Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 02	September 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EuroVoice[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy GNG. – DarkGlow • 14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete it doesn't look like there's a lot of sources (but I don't know Greek so I might be wrong). Seems like there was only one contest in 2010. I feel like this is just knockoff Eurovision. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. It looks like the planned 2011 contest never took place. (I could find no evidence). While it is possible some Greek language sources exist either offline or behind a paywall in a newspaper archive, I was unable to locate any RS on the 2010 contest. The article is mostly a copyright violation of the official website, so I am not seeing any value in keeping the article in its current state. No prejudice against the article being recreated if RS is found later to show it meets GNG, but it would be best to start with a completely blank slate to avoid copyright issues.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DarkGlow and Extraordinary Writ I am not sure if this is still possible, but I think we should delete Armenia on EuroVoice as well as a part of this AFD, as it is essentially dependent on this parent article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment reply I've PRODed the article. I'm happy to bring it to AfD if it's disputed, but as you said, it relies on the non-notable parent article so needs to go. Thanks for pointing that out! – DarkGlow • 19:02, 10 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. With no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vumatel[edit]

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

WP:NCORP requires 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. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references, and more can be found. The nominator should have looked for references WP:BEFORE. I suspect that all sizeable ISPs and telecommunications carriers in South Africa are notable and that references can be found for them. The fact that the existing article is weak and (until I fixed it) had the infobox in the wrong place is not a reason to delete it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The nominator did look for references WP:BEFORE and found none, it is very disingenuous and presumptious of you to suggest otherwise. Also, the reasons for nomination had nothing to do with a weak article (which still isn't "fixed") and the infobox in the wrong place. The nomination is pretty clear in that it fails because there are no references that meet NCORP. You added two references to the article. This from stuff is an article on the topic company's pricing where two *anonymous* "ISP executives" provide comments and the topic company provides a statement. There is no in-depth information on the company and the article doesn't come close to meeting NCORP requirements. The second reference from stuff is even worse. It provides a statement from the topic company about an outage and that the company says the problem has been resolved. No in-depth info on the company, no "Independent Content", fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. If you find any more references, can you please take a read of NCORP first to see if the meet the requirements for establishing notability and post links to the best WP:THREE below and we'll take a look. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article Important to South African Telecommunications Knowledge information and structure, with Vumatel being the 2nd biggest Infrastructure provider in South Africa. TapticInfo (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of stirring up more commentary
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sub-stub with no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in either the article or this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Eggishorn.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 10 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) Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buchholz hydra[edit]

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

Presumably a game as described by the article, however I'm not sure what this is even about exactly as it's too technical for me to decipher, but that isn't why I'm starting this discussion. My concern is that this is wholly written like a essay or guide on how to play it and also uses first- and second-person pronouns throughout the article. This is among other issues such as the lack of footnotes which brings concerns to whether this is notable and how much of it is factual, as the creator does have a history of creating articles about made-up topics. I don't think this should be an article on Wikipedia, it's more of just an essay. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See hydra game or here for introductions to the general topic area that might make more sense than the writing here does. XOR'easter (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A "game", in the mathematical logic sense, does not have to be fun. The first reference is by Buchholz, and the remaining ones are responses and additional knowledge about Buchholz's article (thereby establishing notability) or about other researchers' responses and additional knowledge. Notability does not require that a topic be easily understood by the layperson. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eastmain: Note I did state "I'm not sure what this is even about exactly as it's too technical for me to decipher, but that isn't why I'm starting this discussion." My main concern is that this is just a guide/essay, not an article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a "guide", in the "how to get the lowest time in the original Zelda" sense. It's an article describing a mathematical problem. Nor would I call it an "essay"; in a couple places, it reads a bit opinionated, but that's a fairly minor cleanup matter. It uses "we" more than Wikipedia house style prefers, but again, that's a cleanup job; mathematics textbooks and journal articles use "we" all the time, and the uses here wouldn't be out of line there. XOR'easter (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not cleanup — just copyedit ithe article yourself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not recommend copyediting to editors unfamiliar with this area of mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator appears to misunderstand this article, which is about a piece of mathematics rather than a recreational game. As there is no subject-specific notability guideline for pieces of mathematics, I think we have to go by WP:GNG, which asks for non-trivial in-depth coverage from multiple in-depth sources. We have that from the original work of Buchholz, the works of Himano with the subject in the title, the published review of the work of Himano, etc., already listed in the article. There is more on the same topic, by other independent groups, not currently listed, for instance Weiermann, Andreas; Wilken, Gunnar (2013), "Goodstein sequences for prominent ordinals up to the ordinal of $\Pi _{1}^{1}$ - $\mathrm {CA} _{0}$ ", Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 164 (12): 1493–1506, doi:10.1016/j.apal.2013.06.019, MR 3093398. I think that's enough to meet the low bar of GNG. The fact that the article does not make its topic clear to non-specialists is problematic, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article may warrant being tagged for de-jargoning and re-writing, and needs footnotes and so on, I don't think it is close to meriting WP:TNT, and a quick WP:BEFORE suggests this meets WP:GNG. The nominator needs to read our WP:DELETION policy, and as others pointed out, this seems to be the case of 'deletion is not cleanup'. As for the claim that it is an essay, I don't think it is essayish enough to warrant TNTing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As David Eppstein says, we have no guideline specifically for the wiki-notability of mathematical topics, so we go by the general method: did people other than the inventor of the idea care about it enough to write about it? Multiple people, writing in depth? It looks like that standard is met here. The article does need work (most do). Perhaps the most important thing is that it lacks inline references, so a reader can't go directly to a source for a specific claim. It also needs a much more gentle ramp-up in difficulty; see WP:TECHNICAL and in particular WP:UPFRONT. But those are solvable problems, not grounds for deletion, and to be fair, getting the technical details right is often an easier starting point than writing an introduction that is more broadly intelligible. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 4 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. There is wide agreement here that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's standards for an article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo File[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to meet WP:NCORP as WP:SIRS isn’t established anywhere. The corporation lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and a before search turns up nothing cogent. The existing sources in the articles do not establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lacks WP:SIGCOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I didn't find anything significant other than press releases. MarioGom (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the previous votes, multiple independent sources have been added to the article, including newspapers with no affiliation to the Company. --Drmccann (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORGIND requires both "Independent Content" and what you said. The Independent Content is missing from those references.
Delete none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C. Ballin[edit]

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

Non-notable record producer, songwriter and recording engineer. His name is mentioned once in only one of the 35 sources listed. Mottezen (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a copy of the second section of this article:

Strong Delete Not a single reference is from reliable sourecs. Fails WP:NMUSIC Mehmood.Husain (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. It's clear from the content in the article that he's contributed work to multiple notable albums and an argument for notability could be made under criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE. While I agree most of the sources are of low quality, the very first reference is a staff written independent All Music review which is a perfectly respectable source and actually directly acknowledges C. Ballin's contribution to a notable album (which doesn't often happen for producers in album reviews). All Music is used in music articles all over the encyclopedia with broad community consensus that its staff written entries are both independent and reliable and count towards RS within AFD discussions. I would consider that one quality source, but other than that it's the only RS we have that actually mentions C. Ballin (there are a few other quality refs but they don't mention the subject). I think the lack of RS trumps the CREATIVE guideline in this case, as a BEFORE search didn't lead me to any other RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 10 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahouton Norbert Hounkonnou[edit]

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

I originally tagged this article for speedy deletion under A7 and G11, then a user contested and and removed promotional content. However, the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV and the article still relies on primary sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moderate pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations; adequate for applied mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The reference [1] currently in the article asserts, among other things, that He is the current President of the Benin National Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. It also indicates that he is a fellow of the African Academy of Sciences. According to Google Scholar he has been cited more than 1200 times (which sounds like a lot to me for a mathematician, although I don't look at GS numbers much so I don't promise). Surely we have some non-empty subset of WP:NPROF criteria 1, 2, and 3 here? --JBL (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the considerations above, I think the UNITWIN/UNESCO International Chair in Mathematical Physics and Applications may give him a pass of WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GS record looks a little light to me for WP:NPROF C1 by itself (I'd like to see a few papers with a higher number citations, in addition to the breadth exhibited), but he had a conference in his honor, with a Festschrift volume published by Springer [2]. I think that meets C1. I also believe the WP:NPROF C3 and C5 cases advanced by other editors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scopus analysis is hampered by the incredible breadth in fields he publishes in (contributing applied math expertise to oceanography, chem, materials science, and medicine papers) outside of what (I think) are his specialties of mathematical physics/abstract algebra. However, the parameters outside of straight citation metrics look pretty solid for C1 and likely C3 or C5. JoelleJay (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would consider over 1000 citation in Google Scholar to meet WP:Academics criteria. Peter303x (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Prof#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russ Woodroofe. RomanSpa (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niloy Shouvic Roy[edit]

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

Vanity piece by COI editor about non-notable author. John B123 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't even find a shred of WP:RS coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above. All citations are to social media sites and comparable nonreliable sources. BD2412 T 21:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC ... none of the references are reliable sources. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious vanity page. MarioGom (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability guidelines are not met yet Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Garza[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR; he’s only had one significant role in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. The Film Creator (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to meet WP:NACTOR, despite his age and experience, based on roles in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark and Wayward Pines. KidAd • SPEAK 18:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steer Clear[edit]

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

Do not meet WP:NBAND. Result of first AfD was no consensus.13 years later, no RS have been provided to the article. – DarkGlow • 13:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. RomanSpa (talk) 14:51, 8 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 Ableton. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ableton Operator[edit]

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

I don't think that Operator needs an article, as it's not a very notable piece of software. Most all of the article's sources are published by Ableton, and there doesn't really seem to be much significant coverage on this in reliable sources. Swadge2 (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Swadge2: You're required to search for sources that could establish notability WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. Your not specific claim that it's not a very notable piece of software indicates that you may have skipped this step. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, You want the nominator to prove a negative? -The Gnome (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ableton and probably condense heavily in the process. The software is clearly notable, but mostly as a consequence of Ableton being notable, and not really separable. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge and redirect to Ableton.4meter4 (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, at best, into Ableton - otherwise Delete due to the fact that notability cannot be passed on. -The Gnome (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Briggs Terrace. ✗plicit 23:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halley School 7[edit]

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

on local list of landmarks, but not on state or national list.. I do not think that;s enough, given there are no substantial 3rd party refs. DGG ( talk ) 11:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Briggs Terrace, a historic district where the school is now located. A separate article isn't needed, but a redirect can be left behind. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Briggs Terrace, while not a contributing property, now sited there. Certainly worth keeping info on this historic building (which has been restored & relocated 2x) and consistent with alternative to deletion. Djflem (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Briggs Terrace per above.4meter4 (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick Carter[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBOX. My before search found nothing to suggest notability ².O.^Boxing 20:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nominator, article subject's fails to testify to required criteria. Google search offers nothing, references provided in the article do not establish notability.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable boxer. Does not meet WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet to meet notability guidelines. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 05:08, 10 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Kamal Hussain Shah[edit]

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

He might well come from a famous family but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Whilst autobiographies like this are not banned outright, they are certainly discouraged per WP:AUTOBIO. All of the sources used are either unreliable or sources written by Shah himself. I was unable to find any actual significant coverage of Shah so he doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO and I'm not seeing any claim to meeting WP:ANYBIO or any other guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all references are primary. Does not meet WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree that there's no significant secondary coverage of Shah that would enable him to meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet to meet the notability requirements. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 05:08, 10 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. Future attempts to create this article may be considered for CSD G4. I will apply salt to this and other titles. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Hussain (Chhattisgarh politician)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Recreated under several different names more than 10 times now by undisclosed WP:COI editor(s). See User talk:Officialeditorindia and User talk:Shabs.17 for a history of all of the attempts to create this article under Zakir hussain konta chhattisgarh, Zakir Hussain konta, Template:Zakir Hussain konta etc.

I found a passing mention in Bhaskar and this database-scraping source (translated) is currently cited. His Hindi Wikipedia article has been deleted so many times that they decided to add WP:SALT. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable Indian politician. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've blocked the creator as a sock of Hasanali090. I'm happy to speedy this under WP:G5, but I've got no problem letting this AfD run the full length if folks would rather have the official-ish result of an AfD. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer for it to run its course so that all subsequent recreations can be eligible for WP:G4, which will hopefully discourage the gaming of the system that has been occurring by creating it under so many other names. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT this and previous namespaces. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:51, 8 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New L.Zoyang(Mate-Taithul) village[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD as it was de-PROD'd in 2012 under the rationale "all villages are notable". Generally true, under WP:GEOLAND, but here's the rub - this place utterly fails WP:V. It isn't on the Indian Census of 2011 no matter how you search, nor on GEOnet, or even Google Maps. On a search, I found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. The single "source" is unfindable, nigh-meaningless - "village authority"? Is that an official legal document or something some guy wrote down in his living room one day - if it's even a real document and not a hoax. No way to know, but given the complete lack of sourcing, we can't keep this around. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough sources have been provided to establish that this is a legally recognized place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Census of India maintains a fairly comprehensive record of all the places in the country. If it doesn't show up anything, then WP:GEOLAND is probably not met. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ítalo (footballer)[edit]

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

I can only verify that he has played in the Kakkonen (3rd tier of Finland) and Campeonato de Portugal (3rd tier of Portugal at the time) so I can't see a passing of WP:NFOOTBALL, unless someone can find a reliable source that says he played for Inter in a competitive senior fixture against another WP:FPL side. I have also checked Football Database.

No WP:SIGCOV in the article itself and can only find Info Esporte and HJK, the first of which is a very brief transfer announcement. The second one is also very brief and hosted on his club's website so also fails to be independent of the subject, which WP:GNG explicitly requires.

I may well have missed something so if multiple in-depth sources are uncovered then please ping me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 3 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, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG - can't find any online English-, Finnish-, or Portuguese language SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 15:11, 7 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billina[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have the coverage for a standalone article. Most of the Oz characters are in CAT:NN. ATD could be merge/redirect to List of Oz books. Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ISBN 9781472110367 and ISBN 9780415980067 have some in-depth commentary about this character's abilities and functions in the narrative. Even adding 'oz' to the Google Books search string, you have to go to page 6 or so to get commentaries, rather than the various edition of Baum's books themselves... Having said that, there may be a better way to incorporate and present this material. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and if a merge is to be done, List of Oz characters (created by Baum)#Billina would seem to be the WP:SS parent article and better merge target. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Jclemens Do you have access to the first book (A Brief Guide To OZ: 75 Years Going Over The Rainbow)? The snippets look promising but are not enough to make sure there is WP:SIGCOV that goes beyond plot summary, and it's all I get (not on Z-library either). The second source I can see (the one page which is the only one that mentions the character), and I think it fails SIGCOV (and is just a plot summary, except the final sentence which I find unclear anyway). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't. Google books snippet view only, sorry. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to go with Merge and redirect to List_of_Oz_characters_(created_by_Baum)#Billina, but for example, [3] seems to contain a SIGCOV discussion of this character going on for several pages. I'd like to task the nom if they did WP:BEFORE and if so, why did they discount this source? In case they couldn't access it, Library Genesis is that'a'away. And GScholar suggests there are more sources, for example [4] contains just a few sentences - but they do go beyond plot summary and concern gender analysis etc. (PS. I've tagged the article for notability and the tag should remain unless someone uses the sources found to expand the article beyond the current plot summary/list of appearances; the article looks bad - but it is rescuable - and yes, I was surprised, too, that a fictional chicken is notable, the odds are usually against this - this is why BEFORE is needed). PPS. Given the scholarly analysis, this chicken is much more notable than many popular culture Pokemons and like that some folks fight tooth-and-nail to keep based on nothing but few blog-like entries in clickbait portals that are common these days... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there does appear to be significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. I am in agree with the two keep arguments above. Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. The current article is undersourced, but according to other editors, it's clear that substantial coverage from sources exist, so it's always good to keep an open mind and not make assumptions about lack of coverage because of the nature of the topic.Haleth (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the information provided by @Jclemens:, @Piotrus:, @Aoba47:, and @Haleth:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:20, 7 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of wireless mice with nano receivers[edit]

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

Essentially all contemporary mice have "nano receivers", so the concept of this list runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also probable GNG issue, as none of the mice listed have their own articles, and all the sources are product spec pages from manufacturers. Nano receiver itself doesn't even have it's own article, so it's hard to see what case could be made for it being a sufficient criteria for a list article. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is analogous to a "List of cars with airbags" article. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As already mentioned above, the list has practically infinite scope. Also, the provided definition of nano receiver, "an extremely small wireless receiver that connects a mouse to a computer", is vague and subjective. NemesisAT (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JayPlaysStuff. AryKun (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Hunting[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Redirecting to author would be misleading as there is also the article Wolf hunting. Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose, the author is of some renown and the book in question is part of an 8 book contiguous series, most of which are themselves documented as wikipedia articles. If this book is deleted it would break a set that combined is itself IMO worthy of documentation on wikipedia. Shentino (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn: That is more of an argument for a disambiguation page, not for deletion of Jane Lindskold's book. Shentino (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Shentino, you are going to have to write better articles. I just looked at Wolf's Search, and it's sad. Start by collecting references to reliable secondary sources; no hang-on tag was going to save that draft (and that's already an overstatement), and the same applies here. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ ~~Delete~~ - The best coverage I was able to find in a reliable source was this short review from Publishers Weekly. Which is not enough at all to pass WP:NBOOK. If further reviews in reliable sources can't be found, then I'd advocate a redirect to Jane Lindskold#Bibliography. Rorshacma (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the nominators argument against using this as a redirect to the author's page, and I agree. If anything, this article title should instead be used as a Redirect to Wolf hunting after the current article is deleted. If someone wanted to create a new page titled something like Wolf Hunting (novel) to use as a redirect to Jane Lindskold#Bibliography instead, that would probably work. Rorshacma (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but Rename) - Not all of the reviews found below are great, I don't think, but enough of them are decent enough to let this pass WP:NBOOK at this point. I would still advocate it being moved to Wolf Hunting (novel), though, so the current title can be used as a redirect to Wolf hunting. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly no reliable sources, so non-notable. AryKun (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming enough can be found to justify a series page, I'd recommend a merge into that. If I have the energy to do it, I will try to make it but if anyone else wants to, definitely feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and started here, any help would be appreciated. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Firekeeper Saga, but after renaming the article. I've finished the basics for the series page, enough to where it could pass muster. It's fairly bare bones, so anyone who wants to expand feel free to do so. I think that if wanted, a redirect using the proposed disambiguated title would be reasonable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Selective merge and Redirect to Firekeeper Saga~~.4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Firekeeper Saga whatever can be salvaged. Otherwise Delete. If a text is not worthy of inclusion here due to lack of independent notability we do not move it elsewhere; we delete it. -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Changing suggestion; see below. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lindskold, Jane. "Fifth wolf novel continues with wit, magic and fascination". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The book review notes: "In Wolf Hunting, the fifth of Jane Lindskold's novels in this series, she takes on another mythic exploration of human expectation seen through the eyes of a woman reared by wolves -- Royal wolves -- larger and language-using, of whom Blind Seer is her peer, companion and ally. ... To create a stand-alone book for readers new to the series, Lindskold seamlessly weaves the threads back in as the story unfolds without the obligatory unwieldy synopsis. And even so, having read the previous four books, I am very grateful for the glossary of characters with more than 250 entries (including place-names) to help keep the threads straight. ... The characters, setting and quest meld for a long, satisfying read -- either as an introduction to Firekeeper's struggle to make sense of human society and values or as a happily awaited continuation of the rich complexity of the Wolf Series."
2. Valance, Marsha (April 2006). "Wolf Hunting". Voice of Youth Advocates. Vol. 29, no. 1. ISSN 0160-4201.
  The book review notes: "In this well-crafted conclusion to her Firekeeper saga, Lindskold explores the philosophical question, "What is love?" ... Although readers would benefit from a previous knowledge of this involved saga, this novel is a worthy end to the multivolume hero's journey. Firekeeper has matured in mind and body throughout this fantasy epic, gaining understanding of her complex world's operation. Lindskold does a solid job of world-building, offering thought-provoking questions to underpin this well-paced chronicle of Firekeeper's adventures that is recommended for all high school libraries where fantasy is popular."
3. Lazarowitz, Steve (2007). "Wolf Hunting". SF Site. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The book review notes: "Wolf Hunting is an exceptional book from a talented author. Not fast paced by any means, Ms. Lindskold delves into the character's minds and hearts, sharing with us their strengths, weaknesses, hopes and fears. If you like innovative character-driven fantasy, then get yourself a copy of Wolf Hunting. The magic is only just beginning."
4. "Wolf Hunting". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 253, no. 2. 2006-01-09. ISSN 0000-0019. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The book review notes: "In the thrilling fifth installment of Lindskold's Firekeeper fantasy saga ... With a smaller cast of characters and more interaction between animals, this volume is more tightly focussed than earlier entries in the series. The intriguing plot makes for a quick and enjoyable read."
5. Luedtke, Paula (2006-03-01). "Wolf Hunting". Booklist. Vol. 102, no. 13. p. 76. ISSN 0006-7385.
  The book review notes: "Orphaned and raised by wolves, Firekeeper is at home in the wild as well as closer to her wolf companion, Blind Seer, than she ever could be to a human. Now one of the sentient Wise Beasts requires their help. The jaguar Truth's gift of prophecy has driven her mad and separated her from her spirit, but a voice in her head urges her to bring Firekeeper to open a door and thereby be made whole again."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wolf Hunting to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has received five reviews: The Santa Fe New Mexican, Voice of Youth Advocates, SF Site, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist.
Cunard (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing suggestion to Keep, on account of sources tracked down by Cunard, as above, which I missed in my search. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BOOKCRIT with the sources Cunard mentioned. I also found reviews on SF Site and SF Revu, which appear to be reputable in the scifi community. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Passes WP:BOOKCRIT. I struck my merge vote above.4meter4 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cunard sourcing is sufficient, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to sources found by Cunard. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kofo Adegoke[edit]

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

Biography of a businessman sourced only to the memorial website of his father. A BEFORE search does not bring up sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Princess of Ara 15:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 15:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 15:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT WP:TNT WP:TNT WP:TNT WP:TNT or even better WP:Nuke it from orbit; regardless if the claim of notability via royalty is true, the article is wholly unsalvageable. Curbon7 (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:40, 4 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 13:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Ultra Fun Run[edit]

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

Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources just doesn't appear to be present for this event. Sources in the article are almost entirely primary and/or social media posts. firefly ( t · c ) 10:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 10:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 10:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For me is a relevant past race. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of generating some more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the essay WP:MILL. Just a race, of which there are thousands in the world. The article also says: "There is no prize money and no major media coverage". Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Execrable sourcing and no possible way of demonstrating notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ACEs (BGYO fandom)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and very trivial. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge to BGYO. In most cases, fandoms should be discussed in the article about whatever they are fans of. This article doesn't actually have a lot of content so merging it into the article about the group that the ACEs are fans of should not be a problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BGYO#Name and include only important parts per Metropolitan. SBKSPP (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BGYO per Metropolitan90. Most likely trivial and a possible WP:CRUFT. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question to CruzRamiss2002 and SBKSPP: Is the current title even a plausible redirect? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need a separate article about BGYO's fandom (or any fandoms in general), because it can be discussed directly in BGYO's main article, and its not really notable, in fact, ARMY (of BTS) doesn't have an existing page about it either, simply because they don't have to. I'm also not pleased with the idea of a redirect, I don't think there will be anyone typing "ACEs (BGYO fandom)" to simply get redirected to BGYO. – VertaxApolinariax (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other fan groups on Wikipedia doesn't have this. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:41, 10 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 Costa Rica at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Surfing. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS Less Unless (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Muñoz Herrera[edit]

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

While WP:NOLYMPICS says that anyone who participated in the Olympics is "automatically notable" (I'm on the fence about how much I agree with that), Herrera (as far as I'm aware) never even set foot in Tokyo: he was a replacement for someone who had to drop due to COVID, and never managed to find transport. Thus, "he competed" is incorrect and thus I do not believe NOLYMPICS is applicable. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Costa Rica at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Surfing or Surfing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's shortboard#Heat 5, both of which explain that he was called up to compete and didn't (my preference would be redirect to the Costa Rica article). He's not notable enough to pass WP:GNG for sure, but this redirect will give some information about him, and his Olympic non-participation. If he becomes notable in future, the redirect could be reverted. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a very likely search term, being non-notable. I very much disagree on writing up Olympic participants before the Olympics, and here we see one of the reasons. Geschichte (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS as he never actually participated. Fails WP:GNG. Not a likely search term so a redirect is not needed.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 10 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angeles (band)[edit]

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete - (The nomination needs to be far more descriptive.) It is tough to search for this band because the city keeps coming up, but a search in conjunction with frontman Dale Lytle or various album titles leads to disappointing results. Since they started in the 1970s-80s they may have been covered in old hardcopy media, but I can find nothing in Google Books either. I also can find no reliable reviews of any of their albums, beyond blogs and retro fansites. The current article is dependent on sources in which the band was indeed named briefly as members of the LA rock scene, but despite 40+ years it seems that reliable and in-depth media coverage has eluded them and they are largely unknown outside of a small local fan base. That's too bad for a band that has such a long history, but there's very little to work with here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Doomsayer520. I am very unfamiliar with Wikipedia, so please forgive any errors. I just scanned three pages from a print magazine called "Tuned Loud Magazine" from March 2020. The magazine is printed in both Italy and the USA. And Angeles received the cover-article. Inside the Article itself in a 1978 newspaper article describing the band in 1978, as well as how a single-surviving cassette from 1978 was found and released more than 40 years later. I know that the band Angeles has been on three different magazine covers in the late 1990's, but I would have the dig them out of storage, as I purchased them in a large collection with about 3,000 other magazines detailing different Southern California music. I was able to contact the woman who wrote a newspaper article on them back in 1978 for the "Sunland-Tujunga Record Ledger" but she does not have the full-surviving newspaper, just her article fragment. If I could get a bit of time, I could find the other magazines (where Angeles was featured on the cover), and add the sources to the Wiki-Article in order to establish more credibility.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tuned_Loud_-_March_2020._Angeles_and_Dale_Lytle.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tunes_Loud_-_March_2020_-_Page_18.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tuned_Loud_Magazine_-_Page_19_-_March_2020.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animation Liberation (talk) 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional Edit: I added the source for the band Angeles headlining an Event at the Devonshire Downs. The flyer shows Angeles as headliner, as well as the Iron Butterfly drummer Ron Bushy mentioned by name. I would have to see if there are more Newspaper articles that reviewed the concert afterward. I hope this helped. Also, I understand this is an uphill-battle trying to establish notoriety for a band that had their hey-day back in 1980-1983. Within the next two days, I will try to add more sources to further flesh-out the article.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fall_Rock_Festival_1980_Flyer.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animation Liberation (talk) 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks for contributing, but you're right about the "uphill battle" especially because we still need more info about their overall career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Doomsday520 - I today I added sources from three different print magazines: TunedLoud Magazine 2019, Music Connection 2019, and Talent Rater Magazine from 2016. I have three more magazines that I intend to include into the article (two of them have Angeles on the Cover), I would like to try to use the Front Cover of the 1996 Magazine as a secondary picture for the Wiki article. I also, connected two different sources for two different CD Release Shows. I know that both shows were sold-out, but I cannot yet find a written source stating that. I think it would be a good sign in defense of this band being notable that their CD Release shows still sell-out in Hollywood even after 40 years of being a band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animation Liberation (talk • contribs) 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Selling out shows might be an impressive feat; but isn't a criteria for notability on wikpiedia. WP:BAND lists the requirements.RF23 (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as have significant magazine coverage shown in this discussion and in the additional references and content added to the article so there is no valid reason for deletion in my view, particularly as this a pre-google band not subject to recentism coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has had multiple magazine sources added since nomination which establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 18:34, 9 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) Curbon7 (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxical intention[edit]

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

Already covered in Logotherapy article. Much of the content not covered in the Logotherapy article has been challenged or is unreferenced. rsjaffe talk 21:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 21:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Logotherapy is psychotherapy based on finding a meaning for life. Paradoxical intention is a specific cognitive technique which is not associated with such search for meaning and so might be used by any school. So they are not the same thing and are best covered separately. See Paradoxical Intention Therapy for an example of a source which barely mentions logotherapy. There are many more. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, already covered in parent article. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. The logotherapy article says little about it and refers readers to the page in question to find out more. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The extra in this article isn't sourced. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page and per WP:HEY. RV (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence The Encyclopedia of Psychotherapy has an entry for the topic which states that "It is an approach employed in a variety of schools of psychotherapy, especially family and Gestalt therapy..." and so this confirms that it is not exclusive to logotherapy. And, of course, that the topic is both notable and encyclopedic. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - there's not a lot of meat to this and it could very well be covered at logotherapy with no loss of content, but I guess it just slips in as sufficient for a standalone. Both will work. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson and the sources cited above. Passes WP:SIGCOV and is its own unique topic separate from logotherapy.4meter4 (talk) 23:59, 10 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 USS Narwhal (SS-167). Some content has already been merged by User:Mztourist, the rest is in the page history if anyone wants to do any more. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack C. Titus[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC only RS are passing mentions as commander of USS Narwhal (SS-167) which do not amount to SIGCOV. Two Legion of Merits do not satisfy #1 of WP:ANYBIO Mztourist (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful to USS Narwhal (SS-167). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability comes from the combination of his naval service and his television work shown at Jack C. Titus at IMDb. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? He appeared in one episode of a TV series in 1957. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Peacemaker67, if there's anything worth merging. Intothat darkness 13:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same as nm8787769, an entire episode was dedicated to his service as commander of the USS Narwhal. The same mission was outlined in "Silent victory: the U.S. submarine war against Japan." Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is nm8787769 that you claim to be agreeing with? Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: A merge into both the articles of the sub and the show is likely to be preferable in this case. Curbon7 (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with nm8787769, the combination of his Naval service along with his exploits being notable enough for television would support passing WP:GNG. He is also covered in literature on the subject, and more than just in passing. Weber1982 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is nm8787769 that you claim to be agreeing with? I note that your account was created yesterday and someone has already raised a Sock concern. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See [5] and this: [6], specifically "I was just recently introduced to wikipedia editing through my husband who was complaining about articles being deleted. So I thought in my spare time I could also contribute to wikipedia and vote." As Weber1982 ~~appears to be a WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK~~ is confirmed to be a WP:SHARE of Jamesallain85, I request closing Admin to disregard both !votes. Mztourist (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have already merged the relevant detail onto USS Narwhal (SS-167). Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Peacemaker67 and nominator.4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Narwhal (SS-167) per above solid reasoning. -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per Peacemaker67. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Binnaz Rıdvan Ege Anadolu Lisesi[edit]

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

I can't find a reliable source (newspaper, academic works, book) in Turkish or English about this school. There are only Turkish education statictis pages about this school accepts the students who get how many points in LGS exam. Therefore, I suggest this page will be deleted. Uncitoyen (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Uncitoyen (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Uncitoyen (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to Köy Hizmetleri Anadolu Lisesi: high schools aren't notable simply because they exist per WP:NSCHOOL. Sources don't exist either, so it doesn't pass GNG. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists but no sources given or easily found. tedder (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure if there are Turkish sources either for confirming notability. Lorstaking 16:50, 5 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 14:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Internet Archive's collections[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a catalogue. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The most notable and important collections in the Internet Archive can be, and are already, discussed in the Internet Archive article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious fail of WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto above -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:19, 8 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 10:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mindwarp Chamber[edit]

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

Contested CSD and PROD back in 2009. No real developments since then, appears to fail WP:NBAND. KH-1 (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is extremely skimpy, lacking any sourcing that establishes notability.TH1980 (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I found during a google search were the usual databases, streaming links, youtube, etc. If there were album reviews, they were featured on blogs and other unreliable looking sites. The edit summary of the article creator is the following: "I'm a member of this band, and we're adding our initial information page." So the COI is strong with this one. This has been sitting here since 2009 without any reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamlesh Uniyal[edit]

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

Not an elected politician but a party official without the necessary notability. Fram (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concerns of WP:N WP:RS. Also there is no such post in the government or the BJP organization. Although appears to be an office-bearer of BJP Uttarakhand but lacks notability and there is no credibility of the published sources. Please check this wiki page for confirmation of his post in the Govt. of Uttarakhand. Ht24 (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article claims that he is a government minister, but I have been able to find no confirmation of that, which there certainly would be if he were. He appears to be an internal party officer, not, as the article suggests, a minister in the government which that party controls, and I can find no evidence of notability. The king of the sun (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and is unelected hence fails WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non-elected politician. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qenazmach Bihonege Lemma[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Google search turns up absolutely nothing. Only reliable(?) source provided is about a rank and not the subject. Creator stated in their edit summary "more information would be added to this article after more family knowledge is obtain by this account". If the only source is the Creator's family then the subject is clearly not notable and WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies Mztourist (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Judges and generals are usually notable. Perhaps his appointment was announced in the official government gazette or in one or more newspapers which might be available in a library. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What policy states that Judges and generals are usually notable? WP:JUDGE contains a presumption of notability but WP:BASIC applies to everyone, if there isn't "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" they're not notable and don't warrant a page. Since WP:SOLDIER was deprecated Generals aren't even presumed to be notable. There is no reliable source that the subject here was even a judge. Mztourist (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong or speedy delete. The original editor noted that information about him is not available in published reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC) modified 00:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with another of the author's creations, this article is based purely on 'family knowledge' rather than any published sources. I accept Eastmain's point that the subject might be covered in government gazettes or newspapers; I'd decline an A7 CSD tag based on that an assertion that someone was a judge as a valid WP:SIGNIF claim, but what this needs for me to think we should retain it is for someone to dig out some of those sources and demonstrate notability. I can't find any coverage in RS at all; please ping me if anyone is able to uncover any and I'll reconsider. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS, no article. Intothat darkness 20:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace. As mentioned above, without any sources or verifiability it should not be published on WP. However, if the author's claims are true that he held the claimed position, that could be notable. I think placing it in draft space would give the author a chance to provide verifiable references. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 - Created 3 September 2021‎ by TRUTHINCommons, a confirmed sock of LEKReports (blocked 19 August 2021). Эlcobbola _talk 20:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elcobbola: I don't see where the puppetry has been confirmed. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the global account? I'm a CU. Эlcobbola _talk 20:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elcobbola: The account was not showing locked when I looked earlier. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in light of that, I endorse speedy deletion under G5 as well. I'm not sure whether I'm too involved to delete it myself, since I've commented here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete disagree with draftifying (which misuses the AfC process), the complete absence of sources, even the most fleeting of a mention, makes this hard to consider as anything other than delete. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UA85). MER-C 17:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Institute of Technology[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this school. Previous AFD was before the school even existed, so no longer relevant. Fram (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't exist in the PDFs in the references. The division site (TEVTA) is dead. And there are two slightly different GPS coordinates given. So, doesn't meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 10:46, 3 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 Nomination withdrawn.. nearlyevil 665 05:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ELEM/Youth in Distress in Israel[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, fail of WP:ORG. nearlyevil 665 05:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 05:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 05:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bacchi[edit]

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

Non-notable musician and recording engineer. Sources in the article can't demonstrate notability, the texts don't mention his name more than once. Mottezen (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, all references but one are mentions; one is for his ownership of a Tiki painted van. Nothing to do with music or sound. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As Whiteguru mentions, most of the citations are all passing mentions, which does not help establish notability via WP:SIGCOV. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The person is not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable musician -Xclusivzik (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayleen Ramey[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television host, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for television hosts. The notability claim here is that she exists as a person who has had a job, but that isn't an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of media coverage about her to establish her significance -- but the only source here is the self-published primary source website of her own (former?) employer, which is not a notability maker. And the article's been flagged for lacking reliable and independent sourcing since 2010, without ever having even one new source added in the intervening decade. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - article fails WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beishanyang[edit]

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

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

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

Unsourced since 2009. The village is stubbish and thus unnotable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please search for Chinese-language sources before nominating a Chinese village for deletion. I added some references. Wikidata page for this village is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4881403 but I think this page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14792490 refers to the same village. Attention from some China experts would be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: it looks like this is the same case as the barangays in our case, in which majority of the village-level divisions of the Philippines' 1,634 municipal-level divisions does not have English-language sources and thus cannot benefit from notability. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No. References do not have to be in English to be valid. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. It would be nice if the Chinese government published a gazetteer in English that could be used as a reference, but I do not think it has done so. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to confirm Eastmain's comment. According to WP:Notability: Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources on Baidu to establish that it is a legally recognized populated place to meet WP:GEOLAND (see Villages of China). Jumpytoo Talk 07:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Passes WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 11 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) 05:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chidi Njokuani[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMANOT by only having 1 top tier fight. Bellator only considered top tier 2009-2015 and 2022 for men onwards. Also fails WP:GNG as fights are routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 03:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 03:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 03:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 03:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One top tier fight is not enough to meet WP:NMMA. The article has a lot of references, but they're all routine sports reporting such as fight results.Sandals1 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has competed numerous times in Bellator and other notable promotions, and also against notobale opponents in Muay Thai. -- Shaolin Punk (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bellator considered top tier from 2009-2015 (see WP:MMANOT) so he only has 1 top tier fight. Also appears to have no notable accomplishments in Muay Thai. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG. Cassiopeia talk 09:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not determined by who he competed against (WP:NOTINHERITED). He fails the notability criteria for both MMA fighters and kickboxers. Papaursa (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you people serious? This article has been up for 4 years and now we are just deciding to take it down because he got signed to the UFC? That does not make any sense at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisward62 (talk • contribs) 12:46, September 8, 2021 (UTC)

Comment Subject notability is not based on how long it has been existed in Wikipedia but meeting the Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is edited by volunteers and thousands of articles which the subjects have not meet the notability guidelines, but still they are still existing in Wikipedia mainspace beause not one nominate the article for AfD or the readers don know the notability guidelines in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 03:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He currently fails to meet the notability criteria for either MMA fighters or kickboxers. Fightmatrix.com currently ranks him 83rd in his division. Sourcing consists predominantly of routine sports reporting, so WP:GNG is not met. When/if he gets the necessary top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA, then the article can be recreated. How long the article has existed is irrelevant to notability. Papaursa (talk) 11:44, 9 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 13:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tava Colo[edit]

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

There is no automatic notability for supercentenarians. Barring that, does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like the last time (with another supercentenarian), being one does not guarantee subject's notability.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:27, 27 August 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 03:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant reliable, independent sources establishing general notability exists. Multi7001 (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kwesi Boakye[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. The Film Creator (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ionescu, Bianca (2009-09-11). "10-Year-Old Kwesi Boakye To Star In 'Tyler Perry's I Can Do Bad All By Myself'". Atlanta Daily World. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The article notes: "Ten-year-old Kwesi Boakye is an up and coming child star. From his recent staring role in Tyler Perry's new film, "I Can Do Bad All By Myself," to Ray Romano's new TNT sitcom, "Men of a Certain Age," Kwesi is adding prominent roles to his already prolific acting resume. As a child, Kwesi has appeared in television shows including, "Strong Medicine," "South Park," "Boston Legal" and "Days of Our Lives" as well as lending his voice in the Oscar, Golden Globe and Grammy award-winning animated movie, "Happy Feet.""
2. "Ghanaian Hollywood Stars Arrive In Ghana For The First Time". Peace FM. 2016-12-23. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The article notes: "Kwesi Boakye, the youngest, is already considered a veteran in the industry with over a decade of impressive credits, known for his incredible talent and ability to morph into multiple characters, at such a young age. Holding his own with notable A-List stars on screen like Taraji P. Henson, Boakye first charmed America’s heart as Manny in Tyler Perry’s #1 blockbuster hit film I Can Do Bad All By Myself."
3. Lewis, Jason (2011-04-18). "Kwesi Boakye stars with hip-hop mogul Sean 'P. Diddy' Combs on Hawaii Five-O". Los Angeles Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The article notes: "Kwesi Boakye has nabbed a huge guest-starring role on the CBS Hit TV Series, Hawaii Five-O, playing the character of Kevin Cole, son of Hip-Hop mogul turned actor, Sean ‘P-Diddy’ Combs who will portray his father Reggie Cole."
4. Debrah, Ameyaw (2011-02-03). "Child star, Kwesi Boakye makes a guest appearance on TNT's 'Southland'". ModernGhana. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The article notes: "After making the news recently with his second consecutive appearance on Rych McCain's annual list of Hollywood's most talented kids, Ghanaian-born Hollywood child star, Kwesi Boakye is back in the news again! This time, the 11 year old actor is making a guest appearance this week on TNT's 'Southland', an American drama series created by writer Ann Biderman and produced by Warner Bros Television."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kwesi Boakye to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of Cunard's sources needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not necessarily convinced that each of the above constitutes "significant coverage" but the key here - I think - is that several of them refer to the subject having received coverage elsewhere. In effect, we have some coverage, and then verifiable claims that the subject has received additional coverage. Beyond that, some of the sources describe some of his appearances as significant (in their own terms). I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but it's not up to me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article fits within Wikipedia editorial requirements on notability for an actor. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:59, 3 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. Sandstein 10:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmsim Metro[edit]

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

Rather than move-warring, let's discuss this at AfD. A WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any potential reviews for this video game that would make it notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources added by Eastmain establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the newly introduced sources. Always good (but understandably often difficult) to look for sources in other languages than just English.--Alexandra^IDV 07:35, 9 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 Samsung Galaxy Tab series#Samsung Galaxy Tab S. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 Lite[edit]

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

Article was redirected to Samsung Galaxy Tab series#Samsung Galaxy Tab S, so I thought of reverting the redirection prior to re-draftification and recreation of the redirect. But then, someone has reverted my draftification, so now an AfD is needed. The original reason for redirection by Mcmatter was Let's redirect it as it seems even the primary product model doesn't even have an article". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Samsung Galaxy Tab series#Samsung Galaxy Tab S This may even require a page block for the author who does not seem to be interested in improving the article beyond a very simplistic listing of its specifications which could be included in the primary topic if need be. I don't believe there is enough about this product to warrant it's own stand alone article. If there was a page about the Tab S6 I would recommend it being merged into that article. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not contain enough information to satisfy product notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – to prevent breaking the link. According to its page information, it has 624 views, meaning backlinks from external websites might already exist. I think readers would rather be redirected to the closest existing thing (Samsung_Galaxy_Tab_series#Samsung_Galaxy_Tab_S). If necessary, page protection can be applied. The page Samsung Galaxy Tab S6 already redirects there, and has been opened 1.659 times during the last 30 days according to its page info. In future, "Tab S6" might develop into a standalone article with the "Tab S6 Lite" as section. Lapisgaming (talk) 22:26, 9 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.