Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 06	January 08 >

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 speedily deleted by Liz under the G5 criterion. (See SPI.) (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nattha Platforms[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t meet WP:NCORP and also do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (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 Rock Scully. In the absence of any other input, I'm accepting the suggested redirect as a reasonable alternative to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Scully[edit]

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

Unfortunately, in my work to improve neo-pagan subjects, I've found another article that fails WP:NAUTHOR.

The only reliable secondary sources are the two "additional sources" presented at the bottom - one is a passing mention about the Eugene, OR, fair, and the other is an interview about....talking to animals.

Google News and newspapers.com had only passing mentions. Google search had only one find, an interview on KPFA (a public radio station in Berkeley, CA). Jstor and Google Scholar had nothing of note and Google Books were entirely her own books.

Also a few brief interviews with her when her husband died. As we know, Wikipedia articles aren't WP:INHERITED - and yes, that includes Deadheads.

Finally, a interesting little comment on the talk page by an editor who re-created the article after it was deleted the first time.

Thanks for assuming good faith in this nomination. Missvain (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's an Oregon Country Fair personality, that's how I am familiar with her, but I think you're right that this seems to be a case of "not inherited". I had tagged this for notability in 2015. It appears the subject herself edited the article in 2017. Simply being published by a division of Simon and Schuster is not enough to confer notability. It's hard to get "straight" sources to pay attention to metaphysical stuff, but I really can't find anything about her outside the Oregon hippie inner circle. She just hasn't seemed to have made an impact on the rest of the world. I was going to say that I hate doing this to women who are less notable than their husbands, but perhaps merge and redirect to Rock Scully, but now I see that they only share a name, a child, and a past relationship. I would love for someone to find some better sources for this but I'm likely going to!vote for deletion. Valfontis (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valfontis - Yeah, it is a bummer and notoriously hard to find reliable sources for "new wage" type figures. I live in Sonoma County, and she used to live down here, and I can't find anything, either, outside of passing mentions, stuff about her husband, or event promotions (and not a major feature, just passing mentions in event listing sections of newspapers). Thanks for your comments! Missvain (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:00, 7 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Talent Agency[edit]

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

There is a good number of passing mentions in reliable sources, but I found nothing passing WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by a Google search, There's not any evidence of SIGCOV from reliable-independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - no SIGCOV here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage in ~~reputable peer-reviewed scholarly journals~~ independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnacle at Tutwiler Farm[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Seems to be a WP:MILL shopping center with a theater, big-box, stores, restaurants. Searching finds some routine local coverage about the changes of ownership, but not really the significant in-depth coverage needed for GNG. MB 21:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. MB 21:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. MB 21:47, 7 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Bogatyrev[edit]

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

I tried a before search, and got pages of Russian wrestlers and Russian social media. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominator told, there aren't any reliable articles about him and most of them are about a wrestler.Alimovvarsu (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ehab Lotayef[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and activist, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers or activists. The notability claim here is essentially that he and his work exist, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie per se -- the notability test is not the things the article says, but the amount of reliable source media coverage that can or can't be shown to support the things it says. But this is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all, with the exception of two brief glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in news stories about other things, which is not the kind of media coverage we're looking for. (We need coverage in which he is the subject being discussed, not coverage in which he's a provider of an opinion about some other subject.)
This is also a clearcut conflict of interest, as based on the usernames he and Mohamed Sherif Kamel (also up for AFD) essentially played the "I'll post the article about you and you post the article about me, so that we can't be accused of violating WP:AUTOBIO" game, which is not an acceptable bypass of our rules.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Ehab Lotayef from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 01:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Peppermints[edit]

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

Group was created specifically for their Junior Eurovision performance and broke up within a couple years. Does not meet inclusion criteria in WP:BAND. Grk1011 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator. The group was only ever mentioned in minor blogs and social media sources, usually written by themselves. Due to their bland name, searching can be difficult so I searched for some of the members and none of them have risen above their own social media either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in agreement with the points raised above. Does not meet the notability criteria necessary for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know San Marino is a small country, but the references here are just blogs. Sole claim to fame is that they were in the Junior Eurovision performance. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emilija Đonin[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria listed at WP:SINGER for notability. Did not place highly in the contest nor did her song chart. The article is largely unsourced with nothing but minor formatting changes being made over an 8 year period. Grk1011 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - article fails to meet notability guidelines. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as far as I can tell, she did not continue a music career after "Svet U Mojim Ocima", so there is basically nothing to write about in this article. It is a nice song though. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Dreher[edit]

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

The Baden Revolution and Palatine uprising are notable, but this specific battalion commander is not. The biographical note cited on the page is a short blurb in the name index. The person's battalion is reference in Engels' "The Campaign for the German Imperial Constitution". If a wikipedia article existed for that, it would be a worthwhile redirect, but seeing that I can find no reasonable ATD and nominate this for deletion failing WP:NBIO. TartarTorte 20:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 20:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 20:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 7 January 2022 (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 23:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gebze Center[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadıköylü (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only reliable source I found was this one about the mall winning a non-notable award, which sounds cool, but isn't enough on its own to merit an article. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purple (company)[edit]

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

straightforward advertising: First part is information about funding, 2nd is a list of products. fails WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. U683708 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bobherry Talk Edits 03:36, 8 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gold (journalist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for journalists. The notability claim here is that he and his work exist, with no indication of any major achievements (notable journalism awards, etc.) that would exempt him from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but two of the three footnotes here are content self-published by his own employer, which are not support for notability at all, and the only one that comes from an independent third-party source is a short blurb that isn't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of considerably more than just one short blurb of independent coverage and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2022 (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 23:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nimâ Machouf[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win; the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — and notability is not inherited, so she doesn't get a notability boost just because she's married to a former provincial MNA. The only potential grounds for inclusion here would be if her notability as an epidemiologist could be established through coverage of her work as an epidemiologist, but this article isn't even attempting that in the least. And the French article, although longer, still isn't really doing what's needed, as it's still fundamentally "candidate + wife of Amir Khadir" apart from a WP:BLP1E blip of coverage of one single press conference she gave as an epidemiologist, which isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments from Bearcat. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pathan (film)[edit]

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

Pathan (film)

This upcoming film has already been deleted once, but I haven't seen the deletion discussion, so am not sure that G4 is applicable. It does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines (although an attempt to clarify the guideline resulted in No Consensus). The date for its release is based on rumors, which is crystal balling, and the references contain other release dates in the past that did not happen. This film may be in some sort of development limbo.

The references do not provide anything that could be considered independent significant coverage to establish general notability. The references are a mixture of 404s, press releases, and blogs.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Filmfare.com	A fancy 404		No	No	No
2	Readersfusion.com	A press release about the film, says it is expected to be released in October 2021, which is past	No	No	No (at least as to release date)	No
3	Hindusstannewshub.com	Meant to be a release date, but another 404		No	No	No
4	latestnews.fresherslive.com	Advertising, that says that the movie will be released on 19 Nov 2021	No	No	No (at least as to release date)	No
5	Dailymovieupdates.com	Announcement of cast	No	No	Maybe	No
6	Indiannewslive.com	Another 404		No	No	No
7	Mtwikiblog.com	Blog information about movie	Yes	No	No, a blog	No
8	Bollywood Product	States that release date is July 2022, which might actually be true	Yes	No	Maybe	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreleased film where production isn't very notable. Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've submitted a draft bigger than this through AFC, but was rejected by the nominator. So it isn't notable and should be deleted. Shinnosuke15, 07:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not yet show to meet WP:NFF. This version of the draft seems to be in a much better condition than this article. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom, no indication of notability of film for now. This is a future film which have not yet decided of its release date. DMySon (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFF NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 03:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note just to note that Filmfare.com is a reliable source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Bad & Ugly[edit]

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

No reliable reviews. The sources in the article offer little content to write an article (can only write the "Production" section and not the "Soundtrack" and "Release" sections). All of the sources in article are fairly short.

1. Source 1 - Simply says the film is a thriller (film mentioned twice)
2. Source 2 - Article about one of the actors in the film (contains information about the films the actor is shooting for) / Half of the article about another film called Karma Yodha. (film mentioned thrice)
3. Source 3 - Article about one of the actors in the film (Last paragraph in article is about three different films) (This film mentioned once)
4. Source 4 - Simply says the film is about harthal (film mentioned once) . Lists out the cast and crew. (Ex: Cinematographer is ... Music by ...)
5. Source 5 - Passing mention (film mentioned once)
6. Source 6 - Malayalam song database

Other sources found include this one (although it is a passing mention) and this one (good long source, although it may not be reliable). The lack of reliable reviews make writing an article difficult since none of the reliable articles are long.

Based on the sources, one can only write an article with the cast and crew listed and say the film is a "harthal thriller". No other information can be added. DareshMohan (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly your overview of the sources includes incorrect and/or misleading information (assuming good faith, I would not say it's intentional). Too many "Simply"'s there, but just looking at the very first source from Sify, it doesn't "simply" say the film is a thriller nor does it mention it twice as you suggest above - the entire article (which might not be too long) is about the film! It gives information about the wrapping of the shooting, where it took place, who it was directed by and who it stars, credits to members of the crew, and above all, the film's story is presented in a separate paragraph. This is as good a source as any one could look for. You might have just used a simple search function for the title which is not a way to confirm a source is relevant. The same is true, for that matter, of the third source by The Times of India, it gives a lot of information on the film even though it's about the actor. All in all, I believe it is a notable film based on the sources. And even if it was just a passing mention, I wouldn't ignore it - non-notable films do not get this many passing mentions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment. Sorry for my bad wording, for some reason I thought that reviews were needed for films. In that case, all of the sources are about the film except the last two. If Filmibeat is owned by Oneindia, then this source is probably good. DareshMohan (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Times of India RS pushes this over the line, I think. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no reviews so doesn't pass WP:NFILM. Nom's source analysis is correct; those sources, even with cast listing, appear shorter than comments here. So doesn't pass WP:GNG. Filmibeat is unreliable per WP:ICTF. This search for Malayali sources doesn't bring up much(IE article is on Clint Eastwood), ml-wiki isn't of help either. hemantha (brief) 04:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as there are barely enough sources for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Project Managers[edit]

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

Private training provider. Paid editing. Insignificant number of certification holders compared to Project Management Institute and PRINCE2. The German version of this page was deleted a few days ago as well: [1]. Not to be confused with the better known "International Project Management Association" (IPMA). Ilumeo (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IAPM does not organise private trainings. Nobody paid me to write this article. Compared to PMI, every PM organisation has few members... Just to clarify. In my opinion, the article is justified. Although it is a relatively small organisation, it still has members worldwide (at least according to its own data) and several sub-organisations.^[1]^[2] If the relevance of each article is determined by the large ones, we can also close wikipedia. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the advertising part because I am biased. Just an info to the person processing the deletion, that seems to be important here: Ilumeo and his crew are related to IPMA’s German sub-organisation GPM. A PM organisations which has a grudge against the IAPM and accordingly against this article. Why do I say this? I am aware that my comments are biased in a certain way. For the others, it should also be known. GilbertPotter (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)~~— GilbertPotter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ — Note to closing admin: GilbertPotter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

I am only biased by the idea of holding wikipedia free from self-promoting articles with insufficient external reception and from people who confuse an encyclopedia with Linkedin. Ilumeo (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illumeo's arguments seem irrelevant to me. I have just deleted an irrelavent and inaccurate part from the article that Illumeo inserted there. It seems to me that he inserted it on purpose to support his otherwise unsubstantiated arguments. As far as I can see, the article is not advertising, but if the general consensus is that it is advertising, then the last part about "Special features of IAPM" can be shortened, and then it should be fine in my opinion.FreakyFridolin (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC) — FreakyFridolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: While I agree that the article was not the best to be accepted (i.e. it includes mostly primary sources and no article links to it), I'd say that it still should be kept, as it has acceptable sourcing and is neutral in most parts. Luxtay the IInd (^{talke to mee}) 13:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It just about has enough independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- However, primary sources are not a valid evidence of the encyclopedic relevance of an organization. The secondary sources are mostly blog posts that definitely cannot be used as evidence of a high level of awareness. Overall, the external reception is not sufficient as it was mentioned here as well. If the majority of the article advertises certificates that can be purchased, I don't find that really neutral either. Ilumeo (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing in the article relies a lot on primary sources. The ones that are not are not reliable sources for establishing notability. The CIO article is probably the best of the lot and its just a list of certifications. Top 13? Why 13? Probably because they are all of the certifications. -- Whpq (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://iapmnigeria.com
^ https://www.iapmindonesia.net

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 1. Of course, the article uses many primary sources and comparatively few secondary sources. However, the secondary sources are all reputable, even if they are mainly in the project management field.2. Especially small organisations have few or no sources outside the field in which they are active and have, in my opinion, a right to be in Wikipedia. 3. I went back to look for mentions and came across some that i would (at least partially) include after the deletion discussion is finished. 3.1 The computer magazine Heise reports about IAPM as the first organisation in the agile field without recertification.Click3.2 Jacobs University Bremen has a new professor and calls him an expert because he is certified by the IAPM. Click3.3 BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg promotes the IAPM certificate.Click 3.4 For doctoral students at the University of Stuttgart, the IAPM's project management methods are part of the course which "belongs to the interdisciplinary courses for teaching interdisciplinary key qualifications according to §5 Para. 4 No. 2 PromO 2016".Click 1Click 2Click 3Click 43.5 Postdocs of the Otto von Guericke Graduate Academy who are part of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg are trained by a trainer certified by the IAPM. This is also openly communicated by the university. Click3.6 The IAPM Indonesia Network has 3290 subscribers on Youtube and 1400-10000 views on each video. Click3.7 The IHK AKADEMIE TRAUNSTEIN (a state commissioned organisation for training and education) and the district of Traustein (Germany) advertise that a certificate can be obtained from the IAPM after their training.Click3.8 Indeeds articles about The IAPM Click GilbertPotter (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to remember: GilbertPotter is a WP:SPA, the creator of this page that is the subject of this XfD and therefore has no WP:NPOV. These sources are just another desperate attempt to ascribe more relevance to the article than it has. Much of the page that is the subject of this XfD also seems exaggerated in terms of marketing. E.g. there it says that "IAPM's methods were recognized by the Procurement Office of the German Federal Ministry of the Interior". That sounds reputable at first glance... However, there was no official letter of recognition or a certificate by the Ministry. Instead, IAPM once was mentioned at the edge of a single job add in 2018.^[1] With the right marketing, it looks like more. Ilumeo (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ilumeo I have the feeling that you don't want to contribute anything productive. You make no effort to read anything in the article in question or to read the comments of others in this deletion discussion. On my page, I have clearly noted WP:COI, if you would bother, you would know that and not have to write it. This has already been pointed out by The Grid in this deletion discussion. If you think something is marketing, you are free to edit it (but please on a correct and researched basis, not like last time). By the way, your "source" is not the one I linked to - it's Click which links here Click. Under this link you will also find the PDF document with the invitation to tender. There you will also find the sentence (in German) "In the performance of the advisory service, the respective current and recognised standards and methods, in particular those of the federal government, are to be implemented. These include, among others: [...]IAPM (International Association of Project Managers)[...]" This is from the first invitation to tender, I will refrain from quoting the other two. Everything can be found under the sources.GilbertPotter (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your commitment in all honor, I understand it's about making money. A page in Wikipedia would lead to greater awareness and thus more sales. The goal is certainly that a lot of people acquire a certificate that would be legitimized by Wikipedia. However, the IAPM certificates are not yet well known to justify an encyclopedic relevance. Around 5,000 certificates have only been issued worldwide so far. If you go to an interview, the recruiters will certainly not know about these certificates. There are also numerous other providers of this very insignificant size. So where is the added value? I could create a nice-looking layout and then print it out as a certificate, that would be just as relevant. Ilumeo (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what you're trying to do all the time with these off-the-cuff assumptions. Apart from that, you're saying all the wrong things again. Do you want to emphasise that you have a personal vendetta here (5000 is just another wrong number)? I have already given other sources above, some of which report on the IAPM independently of the topic of project management, which in my opinion indicates relevance. Besides, this is not just about the certificates issued. There are just shy of 40,000 people in the IAPM network.GilbertPotter (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page that is the subject of this XfD has a strong focus on certificates. Therefore, this should also be addressed in the deletion discussion. You constantly assume things here about my background, whereas I only want to keep the quality in Wikipedia high. You have to be able to deal with critical voices without feeling personally attacked. To be precise, 5,572 certificates were issued, not 5,000 (you are right). But do these 572 additional certificates make the organization more relevant? No. I have also seen the information on 40,000 network members, but don't find it very meaningful. What is that supposed to be? Partly this includes the followers in social networks. Is that the sum of it then? If so, then it is no reliable data. E.g. if one person likes the IAPM on three social networks, that's still only one person, not three people. --Ilumeo (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilumeo, that's very much assuming bad faith. Any mention of possible COI has been exhausted here. I would suggest to drop it for the sake of continuing to have any form of productive discussion about this AfD. Focus on the content and not the contributor. – The Grid (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the content: The content of the article does not go into the underlying project management model ("PM Guide"). In terms of content, what makes IAPM's PM model different or better than PRINCE2 and the other known PM models? Of all the possible content, this would be the most relevant one here. A critical examination of the corresponding model is also missing in the article. What is good, what is perhaps not so good. Besides the primary sources, are there any other sources that deal with the content of IAPM's PM Guide? Unfortunately, I can't find very much external reception here. --Ilumeo (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.xing.com/communities/posts/iapm-vom-bund-anerkannt-1015554210

I don't think the article is about any model or guide but about the organization itself, your comment is not relevant in my opinion. Drawing comparisons with another organization within the article is not relevant to this article in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyFridolin (talk • contribs) 11:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People who get certified by this company should also know what they get certified in, no? --Ilumeo (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decide what you want. Above you wrote that there is too much advertising and here you suddenly write that not enough is written about the certification and what belongs to it. You change your argumentation as it suits you, no matter what you have said before. If people want to know precisely what the certification is about, they should go to the IAPM website. In my opinion, what you want is marketing, and that's not what wikipedia is for.GilbertPotter (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you didn't understand me correctly. Too much is written about the certificates and too little is written about the underlying model. In my opinion, a high-quality article first describes the content of a model in detail and then very briefly mentions that there is also the possibility of certification. At least that's my opinion (and a tip for writing good articles in general). However, in this case, there is not enough external reception to properly research this information and present it here. --Ilumeo (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I took time to read the mostly primary sources and the third party mentions all of which confirm that yes, it exists. However I cannot see anything about how IAPM contributes to the profession in the way that notable project management organisations such as PMI, APM, IPMA, Axelos (the PRINCE2 people) do. They just issues certificates and I have mostly concluded that this is a borderline diploma mill. I will also add (and feel free to dismiss this as WP:OR because it is purely personal opinion) that in the last 20 years of my career, during which I have employed well over 100 project managers and worked with many many more, I have never once seen anyone with an IAPM qualification. --10mmsocket (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three delete posts since you re-listed five days ago. Does that mean we now have enough to declare there is consensus? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is written like an extremely run of the mill brochure for the company. Which makes sense because 99% of it is based on primary references that literally serve that purpose. Unfortunately what's left that isn't primary doesn't seem to be any better either. Really the way the remaining none primary references are written I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't paid pieces or at least churnalism. Even if they aren't though, what they write about clearly goes against the of the notability guidelines for companies. The fact that Sharon Florentine from CIO, whoever she and they are, thinks this company has one of the top 13 project management certifications for 2020 is meaningless. We don't base the notability of a company on the word of some rando in a churnalism blog post and there's nothing else here that we can base it on. So there isn't a justifiable reason to keep the article. Also the fact that good faithed edits by established editors are repeatedly being removed from the article by COI editors is a major issue. There's zero point in having an article about this company if their paid editors are going to try and WP:OWN it by not allowing people without COI issues make good faith edits to it. Screw that. There's an established process for adding content to articles that people with COI issues should go through to do so and how it's happening in this article isn't it. Going by their defensive debate tactics in this AfD I doubt they would be willing to do things in the proper way. Nor should we encourage them or COI editors by keeping the article and allowing them to camp in it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:GilbertPotter, who has declared a conflict of interest in this article ([2]) and has passionately defended it against deletion, has been going agains the deletion policy (Wikipedia:Deletion policy) by inappropriately canvassing (specifically spamming) six uninvolved editors (see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting (diff1, diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 edit6. However, I am inclined to assume good faith due to a possible unfamiliarity with Wikipedia polices as a new editor. I also note that none of the six users canvassed has participated in this debate. I did think it should go on record though. --10mmsocket (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too am unable to find independent, in depth coverage. That the creator is calling edits to the article vandalism doesn't bode well for collaborative editing either. Star Mississippi 02:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:49, 12 January 2022 (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 and redirect to Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Membership drive. Not evidently notable, but reasonable to redirect as a search term. RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banglar Jubo Shakti[edit]

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

Not notable. RPSkokie (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Membership drive. There's actually quite a bit of (mostly ephemeral) news coverage, but it mostly just refers to this as one of Banerjee's initiatives; as such it's probably best to discuss it in his article, per WP:NOPAGE, providing relevant context. Since there's no content that needs to be merged over, a redirect should be sufficient. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a very new organization. Still not notable enough. But its gaining popularity according to the news references. However, not all the citations are from reliable news sources and same news from different news medias added too. Mommmyy (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local effort by a local politician. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:25, 12 January 2022 (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 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addanki Dayakar[edit]

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

Non-notable politician who has not won any major election to meet WP:NPOL. Lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, but this neither makes any credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons nor demonstrates a reason to treat his candidacy as markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space 220 Restaurant[edit]

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

Right now, there is only a single in-depth piece on this restaurant from an independent, reliable source. All the rest are either non-reliable (blogs, allears.nets) or from non-independent sources. Searches did not turn up enough other independent in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Epcot since as Onel5969 says there is not enough independent, in-depth coverage of this to meet the notability guidelines. Nor is there anything particularly notable sounding about it in general either. That said, it would make sense to do a redirect and mention it in the article about the Epcot Center. I'm actually kind of surprised it isn't mentioned there already. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources. There are three from insider but here is one, Mynews13, Orlando Sentinel, Fox35Orlando, and Orlando Weekly ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some others that I am unsure about. Cleveland.com, Orlando Informer, Space.com, The Science Times, and Attractions Magazine. I was planning to work on this article, but got caught up in the woody (Toy Story) GA review. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Attractions Magazine (WP:RSN), Space.com, Cleveland.com are all reliable. This easily passes WP:GNG. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree about the Space.com article. Except in this case it's talking about the restaurant building a space elevator that is still in the planning phase. So it's a 100% PRish hype article about something that has very little chance of actually occurring, at least any time soon. Which I don't think is helpful for notability since any half reputable company would get the same kind of coverage from Space.com and similar space themed news outlets if they claimed they were building a space elevator/outer space restaurant. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: yeah, but there are still like 10ish sources and others that can be used. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: True. It looks like they are either local or more of the same though. For instance the Attractions Magazine article is almost an exact copy of the Space.com one. Same goes for the orlandoinformer.com article. All the Cleveland.com article says is that you can get reservations. Which is pretty run of the mill. So I'm not really sure what good those 10ish or so other references are when they are exactly the same or just saying extremely trivial nonsense, like that someone can reserve a seat at the restaurant. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear with me I can give you more but it is super hard on this IPad so it might take awhile or I can do it on my chrome book later. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm sure there's more references out there. Anything even semi-related to Disney usually gets a lot of press because of the association alone if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Here is more proof that is passes WP:GNG and there is still some more Attractions Magazine 1, Attractions Magazine 2, Attractions Magazine 3, Collider, some more Orlando Weekly 1, Orlando Weekly 2, Orlando Weekly 3, Orlando Weekly 4, People, Narcity, unsure about Snopes, WFTV, Times Now News, don’t know if Daily Mail can be used for something like this, more Orlando Sentinel 1, Orlando Sentinel 2, Orlando Sentinel 3, Click Orlando, Fox35Orlando 1, Fox35Orlando 2, Insider, and I am unsure about Travel and Leisure ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I changed my vote to keep. Since I think the references you found are more then enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do think we need to delete or redirect Pecos Bill Tall Tale Inn and Cafe it has no reliable sources. (Maybe redirect it into Pecos Bill the fictional character). ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In light of the references found by Kaleeb18. Which I think are enough at this point to justify the article being kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are clearly enough reliable sources for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2022 (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 Mudhal Nee Mudivum Nee. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 15:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mudhal Nee Mudivum Nee (soundtrack)[edit]

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

This has no reviews, and only 11 sources. Can easily be merged with Mudhal Nee Mudivum Nee which is not so large. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Mudhal Nee Mudivum Nee (the film's article). This soundtrack article has a couple of news sources but they are actually about the film and/or the musicians on the album, and not the album itself. All reliable media mentions of the soundtrack that I can find are brief tidbits in articles that are actually about the film. Therefore the soundtrack has no significant coverage as an entity in its own right, and it can be introduced at the film's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mudhal Nee Mudivum Nee. Fails WP:NALBUM per Doomsdayer's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2022 (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. Given the difficulties of finding sources for this type of subject (as described in the discussion), participants appear willing to accept the sources that were found as indicative of notability. RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Troitskaya[edit]

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

Russian microbiologist-leprologist. Are the criteria for WP: NACADEMIC fulfilled?--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see nothing in GScholar or JSTOR using the English name, might find some in the Russian language, tells me she's not notable though. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete until someone fluent in Russian and with suitable expertise has looked for sources. A Russian scientist who died in 1979 would have spent their early working-career in a time when the East was an unknown world, the second half in a time when the East and West were separated by the iron curtain, with almost no flow of technical information, and both halves at a time before the internet and the universality of English. Any useful source about this person is bound to be in Russian and historical (and probably quite difficult for non-experts to find), but that doesn't mean they weren't notable. Elemimele (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are more details on her work here [3], but it will take more digging to find the sources mentioned in the article, and I am uncertain as to the origin of the webpage DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as [4], [5], significant coverage excited. Her notability proved. Alimovvarsu (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, having a look at the references in the article and from above editors using good old (or not:)) gtranslate, a couple of the links dont work, this source does not appear reliable (although the infomation may be correct), being submitted to an "anyone can contribute" site by someone called "Farmer", but the remaining sources look okay so i am leaning towards a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2022 (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. I will also move the dab page to this name as an editorial action; the core result of the AfD is the deletion of the current page. I will also merge the two Talk pages. RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interim[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIC. This is a dictionary definition of an ordinary word, not an encyclopedic commentary on the term. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 13:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 13:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 13:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 13:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Interim (disambiguation) to the namespace (per WP:DABNAME). The previous AfD was primarily arguing that interim had value as a DAB page, which now exits as a separate article. The article on what's supposed to be the primary topic still fails WP:NOTDIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[Changed my !vote, see below]Herostratus (talk) ~~Mnmh, I dunno.~~ You can't replace this by pointing people to the dictionary definition, because that's an an entirely different thing. Dictionaries are concerned with pronounciation, etymology, similar words, what part of speech a word is, what its different meanings are, what the word means in various languages, and some bare examples of use. When to apply WP:NOTDICTIONARY at the margins is a matter of interpretation and opinion. In the case of disagreement, we should default to not destroying existing otherwise-good material. So I'm not finding the dicdef argument persuasive.

But, the point that it should just point to the disambiguation page is reasonable. It's reasonable mainly because the current state of the article is unref'd, and reffing it would possible but hard and not likely to actually happen at it reads like someone just decided to write it. This article does lay out various aspects of the word in more depth than a disambig page can, which is good I guess, and there's a hatnote at top pointing to the disambig page, when granted is an extra step for readers wanting to find interim management etc... so, not sure on that point. Not !voting at this time. Herostratus (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/partial merge with dab page. These are just examples of how an ordinary word is used, nothing really tying them together as an encyclopedic concept. Reywas92^Talk 15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Qwaiiplayer said. The article is really a dab in disguise and is a candidate for WP:TNT (unreferenced forever, a grab bag of unrelated statements) in any event. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Possibly redirect it to Interim (disambiguation), but I have no strong opinion about this. Sorry for the confusion before. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Move to Interim (disambiguation), as per Qwaiiplayer.[reply]

I don't think you mean move this page over Interim (disambiguation). User:Qwaiiplayer said the opposite. Herostratus (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Herostratus, I've updated my comment. Thanks for pointing out the confusion before. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Qwaiiplayer said, delete and move Interim (disambiguation) to the namespace (or just redirect this page to Interim (disambiguation), whatever the usual procedure is). (NB, thinking about this some... I made a big change, big expansion too, to Interim (disambiguation). By all means anyone can roll this back if they like! I have reasonable grounds for this (doesn't mean I'm right tho), and I put my reasoning at Talk:Interim (disambiguation).) Herostratus (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2022 (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 Grevenbicht#History. Unlikely that an additional relist would establish different consensus. Creator cautioned against name calling and personal attacks. Star Mississippi 01:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass Beeg[edit]

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

This article about a bluegrass festival has been unsourced since creation aside from a vague wave to "EBMA European Bluegrass Music Association" as a source. I can find no coverage to establish this as a notable festival. Whpq (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 03:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Grevenbicht#History. Must have been a lovely event that caused people with autism and families a lot of joy. Unfortunately it did not take off from a media perspective, or otherwise, and was ceased after four years. Is deservedly listed under the history of Grevenbicht. This sentence should be updated and the article redirected, constituting of an extremely selective merge with a redirect as its main result. gidonb (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the writer of the article and chairman of Foundation Autism Friendly Limburg. This is the foundation that organised this festival. The foundation is still active. People with or without autism remember this event and it is has the function of a spot on the timeline. People can work together, that is what this festival shows. It was financed with government resources. Therefore the text it should stay. Guffens (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC) I propose to help and make suggestions how this article in line with wiki standard. Guffens (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC) The festival Bluegrass Beeg is part of the history of Grevenbicht#History and therefor a part of history of city Sittard-Geleen#History and part of Province Limburg (Netherlands)#History. Radiostation Start Geleen (now Bie Ös) location Stein made documentary about this festival and local newspaper both visited and wrote an article about this event. If you would like to do factchecking, be my guest and find out for yourself! Guffens (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be kept, the article needs to have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today I confirmed that the used Bluegrass Beeg posters (4) are actually my property. The posters may be used.Guffens (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The latest change are not appropriate and degradation of the given article. That one who did this is moron. Guffens (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abcence[edit]

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

One-year-old company; looks very far from satisfying WP:NCORP. Virtually all sources are directories merely showing that the company exists; the most in-depth one (reference 7) is just an interview which says nothing about the organisation itself. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 03:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 03:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 03:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 03:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The references supporting this article pertain to "Digispice Technologies", even those where the reference title has been adjusted to include the name "Abcence". I am seeing no independent coverage to indicate that Digispice Technologies has become Abcence as claimed in the article text, nor is any such change evident on the Digispice website and the company continues to report results and acquisitions under that name: [6]. By contrast, I am finding nothing about "Abcence" and the website is not found. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I described above concerns about claiming Digispice's past and present; since then the article creator has deleted the not-found website from the article. The firm has also been inserted into the Dove Airlines article, again with no references to support the ownership claim, and with Dove's website inoperative. Similar was done for the Klikk article but reverted. That Klikk ownership claim was also inserted into Wikidata (which I have reverted), as is a claim to partnership with Tata Consultancy Services: [7]. An article on Abcence was also recently deleted from pl.wiki as non-notable company spam [8]. I also notice the Enytially parent's Crunchbase page links a recent $100K seed funding round and claims the firm has "gained international recognition after purchasing several global companies" and to be "one of the biggest industrial company in India" - all with a not-found website. Overall, the editing around this article and related assets on other Wiki projects seems to be attempting to construct a presence claiming relationships with established firms and is at best factually questionable. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. There are also concerns that this appears to be either a spoof article (nothing available to confirm the "name change". HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 8 January 2022 (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 2021 Scottish Parliament election#Parties. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Scotland[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties. Has failed to prove notability, if indeed it is. No viable, credible coverage, article reads largely as promotion. No credible election results, no election won, no notable figures, politicians or other persons associated with them. Formerly CSD tagged. doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the scotsman appears to be reliable and is cited in the article, likely would contribute to GNG. thenational.scot no consensus on RSPS, article paywalled, might give significant coverage. Other reliable sources was not found by my search, article may meet GNG if the thenational.scot is considered a reliable source. Justi yaya 10:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It got quite a bit of coverage in Dundee, partly because Ewan Gurr, who has a considerable local, profile stood in Dundee City West. However I think in terms of national impact its impression is questionable. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A party that has once put candidates forward in a national election and in that one election gathered fewer than 0.05% of the vote is below my personal notability/significance bar for political parties. But it sounds from the above discussion that there might be enough sources with detail on the party to justify an article on the basis of raw media coverage: The Scotsman, for a start, is definitely a solid RS. Dunarc: are you confident of the existence of other RSes? What would they be: local Dundee papers? — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly in the printed editions of the Courier and Evening Telegraph there was coverage - online I can find https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/scottish-politics/2159185/ewan-gurr-joe-fitzpatrick/ - However I am not sure that that is enough and there is also the issue that Ewan Gurr writes for both newspapers. Dunarc (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article is really a profile of Gurr and a presentation of his candidacy as a battle-of-personalities. It's not really great for building an article on Restore Scotland. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Scottish Parliament election#Parties - In the absence of decent coverage of their platform in secondary sources, I think a party that has only participated in one election, polled very low nationally, and won no seats under a PR system doesn't reach the notability bar for me. We do have a reasonable redirect target, however, and if the party competes in the next election, the case for their inclusion will strengthen. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redirect - The redirect proposal outlined above seems to me a sensible way to proceed for now. It can be revisited in the future if the party were to gain a higher level of notability. Dunarc (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I would support redirect doktorb _words^deeds 22:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Galian[edit]

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

I am struggling to figure out how this subject passes WP:GNG. He doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:NMUSICIAN and I have went through WP:BEFORE and can't find any significant coverage outside of passing mentions or event announcements (that includes via my newspapers.com subscription).

Thank you for assuming good faith in this nomination. Missvain (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 24 December 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 11:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His books are partly self-published, partly by very small niche publishers of occult stuff, and of his two musical products, one is a self-released cassette tape, the other, according to the sources, is "an early home recording made by a man identified as Laurence Galian while he was living in Jericho, NY. While I can't find anything linking him directly to the tape, I strongly suspect that this is the Laurence Galian behind Shaman's Ascent." I'd say he definitely fails notability as a musician (I have great respect for ballet accompanists, but they're not notable), and with near-certainty as an author, but he just might be a notable general purveyor of general occult stuff/producer of inordinate numbers of podcasts, for which we have no guidelines. I have no interest in this sort of stuff and would go with delete, but that might be my personal bias. I can't see that he's any more notable than any number of similar individuals producing spiritual thoughts on sites like YouTube. Elemimele (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not mean WP:BIO or other notability guidelines for people. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2022 (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. It's not clear that notability has been established, but with the nominator suggesting withdrawal, there is no apparent consensus to delete either. RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Mohsin Musellem[edit]

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

Flagging this for a few reasons. First, there appear to be no verifiable sources. The "BBC" source looks genuine, but is not. The URL is not the same as the proper BBC Arabic site. I google translated this and the name in that 'article' is not the same as in this stub. So this lack of verifiable sources means the article does not and can not meet WP:VERIFY.

Second, as there is no significant coverage and no reliable sources provided, I find this article unlikely to satisfy the requirements of WP:N either.

Third, article is only three days old and has never been reviewed. I understand this is not necessarily a ground for deletion, however it does mean no independent reviewer has confirmed this article as appropriate for Wikipedia. The author has had other articles declined for similar reasons to what I have mentioned.

Last, but this is a weak point - I question whether the article is written in a neutral and objective manner. It merely seems to read like a list of this persons work. Such-change47 (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - consensus unlikely to be reached and taken into account the keep remarks made below, I am happy to withdraw. Such-change47 (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Such-change47 (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the article is very poorly referenced. It would be great if someone who can read Arabic could review this article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is almost certainly an unattributed translation from another language wiki and thus, like all their other articles and more, copyvio. Please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 21#Project #KMUOS. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is a translation from ar.wiki. I’ve now linked it and added a translation template to the talk page. The BBC source is genuine, it’s just the 2002 version of the site, and the article is about the subject. The ar.wiki article has plenty of sources and a quick search shows an abundance of others. The article does need improving but there’s no basis for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, please provide specific examples or add them to the enwiki article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I’ve now worked on it so it has seven valid references. There are a lot more Google books refs for him, mostly critical discussions and histories of Arabic poetry, but Google only allows snippet views of these so I haven’t used any of them. I’ve also cut out sections that weren’t sourced and for which I couldn’t find sources either. Mccapra (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the article be retained after the changes by Mccapra?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 4 of the new references show that the poems exist. There still remains a list of 26, so 22 aren't cited. Still no cited biographical information. Please change my vote to delete. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2022 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otilia Brumă[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable five years ago, when deleted at AfD and SALTED. Not notable today, either. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article can be improved using the Romanian language Wikipedia article sources. Heck, she recorded a hit single with Shaggy and her song Bilionera (she's called Otilia Bilionera in Romania) was a #1 hit in Turkey, Pakistan, India, Greece, and Bulgaria.[9]. Easy keep for me after doing my due diligence. A #1 hit song in a country is enough to qualify for WP:NMUSIC, we just need Bulgarian and non-English speakers to help. Missvain (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The ro.wiki article, at least the bits of it that are cited (which by the way don’t include the Shaggy thing), mainly revolves around routine announcements of YouTube views and video clip launches, and is copiously sourced to sub-par local newspapers and tabloids. So no, there isn’t much to “improve” from there.
- Apropo.tv is the entertainment division of the dubious Media Pro, and is not known for its commitment to the truth. Both “Bilionera” and “Βιλιονερα” have zero Google hits on searches restricted to .el, which is telling. As for the claim that she reached #1 in Turkey: not in 2015, not in 2014 or any other year (that is where we source our Turkish chart data from, apparently).
- Regarding the claim about Pakistan, India and Bulgaria: that was first pushed by the shady DCNews this October (7 years after the alleged fact), then immediately added to ro.wiki by a suspected paid editor and single-purpose account. Let’s not be duped by similar characters.
- I’ve done my due diligence, and can come up with no indication of notability as defined by WP:MUSICBIO, just troll accounts that periodically recreate this dismal article. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a keep.

Getting a #1 hit in multiple countries (and I don't know why a publication in Greece would lie about that) passes WP:NMUSIC. Missvain (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two points to consider:

1) Per WP:MUSICBIO, musicians who reach a national music chart may be notable. Significant coverage in reliable sources is at least preferred, if not absolutely required.
2) Claims about charts must be supported by reliable sources, per the same policy. We don’t currently have that.
- The claim about charting in Pakistan, India and Bulgaria is made solely by DCNews, the pet project of Bogdan Chirieac, a former informant of the Communist secret police and widely regarded as a sinister joke by legitimate Romanian journalists. No one else has made the claim. Moreover, said claim was made some 7 years after the fact, never during the alleged period of charting.
- The claim about charting in Greece is made not by a serious news site, but by an entertainment portal with loose journalistic standards. It is, as far as I can see, unsupported by any sites in Greece itself. (This is what I said, not that Greek sites lied.)
- The claim about charting in Turkey is made by the same dubious site that made the Greece claim. It is unsupported by the official Twitter account of the national Turkish music chart — the source from which we collect our information regarding songs that chart in Turkey.
So: where did the subject chart, and what legitimate sources (such as, for instance, the sites of the charts themselves) support the claim? — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — as a procedural matter, one cannot simply circumvent WP:SALT by recreating under a different name. Certain steps must be followed. Otilia (singer) is protected from recreation, and that must be dealt with. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no horse in this race, but speaking as the admin who declined your initial speedy deletion request on this page, I disagree with regards to this particular article. The creation-protection was owing to the page being repeatedly recreated years ago, not because of a specific consensus that we should never have a page on this topic. I see nothing to indicate that this is what's going on here—the editor who created the article this time around is a long-term editor who has a long history of writing about Romanian-language pop culture. Page protection is a tool to protect Wikipedia from disruption, not a ban on Wikipedia ever having an article on a given topic. ‑ Iridescent 06:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And while the nominator and I disagree, in the end, it's up to my fellow administrators and reviewers to decide. Here are additional sources that work towards the subject meeting English Wikipedia's WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, etc.. Also, Bilionara was featured on the best selling NR1 Dance Hits 2015, which hit #2 in Turkey.

Confirms her single was #1 for 9 weeks in Turkey - România TV
"VIDEO A ajuns la un miliard de vizualizări pe Youtube, după ce a fost refuzată în România" - Newsweek
"Bilionera şarkısıyla tanınan Romen şarkıcı Otilia: 'Tanrı istedi diye burada sevildim!'" - Hürriyet
"Ce a pățit în trafic Otilia Bilionera. A încălcat legea și a costat-o scump: „Nu mi-am dat seama" - Libertatea
"Primele imagini cu Otilia Bilionera & soțul. Cum s-au distrat alături de Otniela și…" - Cancan
"Cine e Otilia Bilionera de la „Survivor România” 2022. A devenit cunoscută la nivel internațional datorită unei melodii" - Libertatea
"„Bilionera” a ajuns la un miliard de accesări pe internet. De ce nu se poate bucura artista care cântă celebra piesă" - Adevărul
"Want to shed comedian image to make a mark as a musician, says Raja Sagoo" - Hindustan Times
"Interviu cu Otilia Bilionera: “Dacă eram în România, eu azi nu mai trăiam”. Mărturii exclusive despre iubitul arab, familie și carieră" - Fanatik
"Otilia „Bilionera”, fosta concurentă de la „Ferma”, gazda unui show în Dubai. Steven Seagal se află printre invitați" - Libertatea
"Otilia Bilionera, imaginea din copilărie care a înduioșat inima fanilor. Cum arăta artista când era mică" - Antena 1 (Romania)
Otilia Bilionera, despre căsătoria în secret. „Mi-am păstrat religia” - Libertatea

There are more, in other languages. Alas, I'm an English speaker. I mean geeze, I'm not a fan of "but the likes and views", but, her YouTube video for her single has over 500,000 views[10]. Missvain (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:33, 7 January 2022 (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 speedily deleted per R2 by Anthony Bradbury. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

French proverbs[edit]

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

The topic is 200% notable, but what we have here is a fake link (placeholder, not even stub) that compromises WP:RED and has next to zero functionality, and is misleading - creates a fake blue link for stuff like {{Europe topic |Proverbs of}} navigational templates etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:R2. Appears to be an attempt at a redirect to another Wiki project but doesn't have content of its own and so should be deleted. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2022 (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 Ponniyin Selvan#Characters. ✗plicit 13:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini (fictional character)[edit]

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

Currently, none of the sourcing shows any in-depth coverage of real world notability. Searches did not turn up any either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ponniyin Selvan#Characters. Does not seem to have enough out-of-universe coverage for a stand-alone article. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no evidence of stand-alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete this page. The character Nandini Devi is quite popular in the Indian State, Tamilnadu. And the page content will improve in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxmanthaletto (talk • contribs) 09:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Just plot information, no evidence of notability. Avilich (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2022 (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 13:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dawson (footballer)[edit]

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

While he technically meets the "presumed" low notability threshold of WP:NFOOTY, there is nothing further to be found online, it seems: no career, no birth or death information, no biographical background, nothing. Fails WP:GNG quite badly. Fram (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. It would be sensible to redirect this, but there is no suitable target (1906–07 Burnley F.C. season does not exist, and List of Burnley F.C. players requires 50 appearances for inclusion for some reason). Giant Snowman 20:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We simply don't need articles like this. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the spirit of NFOOTBALL and fails every other guideline. Geschichte (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and as mentioned above, no suitable redirect/merge target exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all comments above and nomination. This was an easy call. Spf121188 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2022 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Yunyaev[edit]

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

Russian TV journalist and singer. There are no authoritative links confirming the significance of the person. In the Russian Wikipedia, Yunyaev was removed repeatedly. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Руслан_Юняев ?oldformat=true--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only truly authoritative source cited is from 1TV.ru; however, it does not contain any SIGCOV of the subject itself. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was removed from the Russian Wikipedia, since the publication rules were violated in the first editions. (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cant find any coverage about him. fails notability.Alimovvarsu (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - UPE article about someone who doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 12 January 2022 (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 per G7 and BLPREQUESTDELETE. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilar Dirik[edit]

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

Article appears to have been written by an enthusiastic new editor about a non-notable but interesting person. They are an early-career academic and writer but do not seem to yet meet notability requirements.Boredintheevening (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Dilar_Dirik - may be best to blank it for safety until it can be properly reviewed. Current version as I write this is [11] - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as an article on a marginally-notable figure whose subject has requested deletion. (Have blanked the article given subject's and David Gerard's comments.) Vaticidalprophet 09:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, this AfD was formatted improperly, so I've fixed the formatting as a procedural matter. Vaticidalprophet 09:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily. Looks far WP:TOOSOON for academic notability, and still premature for notability as an author. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added "possibly speedy", per the case for speedy by Hoary below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Russ Woodroofe (immediately above). Aside from the (important) matter of notability, virtually all the material in the article was added by a single editor, who has said (on my talk page, as it happens) that "i am trying to figure out how i can put it in the elimination process". I suggest that we interpret this as the equivalent of encountering "{{Db-g7}}" pasted on the article, and therefore that we speedily delete the article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it for G7. My rationale is that if I had seen the message on Hoary’s talk page before the AfD was open, I would have tagged without further investigation. As nobody objects to deletion, I believe G7 is still proper despite the AfD being open.

If anyone objects to deletion, feel free to remove the G7 tag, and please ping me so I can evaluate the sources (which I have not done, as it is not required to make a G7 tagging on behalf of someone else). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly WP:TOOSOON even ignoring the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE question. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did the article, i am not that new in wikipedia, just in english wikipedia. The person really asked to not be in wikipedia, a section of the article that she considered harmful was cut, and after talking with her we came to set things right, where she gently asked for the elimination. JoaquimCebuano (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Whether or not this started as a school ^project is, as had been observed in this discussion, irrelevant. However, the "keep !votes fail to show convincingly that this passes GNG, so the "delete" !votes have the better arguments here. Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles[edit]

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

This is just an article about a school project. It doesn't matter if there's a reliable source to say that it happened, a school project is not and never can be a notable topic for an encyclopaedia article. Richard75 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Original poster does not make it clear which, if any, policies or guidelines were used to being this article to AfD. The claim that "a school project is not and never can be a notable topic for an encyclopaedia article" shows that the user has never heard of Facebook (originally a "school project"), nor any other global corporation or organization that started as such. Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:DEL-REASON. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook isn't still a school project; this never amounted to anything more than that. Richard75 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show the Wikipedia policy that clearly makes note of "school projects not being notable enough for conclusion", even if they pass WP:GNG with multiple WP:RS? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I think it's self-evident, but if you want to read a policy have a look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Also, this idea never went further than a website and some toy money, and the website is defunct. Richard75 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE has no information relating to geography or micronations, only scientific theory. But, it does state: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.", which would disqualify this article from deletion compared to other articles "in its particular field" (the other micronation articles). Even if we were to assume that, as you claim, this is a scientific field of study instead of a geography article. Further, WP:NFRINGE also clearly states: "Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", which, since this article passes WP:GNG, means WP:FRINGE is moot. It seems that you have brought this article to AfD purely based on WP:DOESNTBELONG or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid reason for deletion, and both explain that the user needs to clearly state which policy the article violates, and how. Otherwise, your lazy argument means half of Category:Micronations could be deleted, and countless other completely unrelated articles. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination has a very questionable basis in policy. School projects are not automatically non notable. On that basis we might delete nightcore or basketball, given that they were both done as projects in school. One also wonders how far this argument extends. Is the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution non notable because it was only ratified as a campaign created from student's school project? Most of the sources cover the recent campaign and not the original context of the amendment. Is there a "transition point" where a school project is no longer a school project and can be notable? The nom implies that such a point existed with Facebook, so what is that point? I would like the nominee to consider elucidating the boundaries of their policy on school projects that they judge articles by so we may also judge articles by that standard. Perhaps the nom should propose WP:NSCHOOLPROJECT at WP:VPP and then we can get back to this when that's passed. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of your examples are things that became more than just a school project and acquired notability; an amendment to the US Constitution is clearly notable whatever happened along the way; basketball is now a major sport whatever its origins. But the article under consideration here is about something that never got any further than a school project. It's fluff. Richard75 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this micronation doesn't seem to have any RS establishing it as important, apart from being listed in two books about micronations generally. As others have said, the fact it originated as a school project is not relevant, however the question is, has it become notable after that? The question remains, is it now notable?.... there doesn't appear to be any RS substantiating it to meet GNG. WP:NFRINGE theory does not apply to all micronations - some are notable and exist, others are not. It does get a few mentions here and there. The Hutt River province had existed for decades and had masses of RS discussing it, and featured widely in the media, as does Sealand. However, I'm happy to change my vote if there are convincing argument the subject is notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my objection is not that it started as a school project, but that it never came to anything more than that. Richard75 (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing even close to showing notability here. The comparison to the 27th amendemt to the US constitution is ludicrous. That amendment was not "started as a school project", it was created by James Madison and passed by congress in the 1780s. The later events that led to its passing are not per se what makes it notable, what makes it notable is that it is binding law that constrains the actions of the US congress, has to be considered by the US supreme court and other courts when making rulings, and has other legal implications. The origin of it is not what makes it notable or not, but its impact. In this case this was a school project and only ever a school project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is notable, it should be on Wikipedia. I was Googling islands for sale (not that I could afford it) and came upon this page, it is pretty cool. Is it a school project? Yes. Is it a cool novelty Wikipedia article? Yes. Does it have independent notable coverage? Yes. Keep it on Wikipedia, and if needed, let WikiProject:Micronations deal with it. AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above is not really a strong enough argument for keeping. Ultimately, there is a limit to what we can sensibly have, and this article goes beyond that in my view. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nth Floor[edit]

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

Only mentions online are promotional primary sources, or barely mention it in articles about Microsoft's VR aims more broadly. Creator has acknowledged COI, but I still don't think this project meets GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO grounds; the writing is like a CES rundown on a morning show and is only a concept, not built out at all. File:Nthfloor-art.jpg is well past the deletion date on Commons and should be taken care of. Nate • (chatter) 22:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
better references / news have been added this is a solution used for 675,000 employees and his been widely referenced in the news, its not a promotion excessive company mentioning has been removed media source details have been added. additional facts e.g. 60,000 VR Quest 2 headset deployments have been added to show the scale of the solution as a first of its kind in the metaverse BenHolfeld — Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I think this may fail WP:ADMASQ. Caleb Stanford (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came across it a few weeks ago and the tone weirded me out until I realized a COI wrote the bulk of it. I would consider it a self-promo, even if it has coverage. Some passing mention might be made in metaverse alongside Facebook's own dystopian work hellscape platform, but beside that, nothing comes to mind. SWinxy (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2022 (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) 03:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wagtail's Army[edit]

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

Soviet Latvian film for children with no real coverage in reliable sources.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google books give some results: Book by Fyodor Razzakov [ru], where it is written that the film inspired extremely popular The Elusive Avengers. It is mentioned in book Voices in Labyrinth (Голоса в лабиринте). Google gives several results where someone mentions that he watched the film, or remembered it, indicating that it was famous film. In the book Cinema of soviet Latvia (Кино Советской Латвии) the following is written (page 69):"the special place has the work of Aleksandrs Leimanis, whose films, The Wagtail's Army and its sequel, still are deservedly popular. The search made me sure the film was famous, though hardly there would be English language sources on film. Keep. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable book sources identified above, also noting that references do not have to be in english for WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per book references listed by Kirill C1. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book references are coverage for that. Alimovvarsu (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2022 (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 Draftify. While there may or may not be issues surrounding AfC, a six month, extendable window in draft space is a better option than relisting an AfD for another week. Further, this is an ideal article for incubation since the issue is sources present, not an issue with the topic. @Soman:, you can access this at Draft:Socialist Workers Party (Peru, 1992). Star Mississippi 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Workers Party (Peru, 1992)[edit]

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

Not a notable organisation. Google searches in English and in Spanish (i.e. Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores Peru 1992) return only primary source results or mentions in leftist blogs/magazines. Nearly no mentions by secondary or tertiary sources aside from mere mentions of its existence (i.e. Confirming the organisation's existence but making no claim to its significance). CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd ask to avoid a delete for now. Now, finding online materials of the UIT-CI section mid-1990s online. At some point this PST must have transformed into the current party Unios - which had parliamentary representation 2020-2021. --Soman (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify if Soman does not find sources today. I don't think holding up the AfD discussion is the right thing to do if it looks like there might be sources but we can't actually share them. The AfC process allows time for this kind of thing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soman has had time to find sources. I would recommend AGFing and draftify so they can have even more time to find these sources that they claim exist. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the time of year, some leeway regarding time is not out of order. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: that's why I !voted to draftify and not delete. Perhaps there sources do exist, and draftification will give Soman at least six months (if not more) to find them. This is what the draftification process is for. But I don't really see the point of indefinitely relisting/keeping in the mainspace when notability hasn't been established. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW my experience of AFC is that there is general opposition to the use of draftification once articles are in mainspace. It's important that draftification is not used as a means to circumvent a no consensus or keep outcome when the point of AfD is about a subject's notability, not current content. We're in no rush, we're building an encyclopedia, not a bridge; Soman is a long-time editor in good-standing with significant specialist knowledge in this area, we've no reason to doubt their comment regarding parliamentary representation (which would tend to accord presumed notability) and can assume good faith, let us give them a chance to reply. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Goldsztajn asserts "my experience of AFC is that there is general opposition to the use of draftification once articles are in mainspace". It is possible this was once true, but my experience both as a long-standing AfD regular and new AfC reviewer is that the resistance to draftification lies mostly on the AfD side. By comparison to AfD with its long-standing unresolved existential divisions, AfC is currently a smooth-running engine. I think there is no basis in either policy or current AfC practice for this resistance to draftification. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2022 (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 apparent consensus to delete, but also none for any specific alternative. Fortunately other options don't specifically require an AfD, so discussion about moving, etc, can continue on the article Talk page. RL0919 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity plus one[edit]

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

This is hardly about "infinity plus one", so much as a brief rehash of several existing articles about different kinds of infinity. It would appear that "young people's ideas of infinity", as detailed at [12], is a noteworthy topic, but the sources seem to focus only on infinity in educational contexts or on specific formalisms of infinity such as the surreal numbers. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would redirecting to Ordinal number#Ordinals extend the natural numbers (the target of the ω+1 redirect) be a reasonable alternative to deletion here? Maybe it's using "infinity" too narrowly, but just a thought. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I won't disagree with deleting it. (Note: I created this article 16 years ago! It had significantly different, and not very encyclopedic, content.) The title is perhaps fairly nonsensical, but I do think this serves some purpose as a jumping off point for different ways to think about addition involving various infinities. The content is probably found elsewhere (e.g. the ω + 1 addition rules are already given in the ordinal addition article), but how would one know to look there? Also it would be good to preserve the references like Tall's "A child thinking about infinity", which I found highly interesting (that could perhaps go into the infinity article itself). —MattGiuca (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 200+ hits for this phrase in Google Scholar suggest that this could be an encyclopedic topic and sources like the section "infinity plus one" in Higgins' Number Story might be usable as sources. The fact that this calculation is meaningful and has different results in number systems like the ordinals and the surreals is worth pointing out somewhere and would be lost in any redirect to a specific choice among those meanings. But the article as it stands now is too essay-like and undersourced to retain. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could potentially serve as a rather useful disambiguation page for concepts related to infinity plus 1. For example Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel. snood1205 02:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are the two current references for a potential new article or section about "mental notions of infinity"; I'm not sure what a good title would be. (A third reference, a 1995 Discover article about the surreal numbers, was dropped.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Monaghan, John (2001). "Young Peoples' Ideas of Infinity". Educational Studies in Mathematics. 48 (2): 239–257. doi:10.1023/A:1016090925967.
- Tall, David (2001). "A child thinking about infinity" (PDF). Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 20 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00058-X.
Keep, but turn into disambiguation/outline page. The article in its current form is basically already such a page, so it would just need to be reformatted. "Infinity plus one", as a concept, is used throughout mathematics, philosophy and adjacent disciplines, so it would be nice (and encyclopedically valuable) to have such an overview of the topic. I would be willing to perform the conversion.TucanHolmes (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TucanHolmes. The idea of "infinity plus one" is commonplace and evidently has received scholarly attention; it hasn't been formalized into a single cohesive concept but rather into multiple concepts, and there is undoubtedly scope in an encyclopedic context for a page to direct readers to those relevant concepts (potentially with brief elaboration). It would be a disservice to readers to delete the guidepost. --JBL (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thought was delete, but I do believe as a disambig page this would have merit. Going with keep as disambig page per TucanHolmes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb Stanford (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Ordinal_number#Ordinals_extend_the_natural_numbers. Disambiguation does not make sense because someone who is typing or thinking the informal "infinity plus one" is not looking for the surreal or hyperreal numbers. They should get sent to an explanation of the simplest context in which "infinity plus one" is formally well-defined and distinct from infinity. I think this is ω+1. Danstronger (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The observation (see the comment by user Charles Stewart on this page) that there is disagreement, even on this talk page, on what "infinity plus one" means/includes/is indicates that we should favour a disambiguation page over a simple redirect. Prematurely narrowing the scope of a concept based on assumptions about the average reader and thereby skewing the picture would be a disservice, even to that average reader, since they wouldn't actually realise that "infinity plus one" is so much more than the ordinals, and that there are different notions of infinity. TucanHolmes (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article as it stands makes an important point, namely that observations such as Hilbert's Hotel show us that set-theoretic cardinality doesn't provide a basis for fine intuitions about addition, but von Neumann ordinals and similar do. Beyond that, the discussion risks venturing into OR. Personally, I'd say surreal numbers provide a richer notion of ordinality, based on a richer counterpart to set-theory, while hyperreal numbers are an interesting algebraic artefact we get from nonstandard analysis that isn't grounded in clearly coherent intuition. But I wouldn't add that to the article. I get the sense that keep voters in this AfD agree that a disambig page with a little motivation makes sense, but I don't get the sense that there is agreement among them as to what the article should look like. 17:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)— Charles Stewart (talk)
Comment – If no subtopic is dominant enough to be the target of a primary redirect then this should be a broad-concept article. The current layout is helpful and should be retained but is wildly non-compliant with WP:DABSTYLE, so it does not qualify as a disambiguation page. Certes (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a model for such a broad-concept article in 0.999.... If I felt the energy was there to recreate this success, I would certainly support this. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a bit odd that the infinity template has a row called "Formalizations of infinity" but there's no article about that. That seems like the concept that this page is really about. I suggest renaming this to / creating a "Formalizations of infinity" and "infinity plus one" can redirect there. There's nothing special about "infinity plus one" in particular that actually has significant RS coverage or warrants its own page. Danstronger (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another point in favour of renaming or reorganisation is that "infinity plus one" is often a proxy/example for "Infinity plus any positive integer n". The main exception is the successor ordinal of (some flavour of) infinity. Certes (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of having, eventually, this page be a redirect to a section of an article that gets at what it is we are talking about. It seems to me, though, that "infinity plus one" has a life as a concept before we engage in formalisation, supported by, e.g. the two refs LaundryPizza03 found. If we were allowed to have an OR title, I'd prefer something like 'The fine structure of infinity', something more acceptable might be 'Mathematics of infinity', which could be a main article for that section of Infinity. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Formalisations of infinity" per Danstronger and then work on the article from there. Felix QW (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2022 (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. While numerically, the deletes outweight the keeps, there's a situation stemming from one of them, specifically Multi7001 further saying that "There is no debate on the notability of the subject itself, just the Wiki page and how it is presented" which is part of what brings us back into no consensus territory, as do the refutations of "fails GNG easily" with statistics on the number of citations. While the article needs improvement, especially with regard to sourcing, there is no clear consensus that this material should be deleted. Star Mississippi 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Handbook of Electrochemistry[edit]

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

Insignificant textbook that has basically no notability whatsoever, except perhaps within a teeny tiny circle of electochemists. It's also unsourced, and while it could be sourced, there's no point in doing so since it isn't notable. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 07:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reliable secondary sources independent of the subject must be published and present in order to demonstrate the ultimate element of notability: significant coverage. These secondary sources are simply not present, indicating that general notability guidelines and WP:N are not met. The book does not appear to have been the subject of sources independent of the book itself, and the very few sources available are trivial at best. No major awards or other criteria to the book criteria for notability are met, and so this article should be deleted - Such-change47 (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources independent of its publisher (Elsevier) are cited. Does not meet WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG easily. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 13:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not know the justification for calling electrochemistry "a teeny tiny circle.".) It's a major branch of science with multiple high ranking journals and notable researchers--we have articles on over 30. (and see also Category:Electrochemistry.) As for this book: it's in the ref erences for 16 WP articles. According to Worldcat there are copies in over 1000 libraries, and it seems to be by far the most widely held general work in the entire subject--the nearest are two well known textbooks with holdings in the 700s. Google scholar also shows it the most cited general work in the field, with 1310 citations (the runner-up has 526) [13]. The book was published in 2006, which considering the very sparse reviews of such works, makes finding one online extremely unlikely. .

But in any case, the editor , Cynthia Zoski, is notable, and this can be used as the start of an article on her. DGG' ( talk ) 07:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, there are only two external sources in the page; one is of the purported official website that is self-published by the subject, and the other is of an ISBN identifier that is given to any publishing entity at no discretion. There needs to be reliable sources listed. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 17: 59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)n

GNG andNBOOK areguidelines, and the nature of a guideline is that there are exceptions; repeated attempts to make GNG into policy have failed. It is reasonable that the major handbook on a major branch of science should have an article, and I think I;ve shown that it is the major handbook. We don't even have to invoke IAR. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no debate on the notability of the subject itself, just the Wiki page and how it is presented. If the subject is said to be of a major scientific handbook, there needs to be at least an independent (outside of the publisher), reliable source to validate that. Pages in the articlespace generally cannot be left without any sources. There isn't nearly any coverage of it on Google News or in any major mass media but it is possible you may find sources through a traditional search. Multi7001 (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me, clear keep per reasons stated by DGG (talk · contribs); the stated reason, lack of notability, is false; the textbook has over 1316 citations on Google scholar as mentioned by DGG. Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Stanford, I know of many academic figures and bodies of published scientific work that have thousands of citations but do not meet the criteria for inclusion. It depends on the context; and in this case, there seems to be a lack of reliable and independent sources to validate the subject is of rare significance in its industry. While the subject may possibly be notable, there needs to be external references to confirm that. Multi7001 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of any academic figures) that have thousands of citations that do not meet our criteria for inclusion . That sort of citations shows influence, and influence is what meets WP:PROF. I certainly do know many thousands of each that we do not yet include. I wish I had time to work on them. I thin similar hold with books, but we perhaps need to explicitly modify WP:PROF to make it clearer in the case of textbooks, orperja[s modify WP:BOOK to make ti clear, as an alternative to reviews. . As is , I thin kit's clearly ocnsistent with WP practice at both criteria. There's a misunderstanding that WP:GNG applies to everything, Read it. It's one part of a guideline. The policy, the correct policy I continue to support, is NOTINDISCRIMINATE. DGG ( talk ) 11:28, 14 January 2022 (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) 04:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RiskScout[edit]

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

I looked and cannot find substantial coverage in independent sources for a WP:NCORP pass. (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, zero significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could be a speedy candidate. Only thing I find is press releases and a few mentions. Well short of meeting WP:ORGCRIT as far as references. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from the press releases, I only found mention of the company through the Techbullion interview that is already sourced on the page, and the company's platform may or may not have been included in a research study. However, this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources available appear to be press releases or churnalism. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH with nothing substantive upon which to build an encyclopedia article. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:13, 12 January 2022 (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) 04:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Sarasota, Florida[edit]

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

Sarasota FL is not such a significant metropolis that we need to have a list of its entirely unremarkable tallest buildings (18 floors) and this is just pretty much copied off the Emporis website. The topic isn’t notable and we don’t host data dumps from other sites. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete per precedent of the many other such lists we have deleted. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability; see my points raised at this very similar AfD, most of which apply here again Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it was deleted before for the same reasons. – The Grid (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have G4’ed it but I didn’t spot that. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's not your fault! The title of the article never used proper WP:USPLACE formatting. – The Grid (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ECPP[edit]

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

It's difficult to discern an overall primary topic from search results; most of the search results don't match a Wikipedia article and are probably non-notable. However, of the two existing articles indexed on this dab, Elliptic curve primality and the redirect listed on this page unambiguously trump the Environmental Crime Prevention Program in pageviews, so this fails WP:2DABS. It is in fact possible that the latter topic is not independently notable from Mario Scaramella, since none of the current sources are suitable for proving notability, but that will need to be discussed at its own AfD.

Oddly enough, this dab page was created in 2006 with the algorithm and one never-created redlink, and for several years had an unliked, probably promotional entry as well. Only earlier today did I remove the two bad entries. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: valid small dab page with no obvious primary topic. PamD 08:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:PamD makes sense. Don’t think anything is trumped here. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shelton Theater[edit]

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

Can't exactly find sources that can establish its notability; mostly local event write-ups about shows that are held there but doesn't seem much more than WP:MILL. BriefEdits (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. There are no national or even regional sources that would establish that this is a notable theatre or theatre company. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G Plus[edit]

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

Assam OR Guwahati search filter (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From the first source, Insight Brandcom, a Guwahati-based advertising agency, has launched G Plus. Founder publisher claims in his linkedin profile to be driving innovation and growth in the marketing communications space and has nothing about news or journalism. WP:RS coverage is wholly limited to mentions in the organizers list of an event or to quote credits. Fails WP:GNG. Hemantha (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not suitable for merge if there's no content verified by sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PTV Sports 2[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this television station that is supposed to launch in 2022. My searches also revealed that the channel was originally meant to launch in 2016. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nor could I find any significant coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently doesn't exist, and no sources to it doing so in the near future. If it ever launches, it can easily be contained in the main PTV Sports article as just a channel extension (and that main article needs TLC itself). Nate • (chatter) 09:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pakistan Television Corporation#Upcoming channels. Wallu2 (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wallu2 An unreferenced article can't be merged. SL93 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2022 (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. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON, but they don't seem to have generated enough coverage to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

888 (band)[edit]

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

Non notable musical band that fails to meet WP:NBAND and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me unreliable vendor sources, self published sources and a plethora of other unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Their AllMusic page at: [14] helps a little, but not too much because it doesn't get beyond a basic introduction. The group also appears in occasional non-critical puff pieces like this: [15]. I can find little else beyond the usual streaming and social media services. Also, their lame name makes searching tough, so search in conjunction with the names of the members. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lame name is part of the reason the article is needed, so reliable information can be found by searchers. But that's not covered in WP either way, as far I'm aware. A list of more sources can be built over time. This is a band with a weekly top 40 Billboard for Alternative Music in 2016, so it's worth having the article. Also, there's nothing contentious within the article. This article needs a chance to breathe to build up its content. As much as Allmusic source may not be liked, it is still a legit source for this topic. That said, I found a critique article Monday: 888- Critical Mistakes EP Review with the search "Critical Mistakes 888 critique" in seconds (and it's not a fluff piece), so sources maybe harder to pull together, but there out there. We just need to put some time into this article. My view is a balance between immediatism and eventualism. We have information to start that isn't incorrect or misleading, and we can build up the article over time. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 01:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But see also WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a search engine for entities that are invisible elsewhere, and saying that sources might become available in the future is not very convincing unless you have a time machine. The point about immediatism and eventualism is valid, but there is no guarantee that this band will qualify for the eventualism side, and even if they do there's no harm in waiting until after something happens. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "We need the article so people can Google it" isn't a reason to keep an article. Charting only indicates that a song may be notable per WP:NSONG, and peaking at #24 on one of the relatively minor Billboard charts isn't much anyway. As mentioned there is almost no significant coverage, and "there might be significant coverage later" is also not a reason to keep an article. Even if it was, the fact that they've released only a handful of singles, the last one in 2017, doesn't suggest there's more forthcoming. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2022 (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 because sources exist even if they are not yet added to the articles. RL0919 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cluster One[edit]

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

We currently have Wikipedia pages for every one of the tracks on The Division Bell by Pink Floyd. Few of them appear to pass WP:NSONG, on a few counts:

They don't seem to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, per WP:NSONG.
I see nothing that couldn't be covered in sufficient detail in the main article about the album The Division Bell; per NSONG: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
They have poor sourcing (eg some fansites, YouTube videos).

So I'm nominating the following pages for deletion:

Cluster One
Poles Apart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wearing the Inside Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Coming Back to Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Frankly, the other pages aren't in great shape either, and may not pass WP:NSONGS any better, with one or two exceptions. Further opinions there are welcome. Popcornfud (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - I am not a particular Pink Floyd fan but I own 2 books that have entries on each of these songs (The Complete Guide to the Music of Pink Floyd, Pink Floyd: All the Songs). Given how many books there are on Pink Floyd music it would be surprising if there wasn't more, but what I own at least meets the minimal GNG bar of multiple sources outside of album reviews. While the articles in their existing state may not be extensive, that is not a AfD concern. Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Google Books, Pink Floyd: Song by Song also seems to have an entry for each of these songs, although given the limitations on the content I can't be certain about "Coming Back to Life." Rlendog (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. They meet WP:NSONG per Rlendog's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into their parent album's article. The content in each of those articles are barebones and do not show standalone notability. Neo-corelight (Talk) 00:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on available sources, not the current state of the article. Rlendog (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - please keep all. When looked at as a whole they are supplying a quality source of information. It can't be mashed into the album page as these details track by track differences in personal and backgrounds to the songs. Wikipedia has a superb coverage for Pink Floyd data and it is clear people have gone to a lot of work to create this. There are sources and they do show as correct data. It would be a pity to delete these tracks beacuse a bot did not like them. Data like this adds to the quality that is Wikipedia data. A Wikipedia user/fan/minor contributor/donater 14:07 13 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.178.206 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as they are clearly notable individual songs.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2022 (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. -- Aervanath (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canon (basic principle)[edit]

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

A short article of about three paragraphs that lists several meanings of the English word canon and then gives examples of the two more prominent ones (a basic principle, and a body of works). There's nothing that ties the whole together, and the sourcing consists entirely of dictionaries or texts that use the word.

The article can be reverted to its pre-2019 state, where it was solely about canons as basic principles, but even that doesn't appear to be a distinct encyclopedic topic different from, say, Principle. I don't see relevant entries in Encyclopedia Britanica, the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or in Borchert's 10-volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2nd ed, 2006). There are corresponding articles only in the Dutch, Frisian and Uzbek wikipedias (see canon (Q5033171)); the first two are about canons as bodies of works, not as basic principles.

I doubt there is potential for an article about the word as such, and I don't see anything in the disparate collection of its meanings that a broad-concept article could latch onto. – Uanfala (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objection in principle if it is possible to transfer at least its lead to Canon (disambiguation) but I believe that this is not permissible? Also, it has 147 incoming links that would need new and sensible landing pages: your proposal really needs to have set out in at least broad-brush terms how this would be done. What we have is not ideal but it is not obvious that deleting the article will improve the position. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has about a hundred incoming links from articles, and going through them will be a good idea regardless of the outcome of this discussion: I see a lot piped links for the term "canonical", and these can either be unlinked, or changed to point to the article for the relevant meaning in that context (e.g. Canonical language in this article, or Canon (fiction) in this one). I agree that the dab page could be expanded with an introductory sentence outlining the general meanings of the words, that's not against the MOS. – Uanfala (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that the key question is whether an article can say something more useful than a list of terms on a DAB page. And I think it can: because, contrary to the nom, the different meanings of "canon" covered are related, as the text describes. The canon of the Western canon, the canon of Star Wars fans, and canon law do all stem from the underlying principle. If you merely have these in a DAB list, the reader doesn't know that they're linked. Bondegezou (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: The thing is, all those meanings all come from the various senses the Greek word for "measuring stick" (kanon) took over the years (you can read a summary of it in the lede of Canon (canon law)). Therefore, the only article (non-DAB) which could be done on this underlying principle would be akin to a historical dictionary entry, and in this case I think WP:NOTDICT would apply. Veverve (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it comes close to WP:NOTDICT. However, I think an encyclopaedia page can go beyond the Wiktionary entry. Uanfala's suggestion for some introductory text on the DAB page is another possible solution. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Helpful article covering a topic that is frequently used in the context of popular TV series, especially sci fi shows. It can be a useful article but needs some work.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: The topic that is frequently used in the context of popular TV series, especially sci fi shows is Canon (fiction). Veverve (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Veverve, this is better as an overview article of a single principle. Dimadick (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, makes sense to me to have this. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2022 (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 02:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stones from the Desert[edit]

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

One reference is likely not enough to convey notability, nor does there seem to be much else about this project. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 7 January 2022 (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. Non notable, don't agree with keeping a draft of someone demonstrably non notable, but will restore to a user space if asked if someone has more sources Fenix down (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yago Darub[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as subject has yet to make a pro appearance as a footballer; author deleted PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL but there's a bit of coverage in reliable sources. If it gets deleted, I would suggest keeping a draft version given he's contracted to a team in a WP:FPL. Hack (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2022 (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.

[1] ttps://iapmnigeria.com

[2] ttps://www.iapmindonesia.net

[3] ttps://www.xing.com/communities/posts/iapm-vom-bund-anerkannt-1015554210

[1]

[2]

[1]