Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 28	September 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Macon County, Georgia. ✗plicit 13:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barrons Lane, Georgia[edit]

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

Just a railroad crossing, no houses or buildings in the vicinity. I doubt this is a community. wizzito | say hello! 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Older topos show a rail siding with several buildings and there are a few newspaper mentions of trains leaving from there, timetables, etc. I did find a couple mentions of people being from/of there, but this just means it was used as a landmark and doesn't necessarily indicate a community. This looks to be a former train station at best and in any case there's nowhere near enough significant coverage to meet WP:GEOLAND/WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 23:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Macon County, Georgia. In 1885 it was the name of a train stop; in 1889 melons were being loaded onto trains there, and in 1893 some people lived in "the immediate vicinity of Barron's Lane". In 1924 there was another railroad track there; In 1942 people remembered the good old days packing peaches there. While it wasn't a populated place, it was certainly a thing that existed (unlike many of the "geostubs" that warp and weft through AfD). jp×g 17:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I am not convinced of the notability. But. redirect is WP:CHEAP. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per above. Qwerfjkl talk 20:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 18:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abernathys Mill, Georgia[edit]

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

Not a real place. Google only produces Wikipedia mirrors and generic things that pulls from GNIS. Coordinates lead to a place near a highway with a few houses. The highway map listed has Abernathys Mill on it, but lists it not as a populated place... but instead as a bridge. wizzito | say hello! 22:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 22:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a mill mislabeled as a populated place. The 1960 topo shows a building in/on the river as one would expect of a mill, and it also appears in two real estate listings from the 1980s [1][2]. None of this comes close to meeting the Significant Coverage requirements of WP:GEOLAND/WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 23:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haralson County, Georgia. Newspaper results show that an "Abernathy Mill" does exist historically, but even going back to ~~the dawn of recorded history~~ the 1800s, all I can find is stuff along the lines of "Abernathy's mill located on this river five miles north of Buchanan" (1931), "Graveside services for Mrs. Julius (Frances Kearney) Hughes of Abernathy Mill Road (1974), "The historic Abernathy Mill [...] built in 1830" (1982). Expanding the search to neighboring Alabama brings up "the property known as the Abernathy Mill" (1876), but it's not clear this is the same place, since in 1876 the Alabama papers said that "the building known as the Abernathy mill has been torn down". I don't see anything to support the existence of this as a populated area. It does, however, seem quite clear to me that there really is (was?) an Abernathy's Mill in Haralson County. jp×g 17:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Dlthewave. I see no benefit to redirecting to the county as mentioning the mill on that page would create WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, and a redirect to a page that doesn't mention the topic isn't useful or appropriate.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Minks (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. scope_creep^Talk 20:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/ Weak delete. I'm finding a lot of local news kinds of press in multiple American cities like this, this, this, and this (mix of interview and non-interview material). I also found a decent independent magazine article here. This magazine article is a interview. Here is an album review; although I am unsure about the significance of this source. This source confirms they are a band with Broadcast Music, Inc.; which indicates some degree of notability. It's a borderline call.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early band coverage, but it is quite a lot, probably passes sigcov, although nobody is listening to them. Very very early stage stuff. scope_creep^Talk 11:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is WP:TOOSOON. Their last single on youtube [[3]] has 4.5k views. I think if there was more mainstream views I would be happier. scope_creep^Talk 11:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Polk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOX. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Non-notable boxer. JTtheOG (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine sports coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG and he fails to meet any notability criteria at WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOX and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Peterson[edit]

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

non-notable run of the mill architect, sourced to black hat SEO with meaningless word salad style awards PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you be more specific on what you mean "black hat SEO" (which I'm assuming spamdexing) because the awards from AIA could easily be removed. – The Grid (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems to have lots of sources, both on and offline, that look legitimate. Without a more detailed source analysis from the nominator I am not seeing a strong case for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nominator has failed to address their reasons. This architect has done various work in Sarasota County, Florida that is listed and sourced in their article. – The Grid (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Büchner[edit]

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

Doesnt seem very notable Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO per sources located in the German language wiki. See de:Jens Büchner.4meter4 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be expanded from German wiki article. TolWol56 (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: German article has sufficient sourcing to pass GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Hill[edit]

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

Fictional Character that fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. WP:BEFORE does not show any analysis, only in-universe summaries and the article currently contains zero secondary sources. The article is 99% WP:OR. If I were to attempt cleanup to remove unverified text, I would wind up blanking the article, resulting in nothing but my being reverted and warned. Per WP:BURDEN, those who wish to keep unverified text or claims are responsible for providing the sources. En♟ Passant♙ 22:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The current article should definitely be rewritten to be more than primary-sourced plot summary, but just a quick look brings up quite a bit of coverage on Peggy that goes into actual analysis beyond just plot. Just a cursory search on my part already brought up things like this article from Paste (magazine) about her, this book analyzing TV mothers that has a lengthy section on her, this book on the portrayal of teachers on TV that discusses her, and this paper from Fireweed (periodical) that has about a paragraph on her while discussing the wider context of the show. The current article definitely fails WP:PLOT and needs to be rewritten, but Peggy Hill as a character passes the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable, but the current article is almost WP:TNTable. Almost, but salvagable - cut down plot summary fancruft, add something based on the above sources, and we are GTG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the above sources are enough for the article to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG per Rorshacma. The solution is to improve the article through editing.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lewisville High School#Athletics. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers Field (Lewisville, Texas)[edit]

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

Non-notable high school / semipro baseball stadium. Natg 19 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lewisville High School#Athletics (probably add its own section, or one for baseball in general). No need to discuss high school sports facilities in separate articles. Hog Farm _Talk 15:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lewisville High School#Athletics.4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amplus Solar[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met, WP:SIRS is definitely absent. A google search leads me to unreliable sources such as this & this and a plethora of press releases which we regard to as “churnalism” The one reliable source I could find fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just a company that installs solar panels. Does not meet WP:NCORP primary criteria. Gentleman wiki (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. Creator blocked. MER-C 15:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Thompsett[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable tv presenter. Article an unsourced BLP written like an ad page. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG Mbdfar (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mbdfar (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd been considering putting this up for deletion myself, owing to the lack of suitable sources in my searches. Also, the most recent contributor before the nomination was User:Glen Thompsett, so a COI there CiphriusKane (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I disagree that Glen is non-notable but the article needs references.Rillington (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any significant coverage on Glen Thompsett in a BEFORE search. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:JOURNALIST. Further it has a non-encyclopedic promotional tone, could probably be speedy deleted under G11. 4meter4 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saunders & Long[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Needless to say there’s no WP:ORGDEPTH. A before search predominantly links me to primary unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear fail of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. And the Forbes contributor cite does not count - see WP:RSP. Edwardx (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with user Edwardx. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agapios Agapiou[edit]

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

His professional career consists of 36 mins in the league and 16 mins in the cup 7 years ago. Since then, he struggled to even get game time in the semi-pro second tier before finding his feet in the 4th and 3rd tiers of Cypriot football before disappearing. Whilst his very brief professional career might create a presumption of passing WP:GNG, there is a growing consensus among the Wikipedia community that GNG actually needs to be demonstrated in borderline cases such as this one.

Greek language searches in Google News and DDG came back with very little. All I found was his name mentioned in a list of players published on Sigma Live that were close to a suspension for yellow cards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article has just one sentence of prose and is mostly statistics so WP:NOTSTATS is a consideration too. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG based on the WP:BEFORE done by the nominator. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator's comments. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY and scrapes by GNG in my opinion.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources show GNG? Please show two or WP:THREE if possible Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central European Highlands[edit]

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

Not a notable geographic feature and there is no source whether this term is even used or not. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick Google search gives these:
https://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/ICOP/55700698/Pdf/Chapter_060.pdf
The nominator should have done this search . Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Heinz H. Ellenberg, Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe, Cambridge University Press, p. 209 Terraflorin (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG per sources added to the article and above. Clearly a WP:BEFORE was not done.4meter4 (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A notable term, concept and geographical region that meets WP:GNG. Below is another source I found after a brief search. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henfrey, A. (1852). The Vegetation of Europe: Its Conditions and Causes. Outlines of the natural history of Europe. [v. 1]. J. van Voorst. p. 208-234.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a CSD G4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Vashist[edit]

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

Bit part actor. Very early career. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G4. Article was previously deleted at AfD in August. Another editor moved a newly created draft into mainspace despite it being declined at review. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Master Lian Tzi[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a person with no strong or reliably sourced claim to passing a Wikipedia inclusion standard. The notability claim here is that she won a community achievement award which is not highly notable enough to secure an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of a demonstrated pass of WP:GNG -- but the article is referenced to two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, one unrecoverable dead link from a blog, and a news article from a local radio station which verifies a stray fact about the subject's organization while completely failing to even namecheck the subject herself in conjunction with it, which means exactly none of the footnotes are helping to establish passage of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat's convincing source analysis. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Closed as a CSD G14. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macha Village[edit]

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

Disambiguation for two places that do not have articles or even a simple mention within articles. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Does not make any sense the way it is now. Ref. CSD G8 Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page - Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted. Gentleman wiki (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged it for SD. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaventure Igboanugo[edit]

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

Borderline A7 eligible Promotional article on a non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus WP:GNG is not met. A before search predominantly turns up links to user generated sources, self published sources and a plethora of WP:QS. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved to the draft namespace by the original author. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be moved back in my opinion. AfD can and should decide the article's fate. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - As per nom. It almost looks like a hoax. CSD A7 No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) Gentleman wiki (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see dozens of pages like this every day. They usually stay in Draftspace. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in searches, I am only able to find press releases and social media, no WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a honest mistake pushing it into the article mainspace as it was intended to be in my draft till i finish editing. sorry guys, my bad! Dinsin41 (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn’t correct, your edit summary was this, you clearly had finished working on the article prior submitting, then when you observed it had been nominated for deletion, in order to game and circumvent the AFD you did this very disruptive action. In any case the article in question is an WP:ADMASQ on a non notable businessman, draftyfing isn’t a viable option. Celestina007 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete feels like an brochure. Cobyan02069 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pedrinho (footballer, born July 1994)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play consisting of only 93 minutes. Other than his short spell in Cyprus, an unusually unconcspicuous career, with no sigcov. Geschichte (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances (93 minutes of play = one game in real terms) is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nowhere near enough for GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Hard for me to dig up anything for WP:GNG with such a common name. Not saying it doesn't exist, but someone would need to find it for me to change. GauchoDude (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Team Rough House[edit]

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

Kind of hard to find articles about the gym itself. A lot of them focus more on the fighters rather than the gym. One of the references doesn't even link properly. Imcdc (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Likely fails WP:GNG. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find the significant independent coverage required to show WP:GNG is met, so let's look at the article's references. The first reference in the article is a column in the local paper by team member Dan Hardy, the second one probably passes as significant, though Sherdog's reliability has been questioned and the independence is unknown, and the final source is basically a summation of UFC 105's results for the team's fighters (again with unknown independence). That's not enough to show WP notability. The claim of notability seems to be based on the notability of some team members but WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the fire go out[edit]

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

A forgotten U.S. Senate's campaign slogan and tie-in book fail WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 17:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jean Carnahan. Reywas92^Talk 20:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Unsourced and possibly fails WP:GNG. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, there are multiple other uses of the phrase. There are several books with this title not connected to Mel Carnahan, a song by Bird Youmans with this title, and translations of the Bible using these words in Leviticus 6. All of that to say, a redirect is not appropriate as there are arguably other stronger redirect targets for this phrase.4meter4 (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian pizza[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, appears to fail WP:GNG. The one cited reliable source, a LA Times article, is a dead link. A Google Books search finds little evidence that this is a distinct and notable method of preparation of pizza (see Pizza#Styles), as opposed to just pizza as served in Iran, maybe with some local spices and ingredients. If this can be sourced better, it could be merged to List of pizza varieties by country#Iran. Sandstein 16:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found an archived version of the Los Angeles Times review by going directly to http://web.archive.org/ and choosing the oldest archived version of the review. And I found and added two journal articles that make reference to Iranian pizza, although not as their primary topic. The trademark application doesn't really matter, but I think notability has been shown. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about notability but as for one I can certify it is delicious Mardetanha (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are multiple passing references to help establish that this is more than just a combination of <country_name>+<pizza>; its a specific variation of a notable dish and a spin-out article seems appropriate. Sources like this provide enough information to substantiate an article, I think. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is a source that provides significant coverage. It appears to be reliable, as per the bottom of the page, where it states, "Bittersweet is a Blogo supplement. Blogo is a registered newspaper. ROC registration n. 22649". The article translates well into English using Google Translate. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mariani, Carlotta (25 January 2021). "Persian pizza, l’opulenta e conditissima pizza dell’Iran". Blogo. (Italian).

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koray Erdoğan[edit]

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

Just...spam...and mostly unsourced. Likely socking between Mutlutopuz and Happybloom. Since most of the sources are not English, hard to tell if some article couldn't possibly be created. But given the obvious glamour shots, if this ain't UPE then I'm a monkey's uncle, even if it's not socking. Everything I'm seeing in English seems to be below low quality unusable sources. GMG ^talk 16:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a really annoying article. Its counterparts in French and German have been deleted, and the Turkish version has a tag on it.\. I'm reluctant to delete the article, though, because he and his inventions may represent something notable. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6683-9250 and https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=PJz5GDoAAAAJ indicate that he has published in what I think are peer-reviewed journals, although the publications haven't been cited much. here is coverage in the Independent, a reliable British newspaper. Turkish-language newspaper articles can be translated using Google Translate. He likes to throw parties to bring in business, which explains why some of the references are about his parties rather than his hair-transplantation techniques. National Geographic's video unit's coverage is an argument for notability. This is an English-language reference from what I think is an English-language broadcaster in Turkey. Maybe stub the article, get rid of the part coverage and keep the neutral medical stuff. But in light of the history of the article, I don't feel like making these repairs myself. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. At first sight this has all the signs of self-advertisement. However, the World FUE Institute does seem to exist and to have its headquarters in Belgium, with Koray Erdoğan as its President. However, I haven't managed to find a meaningful website. The link at World FUE Institute doesn't lead anywhere useful, at least that was the case until I deleted it. It talked about a meeting that "will be held in November 2016" (almost five years ago!). I suspect that the World FUE Institute article is also primarily advertising, and probably a good candidate for deletion itself. Athel cb (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely agree with nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain It has been speedied on trwiki as well, just a few minutes after I tagged it for UPE.... I was getting ready to AfD it there too anyways so. Creating user (Mutlutopuz) is known to be an paid editor. Sources seem crap to me (PR pieces). Don't see how it meets NPROF. Delete. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most certainly PR work, probably paid, and not notable. Article on tr.wiki has been deleted btw. Dr. Coal^Message 13:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jel (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Musician who is not independently notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NMUSIC states that merely having an album chart in the top 200 may be enough to confer notability. When one's very first album debuts at #3, I think that's enough to turn "may be notable" into "definitely is notable." It would be unfathomable for an artist who had a #3 album on the US or UK charts to not have a Wikipedia article. Mlb96 (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also was able to find WP:SIGCOV of one of this artist's live performances here (which was damn hard, because I'm not at all fluent in Japanese). Mlb96 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: It turns out that the above link is a republish, and the original version is actually here. This site has a proper editorial board and distinguishes between press releases and original pieces. This is labeled as an original piece, and the credited author doesn't seem to have any connection to the subject. So that's significant coverage in a reliable, independent, secondary source. Mlb96 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also found this piece covering a minor controversy in which he was involved. It's probably not something that I would bother mentioning on the actual article, but I'd might as well mention it here. Mlb96 (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His debut solo album placed #3 on the weekly charts and he qualifies per WP:NMUSIC. Looking at his Oricon profile, he also has several articles written about him here. lullabying (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though he a No. 3 album in the chart, consensus states, as it is a WP:BLP there must be supporting references, secondary references.. Where are they? The search provided above in the Oricon profile is for the band. They are all the band. The ref at here is a clickbait site, is primary and is probably non-rs for that reason.

Ref 1 is a clickbait site and is primary.

Ref 2 is an album listing. Non-RS::Ref 3 is an album listing. Non-RS

Ref 4 a wee short paragraph. Non-RS

Ref 5 is the band, a very very short paragraph with video.

As this is a BLP where it proper secondary sources and the reviews of the album in the mainstream Japanese news? scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.barks.jp/news/?id=1000176883 is not a primary source, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The Oricon search mentioned above gives articles related to him, and while many are about the band as a whole, not all of them are; some are about him individually. This Wikipedia article is about the singer, not the album, so album reviews are not necessary. Calling an affiliate of the Asahi Shimbun a "clickbait site" is pretty funny, although I will admit that that particular source is an interview and it was never intended to demonstrate notability anyway. Your analysis of source 5 is entirely wrong, it's not about the band, it's about the individual members. Talking about the length of the sources is a red herring, as even a single sentence can qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Your concern about WP:BLP is another red herring, as that is a separate issue from notability and the article satisfactorily complies with BLP policies anyway. And finally, of course, notability is not based on the sources in the article itself, so that's a third red herring.

In conclusion, you have provided absolutely no reason why we should not simply apply WP:NMUSIC here. Your argument is based on red herrings and a misunderstanding of the sources (although I don't blame you for that, as you probably don't understand Japanese and relied on a machine translation). Applying WP:NMUSIC leads us to the conclusion that the article should be kept, so that is what we should do. Mlb96 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This a BLP and it needs proper sources. Of the 16 entries in the Oricon raw search URL, 16 of them are the band, not him. The bars ref is an review of the show and is part interview

You didn't think I'd dance, did you? "You didn't think I'd dance, did you?" says a mischievous Ger. "Well, it's lonely when you're the only one singing the Supri songs. I'd like to get another one! I'd like to invite someone else! I'll be back. "I was dancing on the sleeve during 'Our Own Shangri-La'! The two of them talk in perfect harmony.

And posting NExists, when there is no other external sources, is really poor. If there is other references, post them, so we can take a look at them. There isn't a BARKS page, Japanese Music Network, but does state in the About Us page:

BARKS is a music website that aims to provide the best possible information on pop, rock and other music released in Japan today, using the technology and infrastructure of the Internet to reach as many people as possible...We have a unique structure and editorial system

The subject has zero secondary coverage out with a small part of reference 5. The rest of the references are very poor. They're is no reviews of the album. It is a case of WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 18:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an interview, it's quoting stuff he said during the performance. Like I said, you're misinterpreting the sources due to poor machine translation.

Also, I'd like to thank you for bringing WP:TOOSOON to my attention, because it very specifically states on that page that "It should be remembered that even in cases where a person might not meet the GNG, the GNG itself is not the final word. Editors are encouraged to also consider the topic-specific notability sub-criteria as set out in WP:Notability (people)." The relevant sub-criteria here being WP:NMUSIC, which is satisfied. So, in other words, it is not too soon for this article, it is exactly soon enough. Mlb96 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't keep quoting policy. You haven't any sources to support a BLP. Three secondary sources would do it. If cannot be a standalone article, because some fan thinks Wikipedia needs an article. If it comes to no conensus decision, in six months, if there no sources, i.e. it is still in its present, it will send it back Afd. So, please post the sources, so we can examine them. There is another person on Afd who quotes policy as well and it is also a singer. That is curious. scope_creep^Talk 20:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is what matters here, not your own personal preference. If you want to rewrite WP:NMUSIC, this is not the venue to do it. As it stands, this article meets the notability requirements. I have already provided a secondary source which you have refused to accept as valid, and I will continue looking for more sources (which is extraordinarily difficult for me because I'm not fluent in Japanese) (Update: I've found another source and more information about the first source that may be relevant, and have mentioned it below my initial comment), but the article, even as it exists now, does not qualify for deletion.

And I don't know who or what you are referring to in regards to this other AfD, but I vehemently resent the implication behind that comment. First you baselessly accused me of paid editing, now you're baselessly accusing me of socking? Keep your aspersions to yourself. Mlb96 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, based off WP:NMUSIC #2 (the album charting at #3), and #12 (Featured artist on NHK Music Line), but only week keep cause the coverage outside of NMUSIC is fairly weak. Though, the minor controversy Mlb noted also helps, outlets don't generally cover random internet drama unless you're notable. As an aside, there is no policy/guideline that requires secondary sources for WP:BLP, only for content that could be challenged. I don't see any content in the article that could reasonably be challenged. Jumpytoo Talk 05:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complete misreading of policy. Primary sources can't be used to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he has a #3 albumJackattack1597 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K.P. Ramaiah[edit]

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

This is page for a politician which was not elected. And also, I did not find enough coverage for WP:GNG Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - again, we shouldn't judge notability of politicians solely on electoral record. KPR appears to have been a prominent public figure, notably his entry into party politics became national news in itself. --Soman (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree it should not be. But in this case, all news is just about him contesting elections and that's all. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not all coverage is electoral [4], [5], [6] --Soman (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. CSK#1, nominator fails to advance any argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anik Khan[edit]

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

Breekup69 (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Breekup69 (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural/Speedy Close... unless the nominator adds a policy-based reason for deleting the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of youngest living Catholic bishops[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest living Catholic bishops and cardinals, but these are the 100 youngest bishops. Since canon law requires that bishops be at least 35, none of the included men are surprisingly young nor are any surprisingly old. In practice, this is essentially a list of bishops in their 40s.

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG as there's no evidence that 35-50 year-old bishops are treated as a group by reliable sources. It's also arbitrary to limit inclusion to 100 people.

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as these are relatively minor officials within the church, many of whom don't even have Wikipedia pages.

Fails WP:V as there's no way to verify that these are the youngest bishops without exhaustively verifying the age of all ~5000 living bishops. pburka (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the same rationale as for all other lists of oldest/youngest cross-categorisations. Not encyclopaedic, listcruft. Mccapra (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bishops can be appointed as young as 35, so it's not that unique, defining, or notable that 100 of those appointed in the last decade happen to be under 50. Reywas92^Talk 20:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft, as per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meaningless, as per above. Gentleman wiki (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per nom. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. The sea of red links in the article say it all about the notability of this random generated cross-categorization. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep - the media constantly portrays Catholic bishops as an old man's club, so a list of relatively younger bishops might be of genuine interest to some readers. The Pburka's argument that the list is unverifiable is incorrect, as Catholic Hierarchy already keeps an up to date list see here. The several comments saying that the article is full of red links and therefore unneeded ignores the fact that bishops in the Catholic Church and several other denominations are presumed notable per WP:NBISHOP, so if a few editors are willing to invest a little time that issue can be quickly resolved. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That essay actually says that many bishops aren't presumed to be notable. It only covers diocesan bishops and higher ranks. pburka (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And all the entries here are either the head bishops or auxiliary bishops of their respective diocese/eparchies, something which is easily verifiable by looking at the references or a simple search online. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What references are you referring to? The only references in this list are to canon laws. pburka (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the Catholic Hierarchy list which is linked in both my pervious comment and the article. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bishops by nationality makes sense (especially given the historical relevance of nationality in Church politics) but this cross-categorisation is really quite meaningless. Those particularly noted for being especially old or young (to the point of receiving coverage for it) would be independently notable, and so can have articles crated. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instrument bridge[edit]

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

Unsourced article, seemingly WP:NN neologism in the context of computer networking.

While the article makes a vague reference to the IEEE Networking Technology Glossary, none of the versions of this text I've been able to access seem to include it. (I couldn't get access to the 2015 version, however)

The article is unsourced and in an effort to source it, I'm coming up with nothing. There are plenty of references to stringed instrument bridges, and a few other areas, but I've been unable to find anything having to do with computer networking.

If the only use of this term is that glossary, it seems like the article should go. Toddst1 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my guess is that the glossary was just for the term "bridge" which is a widely accepted concept. This article seems a good faith attempt at describing something the author thought was useful at the time. However, the content comes from single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Rkjulian from 2007. Fourteen years later, the term never caught on, but technology has advanced. Good catch. W Nowicki (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the author, I agree with the deletion. My company has installed a number of systems in this configuration, but even we have changed the nomenclature and don't use this term any longer. Rkjulian (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of black Academy Award winners and nominees[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic cross-categorisation. The “black” designation makes little sense in a WP:GLOBAL context and therefore the list relies on significant WP:OR in deciding who is “black” with subsequent WP:BLP issues. A precedent has been set for this in a recent AfD discussion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it has all of the same issues:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but restrict to winners. There are plenty of sources: Oscars: A Look Back at the African-American Winners (The Hollywood Reporter), Oscars: What does a win really mean for Black actors' careers? (USA Today, subscription required), The Way-Too-Short List Of Black Oscar Winners (Essence), A Complete List Of Black Golden Globe Winners (BET), Three Black Film Actors Win Golden Globes for the First Time Since 2007 (Variety), Andra Day tearfully accepts Golden Globe as first Black Best Actress winner in 35 years (Entertainment Weekly). Clarityfiend (talk), 22:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to bear in mind that the use of the term Black has a different meaning when used in the US and usually refers to African-American which is a different thing and would not encompass people such as Chiwetel Ejiofor. We need to have a WP:GLOBAL stance. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Black as used in the US would encompass people such as Chiwetel Ejiofor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain Ejiofor is not African-American, which was my point. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your point? This is not a list of African Americans, and Ejiofor is considered black by, among others The Independent and The Guardian. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now do Rachid Bouchareb and Abderrahmane Sissako. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the bigotry, making people prove the blackness of light skinned people because they don’t appear black enough to you is so offensive I hardly know how to even start. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded nomination - I did the initial edit on my phone so want to expand my nomination based on my vote for the Emmy Award winners discussion. I am sure this passes WP:NLIST to some degree (probably not through the most reputable sources) but I think it is a tricky cross-categorisation. My nomination is based on the inherent WP:BLP issues with this. Most sources will probably not have an exhaustive list of "black Academy Award winners and nominees" so requires editors to do some compiling of their own. Editors will inevitably do some WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to determine who is "black". I know this might seem silly or like I am a pedant but this is actually a reasonably complex designation (especially for non-Americans). I don't think editors should be the ones to catalogue a living person's ethnicity. Telling examples currently on the list:

Abderrahmane Sissako is Mauritanian/Malian. I am not sure of his exact ethnic background as both countries are multi-ethnic and contain arab-berbers (who typically would not be described as "black") as well as ethnic groups that might be more typically described as "black" (of course this is not a term really used in Africa). But it is not my place to decide the ethnicity of a living person.

Sophie Okonedo could equally appear on a white or Jewish list (see her WP for her own complex views on her identity).

Rachid Bouchareb is Algerian-French. Usually I wouldn't think someone of this background is "black" but again not my place to say.

Remi Adefarasin I can find no sources discussing his background aside from him being English. His first name sounds French, last name maybe African or Arabic? Is this grounds for editors to designate a living person "black"? Should we really care whether he is "black" or force him into a category?

There are many others on the list of ethnically mixed parentage (Tracee Ellis Ross, Jennifer Beals, Ruth Negga etc). Ultimately we would need a source confirming a winner/nominee is "black" as well as that they were a winner/nominee and I do not think editors will do that. Then we just end up with WP:BLP and WP:V issues. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I provided two reliable sources which name names. Whether you consider them black or not is irrelevant. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So that means the list will only be people who happen to be explicitly given this specific cross-categorisation in a reliable source which will make a strange list and would probably cut the current content in half. I completely agree that my view on someone's ethnicity is irrelevant! My point is exactly that editors shouldn't be deciding if someone is black or not. The example I gave here was Trevor Noah who was decidedly not "Black" in South Africa and was designated "Coloured" by the government and may still be socially considered coloured in post-apartheid South Africa. Switch to a US context and Noah is considered "black" and was included in a similar list. WP should have a global outlook and not succumb to these floating categories. The list just doesn't make sense. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Noah is considered black everywhere but in apartheid-era South Africa, so that somehow constitutes a problem? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your argument regarding editors deciding whether someone qualifies can easily be fixed by proper sourcing. Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not here to educate you on these matters. Please read the Coloured people article. Maybe throw in the one-drop rule one too to see the differences in global and historical definitions of black. The world is bigger than America. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this comment some way of proving that this will be an issue by being as offensive as possible while remaining civil? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really am not sure how anything I have said is offensive. I made exactly the same arguments here and editors agreed with me. What I find offensive is Wikipedia editors going around and dividing living people by ethnic categories like Victorian anthropologists. The world is a wide and complex place not easily shoehorned into these simplistic categorisations. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Rachid Bouchareb is Algerian-French. Usually I wouldn't think someone of this background is "black" but again not my place to say.” is objectively offensive, Bouchareb partially centers his artistic identity on his blackness (for instance the film Little Senegal) and your denial of that fact is not only offensive to Bouchareb in particular but to all black Algerians. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those thinking racial categorisation is a simple and not contested issue I have some suggested reading from just a quick google [7], [8], [9], [10] the list goes on and on...Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be committing colorism in the name of combatting racism. You oggling a picture of someone and declaring them either black or non-black is extremely offensive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These largely unsourced articles are WP:BLP and WP:OR nightmares there is no way to properly verify and maintain. These sub-topic lists of black "X" award winners and nominees are also an arbitrary creation. One article each for all Academy Award and Golden Globe Award winners and nominees is one thing, but a random-segregated WP:OR list fails WP:V. I would further add that both articles were created in the late 2000's, when article standards were far lower, and people could and did make articles on anything they as individuals wanted. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AfD is not cleanup and we have more than enough sources to get over the WP:GNG hump. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Black Golden Globe winners at minimum, since it’s the only article of its kind and is about a lower-profile, less respected award show than the Academy Awards. I’m neutral on the Academy nomination but the List of Black Emmys list was deleted so that may be a precedent. Dronebogus (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per two delete votes above and WP:NOR. Kolma8 (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What OR? I've provided sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend, also who will be doing the decisions on who needs to be included?

I assume the article implied to list all Black_people who won or was nominated to Academy Awards? Then it can become very disputatious very fast IMHO, which is to the point @Horse Eye's Back made above that such term may be offensive (and even inaccurate by some experts). Google on Jesse Jackson's remarks in 1988 about the offensiveness of the term. Also, M-W still mentions that "Use of the noun Black in the singular to refer to a person is considered offensive."

Or is it a list of African Americans with Academy Awards honors?

Or why not create the latter and a list of Academy Awards winners from Africa?

What are we trying to give here to a Wikipedia reader?

The very fact of the existence of this discussion proves how contentious this article is. Kolma8 (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Black means black. And reliable sources determine who goes on the list, as I've stated over and over again. Sniff, sniff. I smell red herrings. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Clarityfiend, your reply is not really helpful as you did not ask any of my questions, you lolled an argumentum ad hominem while being very much nescient about your own logical fallacy here. Please keep it civil and don't turn this discussion into a donkeywork. Kolma8 (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like people most likely aren’t going to be convinced by stating that something means itself without defining what you mean. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus +1 Kolma8 (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GLOBAL is not grounds for deletion and suggesting that the article necessarily fails WP:OR and WP:BLP simply because its subjects are identified as black is specious at best (and possibly an attempt at deliberate erasure at worst). Viciouslies (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is a well-covered topic, the article just needs cleanupJackattack1597 (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of WP:SUSTAINED press on this topic. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic receives coverage because representation is important in fields in which people are both underrepresented and snubbed in recognition of their achievements due to their ethnicity as perceived by those determining whether recognition should be given. BD2412 T 05:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not convinced salting is necessary here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James M. King (politician)[edit]

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

PROD contested.

Non-notable mayor of a small city. Fails WP:NPOL; newspapers.com has some local news coverage, but nothing that really provides WP:SIGCOV beyond WP:LOCAL, so also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bloomington in 1970 had a population of 84, 000; the level at which we presume notability for a mayor is somewhere between 50,0000 and 100,000 . DGG ( talk )

The size-of-the-city test for mayors was deprecated years and years ago, and is no longer relevant to establishing the notability of a mayor at all. There's no longer any presumption of notability granted to mayors of any size of city in the absence of meaningful and reliably sourced substance about the significance of their mayoralty. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Bearcat, fails WP:NPOL. JayJay^{What did I do?} 14:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability, and salt since this was moved to draft and editor created it anyway, indicating a lack of understanding of our guidelines. See also, all these other mayoral AfDs. Star Mississippi 20:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although sources have been provided to indicate that this is a potentially notable topic, consensus is that the current content so substantially fails important content standards such as WP:GAMEGUIDE that it should be removed from mainspace. It can be draftified or userfied for improvement via WP:REFUND if desired. Sandstein 10:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering theme decks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:GAMEGUIDE with only 2 weak secondary sources in the lead. The majority of the article is unsourced & links directly to the Wizards of the Coast website. I would suggest merging the lead to Magic: The Gathering compilation sets. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the WikiProject Magic: The Gathering talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Weak keep. There is a question of whether "theme deck" is the correct terminology, as MtG has changed its own terminology (and products) over the years. Some of those decks are reviewed, there are some listicles too: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]... I think that while this article can be improved, the topic does meet WP:NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created in 2005‎. [17] There were links to the various articles about the cards. The template still has the links to those articles. Template:Magic:_The_Gathering I don't know anything about this game so can't comment if this article as it is, is useful and valid. Does listing "Colors included" and whatnot matter? The updated list itself is found in the template. Dream Focus 02:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources in that old revision are to the producer's official page, so while reliable are not independent. Side note: even if this is deleted, fan wikis have all that information or more. The issue is whether this is a notable list... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fairly poor. It's going to meet WP:N as a topic, but I'm not at all sure that means we should have the article. As an editorial matter, this seems not hugely encyclopedic. I'm going to go with keep because AfD isn't the right place to discuss merging or redirecting a topic that meets WP:N, but I'd be open a discussion on the talk page involving merging or redirecting if someone can identify a good target. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also don't play Magic & only accidentally ended up on an article improvement kick for this game. Like User:Piotrus, most of what I found was about Commander which was useful for the Magic: The Gathering Commander#Commander sets which specifically lists the preconstructed products for that format. Part of why I went AfD over merge discussion was that I couldn't find much about the use/history of theme decks in the various formats. So while the concept of theme decks might be good to merge elsewhere, I'm not entirely sure how to make the list of charts readable for someone without deep knowledge of the game. Like User:Dream Focus, the list of charts mostly left me with questions. For example, why are the number of cards in a deck not standard across all decks; I assume that's because these decks are intended for different formats but I would love sources to explain that X theme decks are intended for A format while Y theme decks are intended for B format. Is "theme deck" suppose to mean "all preconstructed decks" as User:Qwaiiplayer says below? Did WoTC changes their marketing terms and if so, when? Etc. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus. These products, often called "Preconstructed Decks" or "Precons" nowadays, usually receive significant coverage, especially the commander products (e.g. [18] [19]). The page needs a lot of cleanup but the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My understanding was that these theme decks were a type of preconstructed decks. Some of the formats list their preconstructed products (for example, the commander decks are listed here: Magic: The Gathering Commander#Commander sets). Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think part of the confusion is that before preconstructed Commander decks were created in 2011, the term "theme deck" and "preconstructed deck" were mostly interchangeable. While theme decks generally refer to the 60 card preconstructed decks that are released with each new set, it seems that this article includes all types of official preconstructed decks in its scope (e.g. Starter decks and Commander Decks). As of now I'm unsure whether the article scope should be expanded to include all preconstructed decks (i.e. move the page to List of Magic: The Gathering preconstructed decks) or just eliminate all the decks that aren't strictly "theme decks" (e.g. List_of_Magic:_The_Gathering_theme_decks#Commander and List_of_Magic:_The_Gathering_theme_decks#Starter_Level). That can be discussed outside this AfD though. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Qwaiiplayer, IMHO we should have a single list for all of those theme/precon decks (note: I play MTG and collect those very decks). Some get coverage, some lists exits, as I said, IMHO this concept, whatever the applicable name, meets NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE game guide content. Ajf773 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magic: The Gathering. Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 17:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify in current form. Poor article that needs more encyclopedic text and positioning, but I would say that as a list this actually seems justified - well-defined topic, consisting of material that is not available in this compiled form anywhere else; there's encyclopedic value in drawing such disparate info together (for a much more high-calibre example, see e.g. List of giant squid specimens and sightings (20th century)). However, that requires that every bit of material is well-sourced, and currently every single link to the actual card listings is broken. This has no business being in mainspace in this form. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Difficult to keep in current form. Sachin.cba (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bovine Nightmares[edit]

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

Non-notable band. scope_creep^Talk 23:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I updated the article with some recent information and more sources to support it. I am unsure how the article's references deem the band as non-notable as WP:NBAND says that "notability is not determined by what the article says, it's determined by how well the article does or doesn't support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources." It also says that "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Number One on the list is, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The referenced published works meet this requirement to the best of my knowledge which would negate "Non-notable band" as being the reason for deletion of this article. If I am incorrect with understanding this requirement and definition, please explain why so I can understand. Thank you. Xxxxxcanmanxxxxx (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xxxxxcanmanxxxxx None of the sources referenced are meet all the criteria: YouTube, Twitter, and MusicBrainz are editable by anyone, so they are not considered reliable sources. The coverage in Metal Injection and Loudwire are both just release calendars, which is trivial coverage. They are not the "subject" of the articles in Metal Alliance, Science of Noise, and qrates, as those are all about a compilation album and the band gets no more than a sentence or two of coverage. That leaves Vents Magazine, IndiePulse Music, Essentially Pop, and NeuFutur Magazine, which are all of, at best, very questionable reliability (see Wikipedia:BLOGS). Niftysquirrel (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references you added, one from an very obscure magazine, has a youtube video of the band, dropping a new single New Single. The single at Single. has had 778 people watching it. The band is non notable and doesn't meet the requirements on WP:MUSICBIO or even WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 00:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Non notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, no evidence it meets any of the 12 criteria listed. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is not significant enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO #1, per my analysis above. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Niftysquirrel (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid T. Rabbit and Friends[edit]

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

De-prodded with promise of "sources", but all of the sources added are just YouTube links or a wiki about the furry fandom. Absolutely zero reliable sourcing found anywhere. Does not seem to be a notable show as it only aired on access TV in one market Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the longest running shows, if the THE LONGEST running show in public access TV history. This isn't a page that needs to be deleted, it needs to be finished to Wiki standards. The creator of the show also created this wiki back in 2008, and passed away in 2017. His friends are working to bring this page up to snuff and do it justice. Simply deleting it has no merit. There's legit history here and a story to tell, it just takes time to put together and cite the references because a lot of it was newspaper published. The internet wasn't a huge thing back when the show ran in it's heydays, so give us some time to get this done. Monkiedude22 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Monkiedude22[reply]

— Monkiedude22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Particularly notable is "Before the Web, It Was Public Access: A New Museum Exhibihition Leads Visitors Back to the Days of Rapid T. Rabbit". The Wall Street Journal. 11 Feb 2011. p. A20. which has in depth coverage on the show in relation to an exhibition on the program at the Museum of the Moving Image. Another quality source with significant coverage is Lisa Belkin (13 April 1987). "Public-Access TV: Behind the Scenes". The New York Times. p. C18.. The Wall Street Journal article also commented on the continuing popularity of the character at Furry Fandom conventions; and this source confirms that on page 172. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Houle[edit]

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

PROD contested with the rationale "Former Mayor of City with a population of 85,000. Of historical significance to the area.".

Non-notable mayor of a small city. Fails WP:NPOL; newspapers.com has some local news coverage, but nothing that really provides WP:SIGCOV beyond WP:LOCAL, so also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "she was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she accomplished, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NPOL requires that a local elected official meet WP:GNG, which this subject clearly fails. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Appears to fail WP:N. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Busse[edit]

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

PROD contested with the rationale "Mayor of a city with a population of over 85,000 people. Currently of importance to the city.".

Non-notable mayor of a small city. Fails WP:NPOL; newspapers.com has some local news coverage, but nothing that really provides WP:SIGCOV beyond WP:LOCAL, so also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Bloomington MN appears to be large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, it is not large or important enough that its mayors would simply be presumed notable just because you write and primary source a short blurb that barely goes any further than "he was a mayor who existed". The notability test for mayors is not passed simply by writing a few stray tidbits of biographical trivia; it is passed by writing and reliably sourcing (meaning media coverage, not the city's own self-published website about itself) a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he accomplished, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NPOL requires that local elected officials meet WP:GNG. This subject has several passing mentions in various news sources, but lacks the significant coverage required by GNG. The few articles actually focused on the subject is WP:ROUTINE local election coverage (e.g. [20] and [21]), and therefore fails the notability standard. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Flying Luttenbachers. ✗plicit 13:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...The Truth Is a Fucking Lie..."[edit]

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

Album does not meet notability guidelines. I am not able to find any news coverage on it at all. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This AllMusic review linked in the article provides significant coverage, does not have the genre sidebar, and per WP:RSMUSIC regarding AllMusic, "Biography/reviews prose are reliable, but do not use genre sidebar, as it is generated from a separate source from the prose." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 citations are not considered significant and furthermore there is no evidence of it charting or meeting WP:NALBUMS. I have also searched the Billboard historical charts.Chrisfilip (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Flying Luttenbachers. There does not appear to be significant coverage on this album from third-party, reliable sources, but this is a viable search term and a valid redirect target exists. I think this would be more beneficial than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Flying Luttenbachers. TolWol56 (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Islamic State members following nomination withdrawal. I'm taking into account the fact that the only person who supported deletion actually suggested redirection in their rationale. The nominator accepted that suggestion and boldly redirected the article. Partial vacation here for clarification only (non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)~~ Thepharoah17 (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Jasim Muhammad al-Jaburi[edit]

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

Mainly just cites the FBI and rewards for justice. Do we need a page for every single terrorist on Wikipedia? Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support yeah, It should be deleted otherwise without this nomination because most of it is copied from here, but I think It's better to redirect it to List of Islamic State members just like Abu Hamza al-Qurashi or Abu Abdul Bari. 197.46.78.6

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SurveySparrow[edit]

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

non-notable -- does not meet WP:NCORP -- the references are essentially pr DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MarioGom (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as new references are added to prove the notability. Simplewikipedian (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Simplewikipedian is the article creator and was paid (see their userpage). Clear COI here. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV, mostly pr and passing mentions. Fails WP:NCORP. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as they are all based on announcements and PR and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is consensus not to delete this because editors believe that this list is useful in some form or other, and to retitle it so that it is clear that it is about memorials, but there's no consensus about what the new title and scope should be. That's for editors to figure out now... Sandstein 10:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of communism[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to follow WP:DAB. I'm don't think that there's adequate sourcing to say that the Victims of Communism Memorial is referred to in a short form as "Victims of Communism", nor that Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is referred to by "Victims of Communism" nor the other two memorials listed. I do not think that a disambiguation page is needed here for three memorials and the anti-communist think tank. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems quite confused at the moment and as a DAB is not useful in terms of navigation. I am not quite sure what the article is trying to do but it doesn't seem to actually be speaking about people who died due to state violence under communist governments which would warrant a much larger discussion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of memorials to victims of communism. There's a Category:Memorials to victims of communism, so a list with locations, types of memorial, dates created, etc. would be a welcome addition. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: I'd be down to go ahead with this. Seems like a notable list. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of memorials to victims of communism. Certainly is confusing. However, I agree with Clarityfiend that a list is the best way forward. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the disambig. page because it may refer to a variety of subjects as in this version: memorials, other organizations and a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those extra entries are not valid dab entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Having them would be helpful for a potential reader, and this is the only criterion we should follow. For example, Mass killings under communist regimes is about communism victims. So having it on the disambing. page seems OK to me. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, Double genocide theory and Mass killings under communist regimes are not synonyms for "victims of communism". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Victims of Communism Memorial (disambiguation), and organize according to MOS:DAB (i.e. list only titles which are ambiguous with the page title, and move the thematically related entries to a "see also" section). No prejudice against also creating a List of memorials to victims of communism, many of which are not called "Victims of Communism Memorial". Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page. No need to include the (disambiguation) qualifier per MOS:DAB.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - usefulness to the reader is the principal goal of a disambiguation page per MOS:DAB, and it certainly is useful in terms of article navigation and discovery. --Nug (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Rockelle[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable "influencer" that was apparently accepted from AfC and then marked as reviewed at NPP, when it clearly was not in a state to be accepted, by NagalimNE. I tried searching for sources, as the ones in the article are merely trivial coverage, run-of-the-mill or otherwise entirely unreliable, and all that I could find was more run-of-the-mill coverage on minor incidents that do not establish notability per WP:BASIC. Also fails WP:ENT. Java Hurricane 07:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did a quick google news search where I saw a good number of reliable sources that's why I accepted it. NagalimNE (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are reliable sources or significant coverage; most are run-of-the-mill sources which do not qualify as significant coverage. Java Hurricane 08:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see many sources which are indepth and reliable like the Business Insider and La Vanguardia source. NagalimNE (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are precisely what I called as "run-of-the-mill" coverage. It does not impart notability. Java Hurricane 09:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NagalimNE: If this is the case, then you should've added those sources before you accepted the article. L33tm4n (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lots of churn in sources, but not enough in-depth coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor WP:RS, not notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Anyone can add some of the sources mentioned in the discussion to the article if they can be found. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gods of Chaos[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines at WP:NALBUM. Discogs is not an acceptable source and the second citation is a passing mention. I was not able to find any other coverage in Google. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Redirect - Reviewed in Melody Maker, Chicago Sun-Times, Trouser Press, AllMusic; every other RS mention I found was brief. Most likely print coverage, but I'm not interested in digging for it... Caro7200 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caro7200, where did you find out that this had been reviewed in Melody Maker? If it was reviewed there, it was probably reviewed in NME as well, as they were sister magazines with the same owners and would probably have been sent the same records to review each week. It doesn't look like there's much information online apart from the AllMusic coverage, but a redirect to the band would certainly be preferable than outright deletion, as there does look like there are reliable sources in print form that could be used in the future. Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Feb 28, 1998, issue, page 44. I noticed it through ProQuest but am unable to read it. Caro7200 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Derek Jeter#Philanthropy. ✗plicit 13:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turn 2 Foundation[edit]

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

Essentiall everything here is a first party or very local sources. It's an old article from 2008, but Google doesn't find anything significant that's any more recent. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Derek Jeter#Philanthropy: Where there is some information about the foundation. The organization falls just below the bar for notability and could potentially be notable in the future if more sources come out. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 13:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Derek Jeter#Philanthropy. It's not clear to me that the company is independently notable from Jeter himself. All the sources seem to mention him when referencing the foundation, though I would also be OK with a redirect if editors believe that none of the content is worth merging. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Derek Jeter#Philanthropy, the content not found at the target is pretty much fluff that is not worth merging. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ParillasAndrie Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaming House[edit]

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

The subject was reverted back to the article space that was declined by the user because it has no notability guidelines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - no valid reason for deletion given. matt91486 (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. This also fails WP:NFILM, though I'm not sure that a television show is properly within scope there. Agree with SeanJ that OP did not make a convincing substantial case, though it's of note that the submission was declined at AfC and then the submitting editor decided to just move the draft into the article space themselves. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Biblical Archaeology Review. The keep argument was essentially that the publication has been cited in newspapers. Being cited does not of itself meet GNG. No specific source was offered with significant coverage and the analysis of newspaper mentions by jps was not challenged in any meaningful way SpinningSpark 19:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Review[edit]

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

Fails WP:NJOURNAL, I believe. Severely lacking sources. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hershel Shanks. Bible Review is a defunct journal, been dead for 15 years. There isn't enough here to warrant a stand-alone article. Also seems to be part of a Wikipedia:Walled garden that includes the topics linked in the article. Its founder does appear to be notable though. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Biblical Archaeology Review, its sister publication. BR is best treated as a relatively-short-lived offshoot but was never really important in its own right. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Biblical Archaeology Review if that article is kept, otherwise to Biblical Archaeology Society. --Randykitty (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Biblical Archaeology Review, failing that to Biblical Archaeology Society. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a perusal of the Newspapers link shows multiple diverse times this journal was quoted in popular newspapers. WP:NJOURNAL is inapplicable, as this was not a scholarly journal but a popular magazine, so GNG applies. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through those, but found that more than 50% were just hits to different newspapers using the words "bible review" rather than the publication. Those that do mention the publication seem to be doing in only a citation style. I don't see how to write an article about this. I can't even tell if this is a different publication from Biblical Archaeology Review. I cannot find any sources which explain why its publication stopped, for example. The sources are just not forthcoming for actual article writing, as far as I'm concerned. What sources would you use? jps (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 50% where Bible Review, this subject, is used as a source cited by popular newspaper articles on topics. Obviously, there's going to be redundancy, and I have no idea why the Spokesman-Review shows up so often, but there's a decent enough stub here. I suspect the magazine's own archives would explain its demise, or maybe BAR does once it gets folded back into there. A merge into BAR isn't a terrible outcome, but I think the evidence supports a standalone short article. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:NJOURNAL does not apply, as this was not a journal. If the article can be sourced to the newspapers articles mentioned by Jclemens, then it should be kept. In its current form, it lacks any sources. Dimadick (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens and Dimadick.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Biblical Archaeology Review; given what little there is to say about it, it makes more sense to (briefly) cover this there than in a stand-alone page. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it has been cited by newspapers numerous times.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saks Fifth Avenue locations[edit]

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

I originally deleted this material from Saks Fifth Avenue earlier this year. Looks the author created this article instead of reverting my edit. Anyways, my original reasoning for deleting this material stands, this is a textbook example of WP:NOTDIR and the list has no encyclopedic value. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. No encyclopedic value. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTDIR; the sneaky attempt to return it by not including a link in the article to the SFA article also makes it tenuous. Nate • (chatter) 03:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't on purpose, just an oversight.(talk) 02:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I try to assume good faith, but I've seen it before; an article where extraneous info has been cut isn't linked when the extraneous info is shoved into a new article so it doesn't get a flag from those patrolling the article. Whatever the case, don't do it again. Nate • (chatter) 23:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Webmaster862 (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content forking was unwarranted. Shankargb (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. TH1980 (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR as above HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Millner[edit]

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

Perennial candidate fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 01:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His notability is as a business executive rather than a politician. I added some references to clarify this. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He does not pass WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. KidAd • SPEAK 17:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. He appears to pass WP:ANYBIO, but it's clear to me that the article is not in the shape to be in the article space. This page needs work and I'd be OK with a WP:TNT if it weren't for the article subject's clear notability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mikehawk10, WP:DRAFTIFY makes it clear that draftifying a 15 year article is an abuse of the process, as a form of shadow-deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – plenty of GNG-qualifying coverage of his political career, see [22] [23] [24]. The prospect of additional sources about his time in business makes the case for notability all the stronger. I'm puzzled by why draftification would be seen as appropriate: while the article obviously needs expansion, it doesn't seem to have any fundamental policy violations that would justify draftification (which in these cases is generally a backdoor to deletion). Deletion is not cleanup. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Creek MarketPlace[edit]

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

Nominating this page per RfD outcome. Pinging participants who may want to join this discussion. User:Paul_012, User:Mdewman6. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: also pinging Susmuffin who also participated in the RfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - as per WP:ORG no inherent notability Wakowako (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing evidence of notability, and not seeing a credible claim of significance either, this may have been qualified for CSD A7 if it applied to places (though one might argue it is a company, it's technically a place as well). I am seeing some coverage of shootings that have occurred near/at the complex, but no coverage of that in our article and the shootings are likely more notable than the mall itself. ASUKITE 14:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 17:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing worth noting here, it's just a generic shopping plaza, not a mall. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to be a notable landmark or building. No source has been cited. Dial911 (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and non notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Snapdragons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was previously nominated 13 years ago: it was kept on the basis that they had toured, received national airplay (including a Peel session) and released two albums. Simply gigging and releasing albums don't meet the current criteria at WP:NBAND. While it's possible that a Peel session would fulfill criterion no. 12, I'm not convinced that this alone warrants the band having an article: over 4000 sessions were held, and I would argue that this alone doesn't get the band over the bar. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two albums on Native Records, Two Radio 1 sessions (one for John Peel, one for Simon Mayo), and they got plenty of press while they were around, which unfortunately was during a bit of a black hole as far as the internet's concerned. --Michig (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can remember this band but am unable to find any reliable coverage in a standard web search or a Google Books search (they were pre-Internet). The article certainly needs to be cleaned up, and I volunteer to do so if User:Michig can deliver some of the "plenty of press" mentioned in their vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is nothing in the Encyclopaedia of Popular Music (volume vii) by Colin Larkin ISBN 1561592374. Sorry. The joy of all things (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:SIGCOV. I have subscription access to PROQUEST which includes most of the entertainment/music publications in the UK and the USA going back over a century, and absolutely zero coverage of this group was found. Additionally, nothing in the archives of The Guardian, The Observer, or The Independent. Found nothing in britishnewspaperarchives.com either. In short, not convinced that there is press on this group. All we have is primary sources which lack independence. Not notable.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Like doomsdayer520 I remember this band. I've added some references from Melody Maker (a specialist UK music weekly) and a passing reference from The Times. It's disappointing not to easily find more. Dsp13 (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doomsdayer and Michig. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "keep", but challenged someone who says that there is "plenty of press" to actually deliver it. Still waiting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage will be in print sources and I'm not able to get to anywhere that has archives of print sources at the moment. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. A bunch of references from the same niche magazine are not independent from one another, and the passing mention in The Times does not appear to be significant coverage that would contribute towards notability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and fails WP:NBAND. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't unsourced. Did you even look at the article? --Michig (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Michig. I agree more sources, e.g the UK music press, likely exist, and the ones that are reffed aren't so bad, Simon Reynolds, for example. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Melody Maker was one of the UK's main music publications for many years until it was merged with NME, it's certainly not a niche publication. To be covered regularly by its journalists is a strong indication of notability and there are other reliable book sources in the article. The delete vote by the editor claiming there are no sources is highly negligent in my view and one of many quick fire votes for which an editor has warned them on their talkpage. Passes WP:GNG on available evidence as per WP:AGF in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of deleted page; this exactly matches the deleted page with the exception of undefined references which links to pages that contain nothing more than "NO DATA AVAILABLE". Speedy deletion {{Db-g4}} tag was removed by Materialscientist. No effort made to provide any references to this future event, so WP:CRYSTAL still applies. Mikeblas (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. — Qwerfjkl talk 15:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or redirect. Notable sporting event scheduled to be held. Can be deleted if not held, but all signs point to it being held. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt until closer to the event per WP:CRYSTAL.4meter4 (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event is only a few months away, it's common to have an article created in advance of the event actually happening. There seems to be plenty of evidence that the event is actually going to occur. Per WP:BEFORE, I found an article published a week ago that mentions the upcoming event. The original article was deleted back in February, which is admittedly a bit too early for an article on an event in December. But we're a lot closer now. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and definitely do not salt. Salting is a ridiculous action for a page that is likely to be needed very soon. The page is no longer an exact duplicate of the deleted article, so the nomination is now out of date and invalid. It contains sourced information on the impact of Covid on the event. If nothing else, it will become an article on the event cancellation – this is an important event in the ice skating calendar, it will be a big story either way, cancelled or going ahead. The criticism that some of the refs return "No information available" is entirely to be expected. Those are the refs for the official results, so until there are some actual results that is going to remain the case. SpinningSpark 12:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CRYSTAL: "should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Also note that the 2020–21 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final was cancelled, but has an article anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that last year's final has been put up for Afd too. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event is only a few months away, deleting this article only to recreate it later on creates extra work and isn't beneficial to our readers. NemesisAT (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above – the page is going to be re-created with the same content again if it gets deleted now. All signs currently point to the event being held as scheduled, so meets WP:CRYSTAL. Sunnyou31 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not the actual competition; it should be a section of the main article when and only when it takes place. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per WP:CRYSTAL. ––FormalDude talk 04:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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