. Non-notable actress. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. This debate is different to many others - it comes down to an analysis of the quality of the sources through the matrix provided by GNG, rather than the quantity. Ultimately, there is a clear division in how these sources are viewed; this may or may not be further muddied due to them being non-English sources.

Consensus may be able to be established on this topic, however in 14 days at this AfD it hasn't been yet. I considered a second relist, but I'm not sure a consensus either way would form by continuing this specific discussion.

Therefore, I am specifically noting that this article can be renominated immediately to reconsider the quality of the sources provided by Cunard, if any editor wishes to do so. If this happens, I would recommend that this AfD be advertised, using a neutral notice, at places where editors who are experts in source analysis would be encouraged to come here and take part - thinking Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and maybe any relevant Wikiprojects for assistance with any language barriers. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Jeremy Lee (singer)

Jeremy Lee (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. There is coverage but lots of PR from social media. scope_creep^Talk 21:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. 李婉文 (2021-05-03). "Jeremy係MIRROR實力最被低估嘅人？　十件一定要知的事曾崩潰哭訴" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.

     From Google Translate: "1. Jeremy originally aspired to become a singer when he was 6 years old. He was selected as a "Singing Star" in elementary school. He sang in the class and began to participate in some singing competitions in middle school. (TV screenshot) 2. Jeremy has signed up for programs such as "Happy Boys" and "New Chinese Singing Voice", and participated in the selection of trainees by Korean entertainment companies, but was eliminated many times in the audition stage."

  2. "【調教你MIRROR】李駿傑父母離異致寡言內向　Jeremy憑努力擺脫命運枷鎖". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2021-06-02. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.

     From Google Translate: "Jeremy's lack of self-confidence in the past may be related to his life experience. His parents divorced at the age of 6, so he lived with his mother-in-law and played with one person for a long time as a child, which made Jeremy an introverted, independent and reticent personality. And he loves acting, he set his goal of becoming a singer when he was 6 years old, and set a 25-year-old deadline. When participating in "Stars Made by the People", Jeremy was often accused of having no personal characteristics and "Korean taste strong". He once screamed in front of the camera: [quote]"

  3. "MIRROR中的花美男 7點帶你認識Jeremy 悲慘身世養成內向性格". zh:東方新地 (in Chinese). Oriental Press Group. 2021-05-10. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.

     From Google Translate: "Jeremy has always been not the most prominent one in MIRROR. He was described as an invisible man in the competition during the “Stars for All” competition in 18 years. ... After becoming a member of MIRROR, Jeremy continued to be low-key and talk less, but in fact his plasticity is very high. He has been training his singing and dancing skills, and his dedication is obvious to all. Jeremy's Solo in the concert was eye-catching. Jeremy takes the Korean style route and is good at singing and dancing. 1. Jeremy lived in the Mainland Jeremy lived in Hunan when he was 6 years old. Because his parents were separated, he played for a long time when he was a child."

  4. Wong, Nana (2021-07-29). "專訪Mirror成員Jeremy李駿傑｜在危險中". zh:明報周刊 (in Chinese). Media Chinese International. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.

     From Google Translate: "Among the mirrors, Jeremy Li Junjie should be a unique one. His coquettish and charming face is familiar to the audience, but when others think that he has a distinctive style and outstanding style, Jeremy was actually troubled by his lack of personal style. Perplexed. ... Speaking with Jeremy, I felt that he is a humble and introverted person who is accustomed to working silently. From self-doubt to being unique now, what he has to go through is unlimited singing and dancing, acting training, and also dealing with the subject of psychological quality: [quote]"

  5. Sammi (2021-05-12). "你不知道Mirror Jeremy的6件事！被讚有張國榮妖艷氣質，曾爆喊：想畀花姐見到我！". GirlStyle 女生日常 (in Chinese). PressLogic. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.

     From Google Translate: "Because Jeremy follows the Korean style in the team, he often dyes his hair in different colors, and his image is very vivid, so he is described by fans as being as colorful as a unicorn, and finally named after unicorn (unicorn). ... The mentor Liu Meijun once praised Jeremy for exuding a trait that others don’t have. He believed that his innate conditions can take the coquettish route. Later, after Liu Meijun’s special encouragement, Jeremy gradually got rid of the Korean style with no personal characteristics and established his own. personal style! ... The manager Hua Jie also mentioned recently that Jeremy is a very distinctive singer, such as the singers of Huang Yaoming or Leslie Cheung in the past."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jeremy Lee (traditional Chinese: 李駿傑; simplified Chinese: 李骏杰) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• There is enough biographical coverage of Jeremy Lee in the sources to establish notability and justify a separate article from Mirror (group). Cunard (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the poor refs in turn that the editor has supplied:

• Ref 1 states: Jeremy's unassuming and low-profile personality has kept him out of the limelight. However, this does not mean that Jeremy is not good enough. On the contrary, he is a consistent dancer and singer in the group. Now we're counting down 10 things you didn't know about Jeremy, so let's learn more about him!' That is PR.
• Ref 2 states: Jeremy Lee, who has been recognised as the most gentle member of MIRROR by Joey Leung, has released his single "Dream Words" on his Youtube channel. Jeremy thanked those who helped him in a long post on IG for the release of the song. Jeremy explained the origin of "Dream Words" on IG: "I have a lot of people to thank for 'Dream Words', and first of all, I have to thank Kitten. Thank you for your heart, which has given me more and more confidence in myself, and thank you for your selflessness which has made 'The Lucky Kid' and 'Dream Words' possible. That is PR and isn't in-depth.
• Ref 3 states MIRROR has reached the end of its six concert series "MIRROR ONE & ALL LIVE 2021", in addition to the popular king Jiang Tao and Ian, other members such as Jeremy (Lee Chun Kit) is also quite worthy of everyone's attention. Recently, Jeremy and Jiang Tao shot a cosmetics commercial together, which attracted the attention of netizens. Jeremy is actually a very introverted person ...... Editor: Oriental Xindi｜Original post: New Monday丨Photos: Jeremy＠IG、ViuTV That is the whole with a series of pictures. Not in-depth and again another block of PR, from the same paper.

The rest of the references are the same. They all PR. Several weeks ago he was unknown, now he is supposed to be notable, due because of PR. They are shallow, mediocre and fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• These articles are not "PR". These articles provide detailed independent reporting and analysis of the subject. The Hong Kong Economic Times article notes from Google Translate, "When participating in "Stars Made by the People", Jeremy was often accused of having no personal characteristics and 'Korean taste strong'." This is unflattering coverage of the subject. Cunard (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• The articles are very short, often four or five lines, they are not-indepth, with lots of pictures to get audience recognition. They fail WP:BASIC. Several weeks ago he was unknown. Jeremy was often accused, Jeremy's unassuming and low-profile personality, Jeremy has always been not. They are classic PR. Since when is Wikipedia become a listing service for every neerdowell, mediocre subject; turning it into almanac. He has been selected by committee to become a singer, who otherwise would have been completly unknown. He is so mediocre he a needed a sustained PR campaign to make his recognisable. There is not one reference here that has not been written by an agency. scope_creep^Talk 07:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• At least I wouldn't think ref 4 as PR. The ref titled "專訪[...]Jeremy李駿傑" means "Interview [...] Jeremy Lee Chun-kit". It should be independent from the individual. Sun8908 _Talk 07:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• It is a PR as well. It states on the article. Images courtesy of the Brand. That combined with many links to his social media accounts. scope_creep^Talk 08:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• The five articles I listed provide 325 words, 926 words, 1,105 words, 1,061 words, and 1,634 words of coverage, respectively. I do not consider "The articles are very short, often four or five lines, they are not-indepth" to be accurate. That some of the articles have numerous photos does not detract from the articles' reliability as they are published by reputable publishers. That the publisher Media Chinese International said the "images in the article are courtesy of the brand" does not make the article PR. The article was written by the zh:明報周刊 magazine's staff writer Nana Wong. Regarding "Several weeks ago he was unknown", this is incorrect since the subject has been part of the band Mirror since 2018 and received coverage in 2020 for his role in a web drama. Regarding "He has been selected by committee to become a singer, who otherwise would have been completly unknown", Wikipedia:Notability (music) does not say that a singer who was selected by committee and received significant coverage for his activities years afterwards is not notable. Cunard (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• The last reference are a blocks of text, 4-5 lines that may consistute 1634 words. This is one: She also said that many fans had asked her why she didn't give Jeremy a chance, and she said, "I don't want to push him, but once I do, I can't give him a chance to lose. I believe that as Jeremy continues to work hard to equip himself, his future development will become stronger and stronger, and I believe that we are all looking forward to Jeremy's new direction. The images have been taken from persons fan club and his social media sites. This is PR. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Cunard, I'm sorry, but I'm with Scope creep. You've done a lot of good work on a lot of AfDs, but this is different--yes, these are PR pieces, no doubt part of a campaign to plug this song. That's not reliable coverage--it's actually literally coverage, since there is no debt to it whatsoever. "He was accused of having no personality"--but look at him now! False accusations! Here he is! Sorry, no. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per Cunard. Passes WP:SIGCOV and criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, appears to pass WP:GNG. I disagree with the notion that sources are not independent because they use photographs from the subject's social media. This is simply a journalist looking for photographs to add to their article and taking some from the subject's social media. NemesisAT (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The enormous load of photos in those flimsy articles are indicative enough--it's not journalism, it's marketing. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Cunard. Someone is trying to judge on Chinese sources even he is not a Chinese. How fanny? Clearly WP:IDONTLIKE. 185.205.142.78 (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, Cunard, but those sources don't impress me. This, for instance, is a photo shoot with some nice phrases (and Ming Pao doesn't strike me as a very seriously reliable newspaper). The article from the HKET is a bit better, but it might as well have been written by ViuTV's PR department. And that's the best of them--and for what? A song uploaded to his own YouTube channel? No, this does not establish his notability outside the band. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree with some of your statements. Ming Pao is considered to be generally reliable on zh.wiki, see zh:WP:RSP#mingpao. The words on the article are not describing the photos, but how Lee has developed his fan base and his personality. Sun8908 _Talk 07:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
    • That may be so but it's not very relevant here. I didn't say the words described the photos. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely meets WP:GNG, thanks to work by Cunard. VocalIndia (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@VocalIndia: You don't appear to done any analysis of any sources. scope_creep^Talk 11:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus at this time. "Delete" votes argue that this article is barely expandable at present, while the most popular "keep" argument is one of concern over how overcrowded articles like International recognition of Kosovo would become if these articles were merged. Both stances are reasonable and neither gained consensus, so we will just have to let this unfold for a while. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of the Congo–Kosovo relations

Democratic Republic of the Congo–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

According to the article itself, there are no relations of any kind between Congo and Kosovo. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The content is notable; part of it comes from the International recognition of Kosovo article, which currently is too long to hold all of this information. Worst case scenario, the article can be moved to Democratic Republic of the Congo's reaction to the Kosovo declaration of independence. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• On balance, Keep. This is a difficult one, as it's politically charged, but I think there's too much here for the content to naturally fit into International recognition of Kosovo. In particular, Kabila's comments are notable as being well beyond what would be regarded as normal diplomatic language. RomanSpa (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no substance here. The entirety of this article is devoted to the fact that the DRC does not recognize Kosovo, something which could be said in a sentence or less at International recognition of Kosovo. Sources here include a post on Wikileaks (not RS) and a few scattered news articles from Balkan outlets (showing that there is hardly any interest on this subject in the Congo). My WP:BEFORE has turned up nothing new. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete.I agree with Indy beetle - this is a single line or two news item - there's not content here for a full article. This could be just a line in a related appropriate article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, there is enough content here to justify a separate article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per above comments. Sufficient content and context to justify an article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Indy beetle's and Deathlibrarian's comments. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that the article is basically "there is no recognition". I think the pertinent references would be adequate to reference a single sentence in International recognition of Kosovo and Foreign relations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo as well. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per NoonIcarus.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yu-Chia Tseng

Yu-Chia Tseng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Autobiography, fails BIO AINH (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete unbelievable this has lasted for nine years. If you take away the 'Art characteristics' section there's no article left. Fails WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Couldn't find any sources. It's possible they could be in foreign language, but certainly does not pass GNG at its current form.--WomenProj (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

List of Victoria Crosses by school

List of Victoria Crosses by school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

How is this in any way a notable cross-categorization? The only purpose I can think of for this article is giving fancy schools bragging rights, which obviously isn’t the purpose of Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete we cannot have endless cross-categorization like this. VC winners have pages, most of the schools have pages, don't see what value this adds to the encyclopedia. Mztourist (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I could find no evidence of notability of the subject and Wikipedia has a few rules like WP:NOTCATALOG-6 that don't like articles like this for their arbitrary nature. This is just like last weeks AFD over List of Victoria Crosses by star sign and it should have the same result. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given. Athel cb (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. This clearly meets WP:GNG. Schools are rightly proud of their former pupils who have won the Victoria Cross and these are detailed in numerous sources. This is absolutely nothing like the fictitious List of Victoria Crosses by star sign, as that would be a purely arbitrary list. This is very clearly not such a list. It is not a made-up categorisation as seems to be suggested, but one that is very definitely "a thing". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Are these sources respected 3rd-party outlets or are they just school-published pieces bragging about their more notable graduates? Dronebogus (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I will remove my vote for two good refs that say in detail that there is a trend or relationship between these two things or three good refs that have made similar lists and commented on them in detail (I promise not to No true Scotsman you). The whole page is WP:SYNTHESIS. But you are right it is one step up on star sign (forgive my hyperbole) as 'The United Front of Sagittarians' newsletter has not bragged about it...yet. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete (for now): Schools are proud (though I'm not sure about "rightfully") about this specific aspect of their students achievements, but do independent sources discuss the list as a group? If not then it is simply not appropriate to have this list, though then any count that can be sourced to independent sources can be included on the school's article. BilledMammal (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. About as much school cruft puffery as this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Brothers school alumni (2nd nomination). Ajf773 (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another example of waving the old school tie. WWGB (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Per the nom. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY or a WP:WEBHOST for school marketing boards, nor a hub for WP:TRIVIA fans. Cross-categorization has limits, and this article is far beyond them. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete this is not found in RS, the school articles and articles about the recipients are the places to note these connections. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

PithHelmet

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/PithHelmet
• Articles for deletion/PithHelmet (2nd nomination)

PithHelmet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this. While it exists, and is probably useful to users that use it, it does not appear sufficiently notable for a wikipedia article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete not even a claim of notability, since no source except the project web site. Although would be nice to hear opinion of User:Guy Harris who know more Mac. W Nowicki (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete All I did here was change it from a redirect to a no-longer-extant section of the Safari (web browser) article to a slightly cleaned-up version of what was there before it was made such a redirect. Given that there's nothing about PithHelmet on the Safari page any more, linking there would be an error; a quick Wikipedia search didn't find anything else about "PithHelmet" (as opposed to "pith helmet") on the first page of results, so there's probably no other place to which to redirect. Unless somebody can show its notability, deletion is probably the right answer here; the only alternative I see would be for somebody to put back information about extensions from that era, including a mention of PithHelmet, back in the Safari (web browser) article, and link there. Guy Harris (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Eric Corson

Eric Corson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The sources in the article only mention him in passing. His work as a recording engineer is not notable. As a musician, he is not independently notable from his band The Long Winters. Mottezen (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Mottezen (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mottezen (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Justin Cook

Justin Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable voice actor who never dubbed a notable character. No RS. Subject best suited for Wikia. Mottezen (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Never dubbed a notable character? He plays the main protagonist in YuYu Hakusho, which is a level 5 vital article. Not to mention he has a ton of other significant roles like Kirishima in My Hero Academia, Tsukutsun Tsun in Dr. Slump, Hatsuharu Soma in Fruits Basket, and Tamotsu Fukuda in ID – Invaded to name only a few. Link20XX (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• User:Link20XX Thank you for pointing this out. I won't nominate an anime voice actors for deletion again because clearly I don't know what i'm talking about. I'll let this nomination run its course though because my No RS contention remains unresolved. In the end, that is the most important benchmark for notability. Mottezen (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• This article has some RS as-is (Anime News Network is generally reliable and Behind the Voice Actors is ok for series with the checkmark) but as per WP:NACTOR #1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Even a primary source to verify the roles will be sufficient, we just need to prove they had them. Link20XX (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• The ANN source is his resume and the Behind the Voice Actors source is a list of cast members for a show. Mottezen (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NACTOR. This nomination has been partially withdrawn; Mottezen might like to consider withdrawing it so that it can be closed. Nothing wrong with a misunderstanding. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not withdrawing the nomination because I can't find a single line of prose written on this person anywhere else on the internet. When there is so little sourcing available, SNGs are insufficient to establish notability. Mottezen (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • SNGs are insufficient to establish notability is simply false. As per WP:N, A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. By commenting on the SNG, I assume you acknowledge Cook meets NACTOR, which means you admit they are notable. I suggest you withdraw this nomination. Link20XX (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
      • "Presumed" doesn't mean "definitely is". Read a bit further in WP:N: articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found. With current sourcing, this is one of those cases. Mottezen (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
        • You clearly didn't do a WP:BEFORE search. I just spent 5 minutes and already found several good sources from Anime News Network (1, 2, 3, among others) and his BTVA page here, which is reliable for all the roles with green check marks. Additionally, it just says may not will, and as I have shown in just 5 minutes of looking, sources certainly exist. Worst case, we could just cite the episode credits, but this is still a way to prove their roles, which is all that is required to do to meet the SNG. Link20XX (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
          • Please assume good faith, do not brag, improve your understanding of deletion policies, and look up the definition of the word may. Mottezen (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Brighten A Day

Brighten A Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't think this should have been accepted, despite the references. This is trivial human interest, published for the customary human interest reasons of being connected with attractive young people doing something t interesting at an unusually early age. That's enoughfor a newspaper, but not an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This organization received a significant amount of media coverage from multiple large news outlets (abiding by WP:ORG) across a period of more than a year. Also, the organization has a global impact serving seniors and frontline workers according to the news stories. There is also more recent media coverage about the work as well. Juyster (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

the "global impact" consists of " sent out hundreds of thousands of cards to nursing homes and hospitals". This is not a basis for notability . What it is a basis for, is tabloid-style human interest coverage. The basic policy here is NOT TABLOID, the fundamental WP policy for what gets included and what does not. Exaggerating the importance of the trivial is the stock in trade of newspapers. it is not part of encyclopedias. The GNG is a guideline for what usually gets included, but it's based on WP:NOT, the policy, and if there's an apparent incongruity or conflitct, w go by the policy. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The nonprofit did not receive trivial tabloid-style media coverage. Its work and impact were covered extensively on highly reputable news sources like CNN, The Washington Post, CBS This Morning, ABC, and NBC, with not just passing mentions but full articles and news segments. There are more media links beyond those included in the citations of the page, such as this CNN article from May 2020 and Fox News from April 2020. This coverage was extended over a period of more than a year, so it was not a one-time tabloid-like coverage. Also, there are similar organizations with no/little media coverage/recognition (see here - and the Wikipedia page for this organization's founder here - and another organization here) with articles on Wikipedia. The Impact section can be trimmed if needed to improve the article quality. Juyster (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. This is essentially a human interest story that drew national attention during the Covid pandemic. While the organization has gotten significant press coverage, the topic is lacking sustained coverage. In order to prove notability for an encyclopedia we need to show more coverage across time (as in over several years). I would also be ok with draftify per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

*Keep (DOUBLE VOTE) The media coverage was not one-event news as discussed in WP:SUSTAINED. The organization did receive extensive sustained global media coverage from April 2020 (see this Fox News article) to September 2021 (see this article). There was coverage across different months in this time period. Also, there are other similar organizations on Wikipedia with little or no significant media coverage: see here for one organization, here for the previous organization's founder, and here for another similar organization. The organization being discussed here received more significant and sustained press coverage than these organizations. Some media links not included as references are this Good Morning America link, LITE Breakfast Podcast, and this CNN Brazil article. There are also other links on the web. Juyster (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Juyster AFD policy forbids double voting.4meter4 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Juyster please read Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Though I nominated all three articles pointed out by you for deletion, viz. Cards for Hospitalized Kids, Jacob Cramer, Love For Our Elders. Per DGG and 4meter4 Brighten A Day doesn't show required sustained coverage to become an encyclopedic entry. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment WP:SUSTAINED says that a topic must have "attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time" and coverage must not be "in the context of a single event." The news articles provided as evidence of notability span over a period of more than a year and a half, so it is not one event that was covered, as previous users in this discussion have claimed. WP:SUSTAINED is met through coverage from April 2020 to September 2021. WP:ORG is also met through these significant, independent, and reliable sources. Also, notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP. Juyster (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Bikash Lamichhane

Bikash Lamichhane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:TOOSOON at best. Aside from this SIGCOV, even mere mentions are not found in online portals of reputed reliable sources. The thing about that WP:SIGCOV, aside from being promotional which almost all Nepali entertainment coverage is, is that its clone is found here in another WP:RS. It was posted two days later and credits the piece to "Annapurna", calling it news which it isn't. That raises question about both reliability and independence; one SIGCOV isn't enough anyway. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. While I agree with the nominator's analysis overall, my only hesitation to voting delete is the claimed award wins which the nominator did not address in the source analysis. @Usedtobecool is there a reason why we should not count these awards towards notability?4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you 4meter4! I did not mention them because the sources are trash and the awards wouldn't otherwise be enough for notability. I have never heard of the last two awards. I don't follow the field closely but when I've seen awards listed on other musician bios, I've at least been able to say that I've heard of them. They are sourced to an English site; I think you'll be able to tell the site is spam and not acceptable. It mentions the Young Mind Award but not the Everest Award. Searching for "Everest Music Award" on google gives exactly two results: this article and one mirror. My best guess is, Everest Award is a hoax ("Sagarmatha" is the Nepali word for Mt. Everest). For Young Minds Award, Google goes directly to the UK, even though I am searching from Nepal. That leaves "Sagarmath Music Award" which I have seen listed on other bios on Wikipedia but it does not have an article and it can't be used to presume notability. I found an RS about the award[2]. It says there are 44 categories. The cited nonRS gives the list which has four different categories for "Best Male Model". I don't know why models would have different categories per genre, except to increase the number of recipients. The RS also says the awards are presented based on "sms voting and jury judgement". It does not even bother to list all the categories and winners. So, the newsworthy bit with the event was that a minister was present and one artist got a lifetime achievement award and a few journalists were recognised; I think if winning here meant anything, the news would start with who won best singer, composer, song, album, etc. What help is an award list without a verifying RS alongside it? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete- No specific contribution to pass WP:NACTOR.nirmal (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't seem notable. Clog Wolf _Howl 03:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 Occidental Mindoro earthquake

2021 Occidental Mindoro earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minimal damage with Moderate MMI intensity scale. No reported human deaths. Most reports are WP:ROUTINE noting that the earthquake happened and was felt in nearby areas. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Not as notable as the 2019 Luzon earthquake. This latest earthquake seems to be a series of interrelated tremors within the past year coming from the same Lubang fault. HiwilmsTalk 04:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete It exists but fails Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes) in every aspect. The Philippines get many earthquaks like these and Wikipedia will not catalog every single one of them.--CactusTaron (Nopen't) 04:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: It could be alternatively transferred into a list article, but it seems that unlike for cyclones (see 2021 Pacific typhoon season for example), there is no list that categorizes earthquakes (probably due to its frequency). Moreover, as earlier comments point out, it is not notable in its own right (no casualties or property damage, magnitude of earthquake below 6, and no interesting changes except that there's a minute movement). - 49.144.214.48 (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Can't be merged to List of earthquakes in 2021 since it was below a magnitude of 6 and isn't notable for other reasons. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Article is verifiable but fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Although its true and verifiable, but definitely fails WP:NEVENT. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NEVENT. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep --- it seems notable to me and I don't think it fails WP:NEVENT. Aequilaterum (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet of Billy Beagle. ✗plicit 04:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Carol Bruneau

Carol Bruneau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks notability and sources. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep - a quick search finds a bunch of sources that could be used. There's The Globe And Mail, there's CBC, there's the Toronto Star, there's the Writers' Federation of Nova Scotia, there's this interview and this interview, etc... NHCLS (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 by Justlettersandnumbers. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 11:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

To European Union

To European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously speedied article, recreated without new information or sources. This "group" is a low information free web page (only thing cited as source) and a one year old low use Twitter account. No links, no media reference, no indication of any membership, etc. Nothing to show any significance. JamesG5 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a significant organization. Athel cb (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I have just reverted an attempt hijack of this discussion, which involved editing the AfD rationale. Please be vigilant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Please find new citations. References in the Citations already explain the this principle of physics.

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 04:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

First Fundamental Law of Physics

First Fundamental Law of Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence this concept or law exists anywhere other than the page creator's assertion. Neither of the links added after the initial PROD state it or anything close. "The first fundamental law of physics" produces no results of anything like this, any hits that show up generally refer to the first law of thermodynamics. No discussions of physics reflect this as being any kind of fundamental law. All material added after the initial PROD is direct copypasta from sources and doesn't support the title or initial post. JamesG5 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as just apparently made up by the creator. Mccapra (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons already given. The two "references" are not references to any serious sources of knowledge of the theory of physics -- nothing in a recognized physics journal, nothing in an accepted textbook, etc. Athel cb (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Mccapra. Dsp13 (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete After doing some research, I think at best this is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per JamesG5, Mccapra, Athel. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and prior comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agricolae (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

List of video games based on actual events

List of video games based on actual events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

New article; but too loosely defined to be a plausible list article. I'm not sure if it is simply "list of video games in a historical setting", or more specifically games themed around history. I don't think it works either way. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete and also delete List of historical video games. As far as I can see, "based on actual events" has no (or at best a very tenuous) connection to nearly every entry on this list, with the exception of 8:46. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: this article is about video games based on true story and is different with that article with you mentioned. yep 8:46 and 1979 Revolution: Black Friday is really good examples to be into this article ZEP55 (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep I tend to favor 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) 15:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It's not clear to me what the WP:LISTCRITERIA are here, but I suspect that this might be too broad per WP:SALAT considering that e.g. WWII is an actual event quite a few video games are based on. At any rate, the inclusion criteria would need to be clarified if this is to be kept. TompaDompa (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Overly broad list criteria for inclusion. There's also no clear line between 'historical fiction' and 'alternate reality fiction' (i.e. the Wolfenstein games)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and also support opening an AFD for List of historical video games per Clarityfiend. On the sliding scale of historical fiction, alternate history fiction, fictionalized real life events, and the ever-murky "based on a true story", there is no sensical line to draw. If you err on the side of including all of the above, then it's an indiscriminate list (like the aforementioned List of historical video games) which should also be removed. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Many video games have sections/parts based on actual events. This list could become very large because its definition is not specific. A term like "based on actual events" can include too many titles. For example, a game could be based on alternate history but it may have some quests/missions based on actual events. This is a broad and non-specific list. Wario-Man ^talk 04:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Mark Petersen (geologist)

Mark Petersen (geologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:NSCIENTIST, WP:NPOL, and WP:BASIC. The only source in the article is an opinion piece that the article's subject wrote, as well as an external link to his employer's website. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. There just isn't enough there for an article, nor can I find indication that there is enough more material out there. Like many scientists, he's written this and that, but only if obscure journals and government reports. He's head of group, but the external link indicates that the group is like 20 people. One quibble, the one source is a legit interview I think, not written by the subject. But beyond personal info which who cares, there's not much. And that's the only source that I could find right off. Herostratus (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: While the subject has an impressive resume, I am unable to find anything that suggests that he passes WP:NPROF. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. This kind of article and discussion highlights a gap in our V/GNG policies, which clearly hasn't been resolved suitably one way or another. Daniel (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Manasse Ninakku Mangalam

Manasse Ninakku Mangalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE . Was dePROD'ed without an explanation. Kolma8 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. News stories about the death of the film's director, A. B. Raj, include this film among his notable works. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

For something like this (a Malayalam-language film from 1984), you need to check newspapers and trade magazines from 1984. You might be able to find them at your local library. A simple Google search isn't enough to find that type of review. For an American movie, I would check Variety magazine. I'm not sure what its Indian counterpart is, but once you fid it, you should be able to find news stories and reviews of a lot of other Malayalam movies. Until then, I would recommend not asking for the deletion of any other Malayalam-language movies. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This will be practically impossible. Even for major Malayalam newspapers, it is difficult to find anything from a couple of years ago. For the recent stuff, there will some English articles available on the net. But for anything prior to 2010, finding contemporary information in Malayalam is extremely difficult. Tintin 04:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment What is the exact reason why this is being nominated for deletion ? In WP:NFILM, I see the line "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." In the IMDB page, I see the names of the cast mentioned in Manasse Ninakku Mangalam and these are all major actors (Prem Nazir, Madhu, Menaka etc).

Or are seriously looking for "contemporary mentions" and "two full-length reviews" for Indian local language movies from 1960s and 1970s ? Tintin 04:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Well...the sources have to be presented to make a point and to support notability of the subject, otherwise what is the point...the same goes to support that this film was "a major part of" someone's career. If that can be referenced then of course there is no case for this AfD. Notability has to be supported, not just stated. So, I am seriously looking for "contemporary mentions" and "two full-length reviews", because it is the reason we have guidance. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

That guidance will work for movies in English and perhaps in other European languages. But for movies in Indian regional languages, I suspect it will be extremely difficult. Tintin 03:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but on another hand we have to use some type of guidance to sort it out through the articles, right? How else we can control the quality of the WP articles? The latter is a rhetorical question. ;) Thank you for your contribution to WP! Kolma8 (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Tintin 04:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  Tintin, as above. Kolma8 (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Tintin. Given the era the film was made and the well known director and actor's involved, the likelihood of offline sources existing with significant coverage is high.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: can actual sourcing be found?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - per above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, as sources likely exist, given the era.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. I, unfortunately, have to agree with Kolma8. No sources popped up when I searched for this. To all the Keep !voters, please don't just assume that there are sources, provide them. --Coolperson177 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of ambassadors of Madagascar to the United States. Daniel (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Zina Andrianarivelo-Razafy

Zina Andrianarivelo-Razafy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a run-of-the-mill diplomat from a small country. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Diplomatically-speaking Madagascar is indeed quite unimportant, but this man has held his country's most prestigious ambassadorships for two decades. There must surely be something written about this man, although it is hard to find stuff about Africa and from twenty years ago online. The only secondary sources I could find were this and this, but they are not in-depth. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I also found this in-depth profile, but I'm not familiar with the website. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of ambassadors of Madagascar to the United States.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect - I agree with User:4meter4 that a redirect to the mentioned list is appropriate here. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Chartered Wealth Manager

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Chartered Wealth Manager
• Articles for deletion/Chartered Wealth Manager (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Chartered Wealth Manager (3rd nomination)

Chartered Wealth Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Articles on this credential were deleted at AfD in 2009 and again in 2010 (the latter discussion weighed down by a lot of puppetry), at which time it was offered by an American Academy of Financial Management. This new instance has been created in recent weeks (as has an article on a Global Academy of Finance and Management which apparently acquired various pieces of the AAFM's IPR in 2015). Given the passage of time, this probably needs another AfD to re-establish consensus, though RJC's comments in the 2010 AfD seem applicable here regarding the AAFM/GAFM credential. (A complication is that Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment offer a qualification of this name, covered briefly at Professional_certification_in_financial_services#CISI_Qualifications, but not mentioned in the present article.) AllyD (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt. I couldn't find any reliable significant independent coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. As this is recurring problem, strongly recommending salting this.4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Thoroughly fails WP:GNG. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Chris Ojigbani

Chris Ojigbani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional BLP of a minor pastor sourced mainly to his own books. A search brings up social media profiles, Wikipedia mirrors and bookseller sites but no in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment -- He seems to be a Nigerian tele-evangelist, specialising in marriage and relationship issues. I cannot tell if he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete  – A BEFORE search does not bring up enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Princess of Ara 08:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Passes GNG. I did find some independent significant coverage in google books indicating he is a well known and important spiritual leader in Africa; including academics critiquing or including him in religious studies publications. See: [3], [4], [5]. 4meter4 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete — Per rationale giving by Mccapra, I believe GNG isn’t met just yet. Celestina007 (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - No [WP:GNG], and borderline WP:G11. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I find 4meter4's rationale the most persuasive from a policy standpoint. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Jahan Nostra

Jahan Nostra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, almost all the sources are WP:PRIMARY Xclusivzik (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I strongly oppose deletion for the Jahan Nostra page.

First of all, I edited the page, so if you look at the sources, the majority of the sources are NOT primary sources. Some Artist pages on Wikipedia do cite their music references with links to primary sources OR they do not even cite the music releases at all, so I feel that Jahan Nostra is being unfairly targeted. In all cases, additional citations from other sources have been added if you look through the references section. There are links to articles in Hip Hop DX, Huff Post, Soul Bounce, Underground Hip Hop Blog and others.

Jahan Nostra collaborated with several noteworthy artists, including Smif-N-Wessun, Tone Trump, Omar Wilson, Ceschi and Hakim Green of Channel Live. Also, the Grammy Award Winning Engineer, Daddy Kev mastered Jahan Nostra’s album, ESP (2016).

Jahan Nostra received several awards and nominations from reputable festivals, including the Hip Hop Film Festival, Golden Door Film Festival, Newark International Film Festival and more. All of those awards are listed on his IMDb page and all Award and nominations on IMDB MUST be approved by each film festival before they can appear on IMDb. In 2019, Jahan Nostra won the Best Music Video Award at the Golden Door Film Festival, and the music videos are judged by Grammy Award Winning Producer Jerry “Duplessis” Wonda. The Golden Door Film Festival was founded by Bill Sorvino, nephew of Paul Sorvino and Academy Award-Winning Actress Mira Sorvino sits on the board. In 2019, Jahan Nostra received a Best Music Video Nomination at the Newark International Film Festival (Newark IFF), and at the exact same awards Mack Wilds also attended the ceremony and he accepted the Best Actor Award. In addition, the film “About The People” also won an award at Newark IFF 2019 and that film starred the late Michael K. Williams who also Executive Produced the film. Larenz Tate, Lahmard Tate and Laron Tate attended the 2019 Newark International Film Festival where they screened their film “Business Ethics” and they also won an award, which Laron and Lahmard accepted in person. (Larenz attended Newark IFF 2019 in person, but he didn’t make it to the awards ceremony because the awards fell on his birthday). In addition, Jahan Nostra won Best Music Video at the Hip Hop Film Festival in 2019, and that event featured appearances by Dapper Dan, Khalil Kain, and Academy Award Winning Producer Bruce Cohen among others. These festivals are not giving out awards to just anyone. This is why Jahan Nostra is definitely noteworthy for winning so many awards at these reputable and established events.

In addition, Jahan Nostra is currently promoting a new video called “Dedication” (unreleased), which features REKS Rhythmatic Eternal King Supreme and Tahmell (son of Rakim). The project “Dedication” was an Official Selections at the 2021 Hip Hop Film Festival, 2021 Golden Door Film Festival and the Newark International Film Festival. ("Dedication" is not yet in the media because its not out yet, but once "Dedication" is released its going to be all over the media.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eileen Fine (talk • contribs)

• Keep Notable singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.180.71 (talk) 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete This is refbombed to hell with primary sources and IMDb links. Despite this, the subject does not have enough references in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. If someone can demonstrate otherwise, I will change my !vote. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - The article is indeed ref-bombed to a lot of primary sources, with an undertone of desperation, but if you wade through the garbage the rapper does have coverage in a few reliable sources, such as [6], [7], [8] which are already cited in the article. However I can find nothing reliable for all the awards and nominations, with only IMDB showing anything. This article needs some cleanup and possibly TNT but the rapper may have enough coverage for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Doomsdayer520: That HuffPo piece is a Huffington Post Contributors piece, which does not contribute towards notability and is generally considered to be self-published. It should be removed from this biography of a living person, as SPS are never OK to use in a BLP except in an WP:ABOUTSELF manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehawk10 (talk • contribs) 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No argument there, but that is only one of the three sources I mentioned. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO. Only two of the sources in the article provide in-depth independent and significant coverage; the Huffington Post article and the ctpost article provided by Doomsdayer520. The hiphopdx.com is so perfunctory that I would not consider it in-depth coverage. Per WP:THREE, there is simply not enough coverage here to justify keeping the article. Further, the article is so full of ref bombing and puffery that a WP:TNT argument is warranted in this case even if we can find a third piece of RS to pass GNG/MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Ref-bombed with primary sources and appears to be under the threshold for notability enumerated in WP:MUSICBIO. Even if he were notable, the article needs WP:TNT. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus against deletion and while various merges have been suggested, including by the nominator, none of them gained consensus here. Any future merge proposals should preferably take place on article talk. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

KDLT tower

KDLT tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable as a stand-alone subject. Best to merge with KDLT-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

GEOFEAT@2

• Merge to Rowena, South Dakota#television towers. Probably one of the most notable and exciting things for this small town; to have a structure featured on TV. As there is already a small section on the television towers in the article on the town, all of this content could simply be moved there.4meter4 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep the tower is notable on its own as (one of) the world's tallest transmission tower. WP:GEOFEAT - artificial feature. Huffington Post, The Architect's Newspaper. Lightburst (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge. If anything, WP:GEOFEAT provides a reason NOT to keep. The tower's WP:GNG is certainly not clear; thus, a redirect might be in order, but no more. I don't mind a merge, but I'm not sure what info is worth merging, since the tower is already mentioned. Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I should have been more clear. The tower passes WP:GNG with multiple WP:RS and more sources WP:NEXIST. When we have a GNG pass, we have an article. Lightburst (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Question: What do you suppose happened on 9/19/2021? Same day as the AfD was placed. I am sure these were not all AfD participants. Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Reddit happened. Plus the ripple effect of re-posts to other platforms. ApLundell (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep added some more sources. Has periodic thus enduring notability, two different times made the news/TV with national and international coverage. -- GreenC 01:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep or Merge. One of the tallest structures on Earth, has received significant reliable news coverage. Even if it doesn’t need an article, the topic is significant and the information should at least be merged to the article about the associated community. Dronebogus (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The third tallest structure on planet Earth makes it notable. Dream Focus 21:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep satisfies GNG.Djflem (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The Exchange TRX

The Exchange TRX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't pass WP:CORP, No sign of notability. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 13:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is about a future shopping mall (as in the building), not the larger corporation (Tun Razak Exchange) which owns and operates it (they own many properties) so WP:NCORP is not the relevant guideline. It is a future building project which may or may not ever get built. As such, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NBUILDING. Even after it gets built it would likely not pass NBUILDING. 4meter4 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. This does not meet WP:NBUILDING and certainly is not in line with WP:CRYSTAL. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk)

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.