Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_August_9 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 08	August 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Winterthur Museum, Garden and Library. Daniel ( talk) 23:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Winterthur, Delaware

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

Grand manor aficionados up and down the east coast recognize "Winterthur" as one of the duPonts' residences, turned into a museum with lavish gardens. Well, in spite of what the article says, this Winterthur isn't a community or anything else except the railroad station that still stands by the tracks next to one of the many back entrance roads to the estate. This video, which from what I can tell is from the museum's official channel, explains the function of the place. What it does not show, but every map and aerial does, is that this grand little structure sits in utter isolation on the east side of the estate, and always has. There is no community of Winterthur here, just the museum/estate. Mangoe ( talk) 01:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. I note that the Winterthur Museum, Garden and Library lists its address as being in Winterthur, Delaware. [1] This may not be a proper town, but it seems to be a geographical location which should be a redirect to the museum if nothing else. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The museum does indeed have its own post office; it's on the opposite side of the grounds by the main entrance. Mangoe ( talk) 02:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. This public notice about wastewater seems to be recognition by the state of Delaware of Winterthur as a community name. Perhaps someone should create Winterthur, Delaware station. Most train stations can be shown to be notable. This reference may be useful. Wilmington and Northern Railroad (the company that operated the line served by the station) is a redirect to Reading Company, but could be replaced with a new article with the information found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/ICC_valuations/Wilmington_and_Northern_Railroad Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Winterthur Museum, Garden and Library. This explains that Winterthur is/was a large estate with its own post office and railroad station. I'm not finding evidence that the name ever referred to anything that wasn't part of the estate. – dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Winterthur Museum, Garden and Library. Highly likley search term ~~(not to mention the fact that an estate with full-time resident employees, post office, & rail station is indeed a community.)~~ Djflem ( talk) 04:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Winterthur Museum, Garden and Library, as this seems to be equivalent to the estate; I don't think its necessary to have two articles on essentially the same topic. Hog Farm _Talk 23:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Winterthur Museum, Garden and Library per above. Jaysonsands ( talk) 11:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
comment Redirection was one outcome I contemplated, and As there seems to be a consensus developing in that direction I'm willing to go along with it. Mangoe ( talk) 00:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 23:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

KDE Frameworks

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

All sources in this article are KDE-related or primary, violating WP:N and WP: NSOFT Biel ^talk 23:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep: It is seems it is WP:BEFORE that has been violated, the tone being vexacious. Per WP:NEXIST the state of sourcing within the article is in itself not relevant, and that is what is in the nomination on my visitation. It is lamentable the state of the sourcing in the article but I see no evidence of a WP:BEFORE here in the nomination. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. Articles at 9to5 Linux, OMG Ubuntu!, and FOSS Linux establish notability. NemesisAT ( talk) 18:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment @ NemesisAT: These references are not in the article, it would be great if someone would add them there. Biel ^talk 23:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep Per above good sources founded by @ NemesisAT:. Jaysonsands ( talk) 11:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 23:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Torre Premier Club

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

This article should be deleted due to lack of notability and no reliable sources. I don’t see any reliable sources, but noticed there’s not enough notability for this article. Anyone agree with this? A2013a ( talk) 14:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{ afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. @ A2013a: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. -- Finngall ^talk 21:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall ^talk 21:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall ^talk 21:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. According to the photo the correct name should be Premiere, not Premier. Maybe somebody from Guatemala can clarify the naming. It's still the tallest building in the country. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 00:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment @ Dr.KBAHT: you are correct, according to the developer's website; most other sources misspell it, though. Unfortunately, I am having a hard time locating RS for this article. The Spanish article has several references, but most of them are citing Wikipedia itself. I managed to find this archived newspaper note, will add it to the article... – FlyingAce^✈hello 20:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

That newspaper article is good. It qualifies as RS because it's one of the main newspapers in the country. Moreover, I do think that the information about the tallest building is encyclopedic. Therefore, I'm updating my vote to keep the article. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 21:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. Per above comments it appears sourcing is available, and being the tallest building in Guatemala is a significant and interesting topic. NemesisAT ( talk) 18:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete A single source doesn't establish notability. Not to mention, even if we do keep it, the chance that this stub will become more then that, is very unlikely.-- Filmomusico ( talk) 20:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Move to draft. There are strong arguments for deletion, but I follow the suggestion to move this to draft per WP:ATD. Randykitty ( talk) 17:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Fawaz Jaleel

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

non notable author article accepted by a sock. Previously moved into draft by Praxidicae and deleted by discospinster. Still article is lacking significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. GermanKity ( talk) 17:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 17:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 17:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 17:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Dear editor,

I created this page based on news articles and other credible sources online. The subject in the story is a verified personality on social media (Facebook) and is a person with a notable presence in India. However, I would love to improve my wikipedia editing skills and would request you to suggest improvement techniques to make the article better. I humbly request you to reconsider the deletion suggestion

Wikienthuindian ( talk) 19:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete At first, the article deceives. But on closer inspection, almost all sources carry disclaimer like brand media (mid-day), brand desk content (Zee), Featured content (DNA). There is no reception of the work. The Hindu article is a single paragraph description of the book with zero independent commentary on the book. So while it is sourcing what could be considered reliable sources, they are clearly not independent. Wikienthuindian, being verified person on Facebook or anywhere else is not an indication of notability at Wikipedia. Can you provide any sources that are truly independently written? Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 02:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Dear Nomadicghumakkad

I wasn't aware of the featured bit honestly. I thank you for the new learning. These are independently written I articles I could find quickly

https://www.edexlive.com/people/2021/jan/29/this-young-authors-political-potboiler-will-give-you-a-taste-of-indias-last-quarter-decade-intrig-17765.html https://www.gdnonline.com/Details/923874/Thrilling-new-chapter-of-a-novel-ambition. ( This I saw on the print version too - Bahrain's leading newspaper as this subject has some connection with the country ) https://newsable.asianetnews.com/india/between-left-and-right-in-politics-fawaz-jaleel-is-an-outsider-qqiwcx (India News section)

I will look for more if you need me to. Kindly keep giving your feedback. I am working on another article and your feedback will really help

Wikienthuindian ( talk) 08:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment Hi Wikienthuindian. Edex and GDN - I honestly don't consider them a reliable source. People have argued in favour of EdEX since it's part of New Indian Express but I find it bloggish and not journalistic. The Aisa-net review - any reviews that ONLY praises the book are dubious. Yes, I will be happy to assist you on other articles. Sorry you have to go through this unpleasant experience on this one. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 03:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. I can find no evidence of SIGCOV (coverage consists of slightly laughter-inducing promotional writing such as: ... first novel ... However, he isn't exactly a debutant. ... has written short stories in several genres including romance, magic realism, and thriller. An alumnus of Madras Christian College in Chennai and Azim Premji University, Bangalore, Fawaz has a fascinating body of work experience ranging from public health organisations to corporates to the Government of India.); WP:AUTHOR criteria are not met. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 20:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Somewhat hesitant keep. I found [2], in Outlook, which seems quite usable. I'm unconvinced that EdEx isn't usable. The other sources aren't nearly as good, but aren't nothing. That said, this may well be a case of TOOSOON, and incubation in draftspace isn't something I'd be completely opposed to. Vanamonde ( Talk) 05:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice for or against any proposed page move. RL0919 ( talk) 02:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

KDE Applications

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

It is being deleted on ptwiki, and all sources in this article are either primary or related to KDE, completely violating WP:N and WP:NSOFT Biel ^talk 23:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Maybe in pt-wiki there are not other sources but en-wiki does include other sources as well. Ipr1 ( talk) 04:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

*Neutral:*Keep: This will be a keep. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Because I am recusing from the discussion due to my contestation and reverstion of the move I need to change by !vote to neutral. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 16:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment @ Djm-leighpark: Your vote is completely unjustified Biel ^talk 11:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Ho hum .. looks like there will be a real cite bomb here ... I'd add Nash KDE Bible 937982529 for a bedtime read, at least the last part. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Regarding my !vote. I trust my gut feel. Its just I don't have a large amount of time for this. I feel like giving the answer which will allow me to present my case an ANI but I shall refrain from that at the moment. I shall listen to blinded by the light. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 16:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep: KDE applications is now called KDE Gear (or maybe that has changed already, too). Some of the linked sources are old and referencing KDE 4, but that should not matter to notability.

– K4rolB ( talk) 16:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment @ K4rolB: The sources have to be in the article, not on this page. Biel ^talk 12:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
That's not true. It is enough that they are here to establish notability. It would be great if someone actually used them in the discussed article. K4rolB ( talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep: The fact that such sources exist means the article is fixable. Furthermore, not all sources are primary, and the primary sources are generally used to simply indicate the inclusion of programs in the project, and not anything that would be controversial. -- Ipatrol ( talk) 14:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. The sources shared by K4rolB establish notability. NemesisAT ( talk) 18:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. Add more secondary sources, but KDE is absolutely noteworthy. -- LightSpectra ( talk) 15:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: The article was moved from KDE Applications to KDE Gear at 14:11, 12 August 2021‎. I immediately contested that and moved it back at 14:27, 12 August 2021 (It has a lot of inbound links that would move to double redirects which I think is a problem. It is always better to move a contested move back asap to avoid lots of knock on effects. However I may have breached WP:AFDEQ: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.. Because of this I will now recuse from this discussion and leave a competent person to clerk the thing out consistently. I would have mentioned this earlier but someone in my current location had decided it was a good time to have a vomiting session. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 16:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment I moved it only because the name of the package has changed. Biel ^talk 05:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Gateway Farms, Delaware

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

New Castle County in Delaware has articles on over two hundred "unincorporated communities", and the first up is this suburban development, as is baldly shown by the topos. Not that the name doesn't give you a strong hint. At any rate, not notable. Mangoe ( talk) 23:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: Google maps. It is an exceptionally small suburban neighborhood; lacks legal recognition and is not supported by reliable sources, meaning it fails both WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete all These 100+ mass-produced non-notable neighborhoods/subdivisions blatantly fail WP:GEOLAND2 and do not need individual discussions. Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete, very little is known about this town, lacks sources, and doesn't appears to be notable, maybe it's gets notable in the future. Cheers. Tahaaleem ^Talk 09:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Non notable subdivision, fails GEOLAND and GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 16:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Beijing Watch Factory

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

Insufficient references and material to show notability DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Does not meet notability criteria for corporations ( WP:SIRS). –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wu, Naitao (1993-05-17). "Obtaining vitality from the market". Beijing Review. Vol. 36, no. 20. ProQuest 213877078.
  The abstract notes: "When the Beijing Watch Factory transformed its operating mechanism and implemented independent market-oriented management methods in 1992, its financial successes greatly improved. The watch factory is profiled."
2. Hornby, Lucy (2014-09-29). "Chinoiserie struggles to compete with Swiss luxury". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-12.
  The article notes: "Entering the grounds of the Beijing Watch factory is like stepping back a generation in time, to an era when a typical Chinese couple's idea of wealth was to own a bicycle, a sewing machine and a watch. ... But in the company showroom, the plain, staid watches of the communist decades are outshone by Beijing Watch's efforts to appeal to a new era of wealthy customers, people who might not blink at paying $16,000 for a luxury watch decorated with enamelled pandas. ... Some SOEs, such as Beijing Watch, were ordered to produce only watch parts to kick-start the export economy in the 1970s and 1980s, creating a gap in skills and status. The company is trying to master the technical precision and expertise at working precious metals."
  The article notes: "Beijing Watch infamously produced the commemorative watches commissioned by the Beijing city government as a reward for the soldiers who suppressed the Tiananmen Square demonstrations on June 4, 1989."
3. Chen, Vivian (2017-07-28). "Beijing Watch Factory flies Chinese flag at Grand Prix d'Horlogerie de Geneve". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-12.
  The article notes: "Beijing Watch Factory, which was established in 1958 as a state-owned enterprise, was privatised in 2004. It offers made in China movements that feature complications such as tourbillons and metiers d’art like “Su Xiu” embroidered dials."
4. Arnaud, Alain (2012-07-05). "Chinese timepieces give tourbillons a whirl". Swissinfo. Archived from the original on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-12.
  The article notes: "The imposing statue of the late Chairman Mao Zedong still watches over the entrance of the Beijing Watch Factory in the Changping district in northern Beijing. ... Founded in 1958, the watchmaking firm was privatised in 2004. ... The watchmaker, which employs 610 staff, only makes mechanical watches - 10,000 in 2011, including several hundred extremely elaborate designs, and 800,000 movements. ... Production is destined exclusively for the Chinese market where demand for high-end products has exploded. A Beijing Watch tourbillon movement can cost from SFr5,700-69,000 ($6,000-72,200)."
5. 陈晓 (2014-12-26). "北京手表浴火凤凰七彩珐琅" [Beijing Watch, Yuhuo Phoenix Colorful Enamel]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-12 – via Sina Corporation.
  From Google Translate: "Since 2006, Beijing Watch Factory has been exploring and developing its own brand of enamel watches. In the same year, it launched a limited edition of 28 "Beijing 2008" enamel double tourbillon watches, which combined the mechanical dynamics of the double tourbillons and the artistic expression of enamel. Perfect combination; in April 2007, Beijing Watch Factory brought the world's first enamel movement tourbillon watch "Butterfly Flower" to the Basel International Watch Fair."
6. "北京手表厂" [Beijing Watch Factory]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). 2014-12-19. Archived from the original on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-12.
  From Google Translate: "Reasons for winning Established and launched the famous "Type One" in 1958. In 1996, the first tourbillon watch in mainland China was successfully developed. In 2008, the tourbillon minute repeater was independently developed."
7. "国表当自强细数中国腕表品牌的前世今生" [National watch should be self-improvement, detail the past and present of Chinese watch brands] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2013-09-13. Archived from the original on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-12.
  The article notes: "Beijing Watch Factory (hereinafter referred to as "North Watch") was founded in June 1958. In 1995, North Watch independently developed its own tourbillon watch. In 2004, North Watch first released a limited edition tourbillon gold watch in rose gold, taking the lead among Chinese brands to enter the high-end watch market with precious metal appearance, highly complex tourbillon movement, limited edition and other elements."
8. Swithinbank, Robin (2020-06-29). "Chinese watch brands are having a moment. Long derided as an inferior source of quality timepieces, China is catching up with a raft of new domestic brands such as Seagull and Atelier Wen". GQ. Archived from the original on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-12.
  The article provides one sentence of coverage. The article notes, "Beijing Watch Factory, founded in 1958 and which until a few years ago was said still to polish its watches by hand, has a wide collection and sells a mechanical flying tourbillon for under £2,500, although it’s no Breguet."
9. Wang, Kaihao. (2012-08-09). "The test of time" (pages 1 and 2). China Daily. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-12.
  The article notes: "The old Soviet-style Beijing Watch Factory was erected in Changping district more than 50 years ago. A giant statue of former chairman Mao Zedong stands at the front gate. ... Watch factories mushroomed nationwide in the following years and Beijing Watch Factory was founded in 1958. ... Xu says there were more than 3,000 employees at the factory in the early 1980s, and the only way you could get a job then was through personal connections."
10. Peng, Sen; Chen, Li (2011) [2008]. Li, Tieying (ed.). Reforming China, Volume 4. Translated by Yang, Mifen; Zhou, Kai. Singapore: Enrich Professional Publishing. pp. 37–38. ISBN 978-981-4298-42-1. Retrieved 2021-08-12.
  The book notes: "The commercial and industrial enterprises marriage-like merger. Beijing Dong'an Group (Industrial) merged with Beijing Watch Factory (Branch Two), following the principle of free will, mutual benefit and equal value exchange. The practice aroused great interest through China. Vice Premier Zhu Rongji praised: "It is a breakthrough."
11. Oldham, John Rochester (1986). "China's Legal Development, Issue 1, Volume 22". M. E. Sharpe. Retrieved 2021-08-12. {{ cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= ( help)
  The article notes: "The Beijing Watch Factory evaded 850,000 yuan in industrial and commercial taxes in 1981 by falsifying its accounts in what the Beijing Tax Bureau called the worst case of tax evasion in the history of the People's Republic." The article notes in a footnote: "See Severely Handle the Question of Tax Evasion by the Beijing Watch Factory, Zhongguo Fazhi Bao (Chinese Legal Gazette), Jan. 28, 1983, at 1 [hereinafter cited as Beijing Watch Factory]."
12. Karnow, Stanley (1990). Mao and China: A Legacy of Turmoil (3 ed.). New York: Penguin Books. p. 317. ISBN 978-0-14-013417-9. Retrieved 2021-08-12.
  The book notes: "On May 3, for example, three workers were killed and sixty seriously hurt in scuffles between labor groups at the Beijing Watch Factory , located in a northern suburb. The factory was forced to suspend operations for two days until troops could restore order."
13. "JPRS Report: China, Issues 71-80". Foreign Broadcast Information Service. 1993. Retrieved 2021-08-12.
  The article notes: "On 9 June this year, your newspaper published a report on how the Beijing Watch Factory had turned from loss making into profit making."
14. "Chinese watchmakers won't stop ticking" (pages 1, 2, 3, and 4). Xinhua News Agency. 2013-02-04. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2, 3, and 4) on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-12 – via China Daily.
  The article notes: "Subsequent sales declines forced the Beijing Watch Factory to sublet most of its plants to neighboring factories. The company could not even afford to pay its workers. ... The Beijing Watch Factory, which was purchased by a local real estate developer, has taken a different route, choosing to develop high-end watches that they hope will take off among China's moneyed elite."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Beijing Watch Factory ( simplified Chinese: 北京手表厂; traditional Chinese: 北京手錶廠) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 06:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

These sources are not in the article. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: Pinging NemesisAT ( talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard ( talk) 06:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep thanks to the sources and analysis by Cunard above which establish notability. NemesisAT ( talk) 13:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep per Cunard's analysis. 23.240.192.112 ( talk) 19:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Withdraw on the basis of refs 1 2 4a nd 14. Most of others are notes (as Cunard recognizes, such as 8). (I can't actually close as Withdraw, because there's another delete.) I should have looked further on this one. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep Per Cunard. Clearly notable with a variety of positive and negative coverage. Per WP:NEXIST, Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article Jumpytoo Talk 19:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Jake Amy

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician and journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for musicians or journalists. The notability claim on offer here is that he and his work exist, and the content is heavily reference bombed to footnotes of the "music verifying its own existence on Bandcamp, YouTube, Spotify or the self-published websites of himself or his collaborators" and/or "magazine articles where he was the bylined author and not the subject under discussion" varieties, which are not support for notability.
As always, you do not make a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia by primary sourcing his work to itself as proof that it exists -- you make a person notable enough for inclusion by sourcing his work to third party coverage and analysis about his work, in real media independent of himself, as proof that it has been externally validated as significant, but virtually none of the sources here represent WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in real media. Bearcat ( talk) 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment, I’m not really sure on this one. Looking more throughly at the sources, the sources aren’t that good. Sahaib ( talk) 06:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Per Bearcat. I don't think I was able to find a single RS out of the 76 references. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 14:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails GNG. No reliable sources are available to qualify WP:BASIC. Jaysonsands ( talk) 11:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Could not find anything significant that looked like IRS. Current article looks like a primary reference bomb. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Vanamonde ( Talk) 10:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

JaackMaate

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

Non notable Yotuber. This was draftified in April and has repeatedly failed the AfC submission [3], rejected as recently as July. Today this article was copy pasted directly to Articlespace by a sock [4]. Promotional socking in addition to non-notability. It should also be salted to prevent further disruption and recommend the draft is also deleted [5]. ♟♙ ( talk) 21:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create ←

2021-04 ✗ 
R2

←

2021-04 move to → 
Draft:JaackMaate

←

2017-06 ✗ 
A7

←

2013-07 ✗ 
A7

-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

RookChat

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

Non-notable programming language. Parent article RinkWorks was deleted ages ago. Previously kept via no consensus in 2009. No sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 21:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 21:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete, I don't see how this chat software or feature of RinkWorks is significant.-- Mvqr ( talk) 12:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. TipsyElephant ( talk) 18:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. WP:HEY, sources were found to improve the article. RL0919 ( talk) 02:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Elder race

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

No indication of any independent, reliable sources discussing the trope as a trope; lots of WP:USERGEN content is available, but nothing published that provides more than a passing mention. No sources cited in the article. An alternative might be to remove the current lede, move to List of elder races, and establish a clear standard for inclusion that could be laid out in a new lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. I too tried to find RS for this subject. I felt like there must be some literary criticism somewhere, but it does seem to be fancruft. And believe me, I'm a fan. I searched expecting I'd find something in scholarship. (Note I'm travelling with bad internet, so I didn't do an exhaustive search. I'll try again when I get home and see if anything turns up. If it does, I'll revise.) Changing to keep. —valereee ( talk) 21:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

There's John Clute in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, attempting to list the typical features. The entry listed under "Literature", from The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: Themes, Works, and Wonders is a couple of pages long, with a "survey" and a short following discussion, binding the themes together (mostly visible in Google Books). I didn't get any real in-depth additional articles on it while quickly glancing at Google Scholar, but the term did turn up often enough to indicate that this is a concept they assume the reader to be familiar with and which is in academic use. Ping valereee. / Julle ( talk) 22:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment would it be worth exploring a merge with ancient astronauts? Though I see that’s already offloaded it’s “in popular culture” section to a sprawling list article. Artw ( talk) 23:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
- I don't think there's anything here worth merging. We have an unsourced introduction that is mostly self-contradictory waffling that reads like someone trying to add 200 extra words to a college essay (An elder race might be extinct, or they might not. An elder race might be benevolent, or they might be malevolent, or they might be indifferent) followed by an enormous crufty list of examples, none of which are sourced in any way that demonstrates that they are good examples of an elder race. If we could strip this down to a couple of paragraphs of well sourced content then I would 100% agree with merging it into a related article or one of the "list of fantasy plot elements" type articles, but I'm simply not seeing any such content here. 192.76.8.91 ( talk) 23:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. OR, not a notable topic, maybe something for TVTropes or urban dictionary, but at best WP:TOOSOON for us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 05:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep It didn't take long to find a respectable encyclopedia article about the topic. This demonstrates that it's feasible to write one; that WP:BEFORE has not been done properly; and that policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." There are plenty of other related pages such as Ancient_astronauts#In_popular_culture and Fermi paradox. The latter really is a major puzzle – "where is everybody?" Perhaps they are all busy editing the Encyclopedia Galactica in a wiki way so that all attention and effort is consumed by endless discussion... Andrew🐉( talk) 09:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - Topic fails WP:GNG, so even removing the OR wouldn't help this stand on its own. TTN ( talk) 11:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - unsourced fancruft. Even if the topic is notable, this is a clear WP:TNT candidate since experience has shown that leaving cruft around obstructs the writing of an encyclopedia article rather than acting as a platform for improvement. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I have eliminated all original research in the article and it is now fully sourced. While it was definitely a TNT candidate, that is fixed now. _{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 16:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment - If this were to be kept in any form, I would actually propose the opposite of the Nominator's suggestion - rewrite the lede as prose information, and delete the list of unsourced, mostly WP:OR, examples. But, that's assuming there are enough reliable sources actually discussing the concept itself to establish notability. While there are plenty of examples of the term being used, the book mentioned above, which is actually already included in the article, is the only one I've found that actually discusses and describes the concept in-depth. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep and improve. Huh, what's going on? Two secondary sources have been found which treat this in significant detail, i.e. one page in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and two-and-a-half pages in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. So it clearly does meet the requirements of WP:GNG. What's with all the "there are no secondary sources", when there clearly was one already in the article at the time of nomination, and a second one has been found? The fact that the current state is not good is no reason for deletion, as this can be improved, which isn't even difficult, just needs (a lot of) work. Daranios ( talk) 15:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree that I think it's entirely possible to keep this article just based on the sources that have been listed so far, without even having to go to further references. This is clearly an established concept used in academic literature and discussions. / Julle ( talk) 20:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Oh, yeah, and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy also contains a bibliography of additional sources! So I really hope the closer of this discussion will discount all votes based on "not notable" without explanation or with "no sources" as explanation. Daranios ( talk) 07:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep By deleting it, you will incur the wrath of the Elders! Real talk though, it's a notable subject mentioned in two encyclopedias of science fiction and a very common trope in fantasy and sci-fi._{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 11:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep, the article has now been completely rewritten. / Julle ( talk) 16:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep The sources indicate notability, and there are apparently more available. Though I have never really encountered the idea of elders as more decadent than humans, as cited in the article. Being "elder" is typically used to depict these races as more experienced or advanced, not regardless of whether they are protagonists or antagonists. Dimadick ( talk) 20:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater ( talk) 05:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sacred Heart Matriculation School

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

A promotional piece of content. Meets G11 but i nominate this article for afd. Fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG GermanKity ( talk) 17:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 17:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 17:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 17:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

*Keep. Referenced. Everything is in place.As an article it just needs to mature. -- ClemRutter ( talk) 08:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Weak keep - On the fence with this but looking at the sources in the article this looks to be notable just about.... – Davey2010^Talk 22:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

*Keep Per above, reliable sources are present for GNG. Jaysonsands ( talk) 11:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Weak KeepOn the fence but is referenced. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde ( Talk) 10:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Troll (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only non-primary, real world-based source is extremely trivial. TTN ( talk) 20:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 20:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 20:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 20:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

question: are there any other Dungeons and Dragons pages that are potentially in the firing line? Would it make sense to consider them as a group?
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 22:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - though I admit this requires editors to think outside the box a bit. Before I get to that, as always, WP:BEFORE is a concern. There doesn't seem to have been any tagging, clean-up, discussion of the article, or review of the history before this was nominated. Because there was - on the day of the nomination - a concerted effort by Primergrey to fix problems with the article. Rather than seeing if that work would continue and could make the article better, it was nominated for deletion instead. Always concerning. Beyond that, those who know D&D understand how ubiquitous trolls are. They have featured in dozens of live-streamed versions of the game, are featured (in their various forms) in almost every core book associated with the game for multiple editions, and have transcended the game to become a core part of the culture surrounding the game (see its use by the creator of D&D in the name of the company he used to produce material for the game; Troll Lord Games). The extensive coverage by multiple sources in the form of live-streamed play is enough for me. But there's also this, this, and this. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep I have another reference for you. https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1227.html You see a clear reference to how Trolls in AD&D are XP fodder. But Serini Toormuck develops a friendly business relationship with them and they end up saving her life using Troll blood. Slimy asparagus ( talk) 05:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete or Redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons (might do a soft redirect, they are cheap). Reviewing sources above 1) blog, niche but on topic, no "about" but they list their staff [6] 3) same as 2 but openly admits they are a blog too, 4) a comic, seriously? Given that quality wise, there is little distinguishing 2 from 3, so arguably 2 is a "multi-author blog" too (the cited article's quality is hardly impressive) and all of the cited sources are very niche, if those are the best sources we can find for this, that's hardly helping. The article has a once sentence reception sourced to a Dummies... book: [7], and that's still probably the most reliable, independent treatment of this. Sorry, the best I can see here would be to rescued that sentence referenced to Dummies, copy it to Troll which can mention this race appears in the popular D&D franchise, and that's it. PS. Merge done, I copied that sentence to 'Troll' article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 05:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
We're not talking about "a webcomic". We're talking about The Order of the Stick here. ;-) But I would prefer a redirect over a delete. Slimy asparagus ( talk) 05:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
As much as I like The Order of the Stick, my point is that it is not a WP:RS :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 06:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I imagine BOLS would be considered a fairly reliable source. They seem to have proper editorial oversight and declare paid advertising fairly openly. Tribality is in blog format, yes, but its multi-author and has been nominated for a couple of ENnie Awards. We're not talking about some basement-dweller's fan-fiction. They aren't the best or only sources I could find; I barely looked. My point was that the nominator hadn't looked at all, and we should expect more. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You seem to vastly overestimate the amount of effort that needs to go into BEFORE. Besides that, I don't see how you pointing out three non-reliable sources means I didn't do a cursory search for sources. This stuff is no different than the dozens of trashy listlces that pop up. Those are a dime a dozen and are not inherently indicative of the existence of proper sources. TTN ( talk) 11:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Beyond WP:OTHERSTUFF... on the contrary, nominators regularly get a free-pass for lazy nominations. BEFORE.C.3 alone means the article's talk page should have a recent discussion that attempts to address the issues with the article, stand-alone notability, or a proposal to merge it to another article. There hasn't been a new discussion started there since 2010, so... St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Literally nobody does any of that. BEFORE is considered to be a search for sources and nothing more than that. TTN ( talk) 12:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
But literally everybody should... I tend to think WP:BEFORE is fairly clear. It has 4 explicit parts and a search for sources is one requirement under one of those four parts. That it has become common practice to ignore that policy is a sad reflection of the state of WP:AFD. But I appreciate your honesty here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep Covered in non-D&D sources like the D20 SRG (e.g. [8]). Inclusion of a fictional element in multiple notable works (which include separate versions of D&D, as trolls have been featured in each) is a recognized reason to include a separate article: only one version of the game can be "primary" and all other usages are necessarily secondary, and of course each game is reliable for its own content. Jclemens ( talk) 11:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep The concept seems quite widespread in popular culture and iconic for D&D, seeing that e.g. at non-rpg-related book like Sorted!: The Good Psychopath’s Guide to Bossing Your Life has a sentence like "At one point our Twitter account boasted more trolls than a Dungeons & Dragons convention in Tromsø..."

There is quite a number of secondary sources, and I am suprised that this is not mentioned in the nomination. We have The Monsters Know What They're Doing, pages 249, 257-260. In addition to creative in-game use and in-universe description this has the creative origin and a bit of reception. If the BOLS article can be considered a reliable source, the case is already made and the minimum requirements of WP:GNG fulfilled. Everything else I've seen is much shorter, but can collectively give us something: Creative origin: The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, p. 193; La mythologie nordique dans Donjons & Dragons Entre réception et stéréotypes, The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games. Description: Faeries, Trolls; Dungeons for Science: Mapping Belief Places and Spaces. Prominence in the game: Heroic Worlds p. 92; Lexikon der Zauberwelten p. 12; Dungeons, Dragons, and Digital Denizens. Given the individually limited scope of the latter sources, I am not totally averse to a merge to, I guess, Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. But I think it's not really a problem to beat WP:WHYN when using the sources discussed so far (and expect there are more out there). So I prefer to keep a stand-alone article. Daranios ( talk) 14:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Technical point: can you link to google page view? Your links always go to the cover page, that's not as friendly. Also, can you tell is if any of these sources (outside BOLS) meet WP:SIGCOV and if so, why? The ones I checked seem to be mentions in passing (a sentence or two) more so than in-depth coverage (which I tend to define for myself - given SIGCOV is pretty vague here - as a paragraph or more, not counting plot summary). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 03:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The Monsters Know... in itself is significant coverage in my book. For the others it's the usual thing: I'll have to check again, but probably none has a paragraph or more. Only collectively they provide significant coverage, i.e. allow us to write more "than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", which is why we have the notability guideline in the first place. Oh, wait, Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies, p. 362 (+ mentions on p. 3 and 224) might just make it to paragraph if you remove phrases summarizing the in-universe description.

Google searches: Trolls, Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies, Faries; The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games; Dungeons, Dragons, and Digital Denizens; The Ashgate Encyclopedia, first hit, scroll one page down to 193 (I wonder if there's a mention of D&D in Ashgate's troll article, but didn't see a preview that has that). Daranios ( talk) 11:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. D&D Trolls are different from other trolls and are significant. Eulenbär ( talk) 10:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Weak keep per the sources provided by other editors, which in aggregate seem to scrape the WP:GNG threshold of coverage in my opinion. If the concern is that the article has too much fancruft material, that could be trimmed as an editorial concern, not a ground for deletion. Haleth ( talk) 03:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep per sources listed above, which meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. While it is not 100% non notable, it does not merit a standalone article, either. Coverage in reliable sources is spotty at best._{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 11:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep, enough sources to meet GNG. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 21:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Exactly. Eulenbär ( talk) 11:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Songfest India

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a webcontent creation company, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORPDEPTH. The only notability claim being made here is of the "got X number of views for YouTube content" variety, which is not "inherently" notable in the absence of reliable source media coverage about the company -- but the only sources here are one of its own press releases and a glancing namecheck of its existence in a different company's press release, with no evidence of any third-party analysis of the company's significance in real WP:GNG-worthy media outlets. Bearcat ( talk) 20:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Totally promotional. Shrikanthv ( talk) 06:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Not notable, X amount of YouTube views is not criteria for notability. SunDawn talk 08:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NCORP Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 17:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete: An article created after an overwrite of the Songfest dab page was reverted. The references in the article fall short of the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability, as does other visible coverage such as this interview with the founder. AllyD ( talk) 09:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater ( talk) 05:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

John Sturrock (writer)

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

No evidence of notability for Wikipedia. Likeanechointheforest ( talk) 20:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep Full obituary in The Times. Passes WP:GNG. Edwardx ( talk) 21:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep Self-evidently notable I would have thought. Apart from the obituaries he received, he wrote a number of scholarly books as a search of the British Library catalogue shows. Philafrenzy ( talk) 21:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep... He is a scholar. If I remember correctly, didn't he also translate Marcel Proust? Whispyhistory ( talk) 19:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Indeed, Days of Reading, Sodom and Gomorrah, and others. He only reviewed a translation of Remembrance of Things Past in the LRB. That is probably what you remember reading, in the past. Philafrenzy ( talk) 20:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes..indeed... all started with Proust's brother, thank you. Whispyhistory ( talk) 20:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Did eating a madeleine remind you? Philafrenzy ( talk) 20:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Of course...all the more reason not to delete. Whispyhistory ( talk) 20:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. Notable translator of Stendahl and Proust into English. RomanSpa ( talk) 06:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. Obituary in The Times = notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep There are many reliable sources present to pass GNG. Jaysonsands ( talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. Besides the Times obit , which we consider definitive evidence of notability., he's the author of three books from OUP and one from CambridgeUP. It's a totally unjustified AfD nomination, to the point that I wonder what the nominator had in mind. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I am withdrawing my nomination due to information provided by Randykitty during this AfD discussion, See below. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 22:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn ( talk) 22:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Monumenta Serica

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

Fails GNG and NJOURNALS. No indication of notability. This journal is not listed in any selective databases and I'm not seeing coverage in other independent secondary sources. Steve Quinn ( talk) 19:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. The article is really bad, not even listing the ISSN, but according to MIAR the journal is listed in Scopus ( verification), which satisfies NJournals. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment. Based on information provided by Randykitty, I am withdrawing my nomination. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Adolpho Bloch

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Only source in the article briefly mentions him as a relative of someone else. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ron White (memory expert)

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

Subject lacks sustained in depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 14:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 18:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 04:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Anne Catherine Hof Blinks

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

Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. The sources in the article do not demonstrate significant coverage. This source is an obituary of her son. This source exists because the family paid money to endow a scholarship, and is therefore too closely connected to the subject to be counted. These two sources are indexes and do not rise to the level of significant coverage: [9], [10]. And the final source, In Celebration of the Curious Mind, is a book of poetry written by her friends to celebrate her 80th bithday by a minor publishing company that occasionally publishes small irrelevant personal projects of this kind which are paid for by the authors. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. Blinks was a marine biologist who was also noted for her research work on prehistoric textiles. 4meter4, the book in question that you disparage is a festschrift, an academic book published in honor of a respected colleague. The contents are not poems but scholarly papers. The author of the first paper is the archaeologist Junius Bird; other authors include anthropologists and museum curators. The publisher was Interweave Press, a major publisher of books and magazines on crafts. (Some days it seems as if the world of topics that interest women is not supposed to be included in Wikipedia.) I've put two articles about her in the Further reading section.

Sigh, the book in question includes images of textiles with poetry which were contributed by colleagues and people who knew her (yes some of them notable). At least that's the description of the book in reviews and websites that are selling it. There are no academic papers within the book to my knowledge (also not clear from the link you provided which describes its contents as images of textiles). From what I've read in online comments on the book, it is essentially a compilation of images like a coffee table book with poetry. But I take your point that there may be more independence in its publication than I originally realized. Regardless, none of the sources you added show significant coverage or how this person meets WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:SIGCOV. What policy is supporting your keep vote and with what references? Neither source you added discusses her work as a marine biologist as both are related to textiles. An article in Spin Off, a textile trade magazine, doesn't seem significant enough as a source to indicate notability. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Update, after digging further, I agree that there is scholarly writing in the publication. However, aside from one piece written by Hof Blinks, they are all independent of her work. It's a nice way to honor a colleague, but I'm not sure how much notability it lends to the subject. On it's own its not enough to establish WP:SIGCOV or WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

4meter4, having a Festschrift is considered an automatic pass of NPROF per criterion 1c. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. There appears to be some significant coverage in We Two Together (p. 227) (as Anne Hof), but the Google preview is very limited. And I suspect that she has an entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Botanists Represented in the Hunt Institute Portrait Collection, but I'm unable to find an on-line copy. pburka ( talk) 23:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

If you can confirm that she does, I will withdraw the nomination. We just need something to prove she meets one of the criteria at NACADEMIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. If the In Celebration... book is indeed a Festschrift published in an academic press then she meets NPROF C1(c). JoelleJay ( talk) 19:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

If the festschrift were within her main academic discipline, marine biology and/or botany, I would agree. It isn’t. It’s in textiles. I wouldn’t consider a publishing company dedicated to arts and crafts a major academic press either. Interweave is a publishing company of crafts, mostly how to guides for hobbyists in addition to their magazine. https://craftindustryalliance.org/interweave-faces-an-uncertain-future-its-impact-reverberates/ 4meter4 ( talk) 20:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. Festschrift establishes notability. I have also done considerable reorganization and citation to bring the article more closely into line with Wikipedia style. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 03:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep According to the article, her focus on textiles was not arts and crafts, it was experimental archaeology, i.e. she "was also known for her work on historic and pre-historical textiles," so the festschrift appears to establish notability per WP:NPROF. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment Based on the excellent work of Mary Mark Ockerbloom I think it's pretty clear she passes WP:SIGCOV. As a result I am withdrawing the nomination. Thank you all for participating; especially to those who improved the article. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 04:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This is a badly out-of-process deletion request based on the nominator's frustration over being repeatedly reverted, and it clearly stands no chance of resulting in deletion. ST47 ( talk) 20:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict

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

WP:TNT this page is just being edited like it was a huge shit, buts its useless and full of synth. just delete and start over. Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 00:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 00:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 00:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 00:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)) reply

Keep. I do think some sections like Iran–Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict#Iran–Iraq_War could be deleted as WP:SYNTH or unrelated, but as a whole the article looks decent and or salvageable. I possible missed it on the talk page, but I wished the issues of the article were discussed more on the talk page, before it was proposed being 'started over' Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes but honestly its better to start over because this user (no insults) removed most synth but also removed some non-OR ,non-SYNTH, or Sourced Stuff Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 00:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Surely a new version, started over, would attract the exact same editing conflicts as it does now? Geschichte ( talk) 18:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep Ironic how the nominator is saying it's full of synth when he was adding synth to begin with. This is nothing but an attempt to not improve the article. This is nothing but disruption. The nominator has also been reported at ANI over this kind of disruptive behavior. And I would like to know what non-OR and synth I removed. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 00:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Look man, to be honest, it just better. Because if we follow WP:TNT and restart, no synth can be added. (Redacted). So yo may not really understand that much, but to me, just blow it up and start the fuck over (and yes, ive been taught to swear.) Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 00:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

No, it isn't better and your choice of words isn't helping you. You haven't even provided evidence of what my removal or addition qualifies as OR/Synth, nor have you proven yourself what is wrong with the article. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 00:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Look, here, here, and here. All dont have nothing to do because in Pakistan, its mainly just AQ, Taliban, Salafis, and IS vs. the Government. Jaish ulAdl or whatever that name is, is not supported by Saudis officially, and i put allegedly, and was classified SYNTH, but Jaish, alleged, and is not synth? and Iran-Iraq is WAY before any of this. Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 00:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Also, look at this. Europe has nothing to do. Only France, Turkey, and ALbania have to do. And at least merge the Albania section to Europe. Serbia saying Hezbollah is terror does not mean its support for Saudi Arabia. Also, s Poland was removed bc SYNTH, then why didnt you guys merge it into Europe. Also, Im not going to be able to edit next week bc I have school. So there, you happy Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 01:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

No, because you could tag the section or removed it over synth concerns. This whole Afd is not necessary. I recommend a speedy close to this. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 01:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Also, look at this. Europe has nothing to do. Only France, Turkey, and ALbania have to do. And at least merge the Albania section to Europe. Serbia saying Hezbollah is terror does not mean its support for Saudi Arabia. Also, s Poland was removed bc SYNTH, then why didnt you guys merge it into Europe. Also, Im not going to be able to edit next week bc I have school. So there, you happy Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 01:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Also, mentioning this Isreal does not have official ties with KSA. If turkey does,then why is Israel in the support while Turkey is a third party? Same with the Kurds because some kurds like the ones in Syria (AANES, SDF, YPG, YPJ, etc.) are more supported by Russia and Assad rather than CJTFOIR Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 01:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep: "I don't like it" is not a valid deletion criterion. - Sumanuil ( talk) 01:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but I didnt put 'I dont like this". I put that it should be started over due to conflicting edits Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 01:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: Just to comment, every time I add something like Egypt supports Assad WITH A SOURCE, WikiCleanerMan removes it. Or when I add an Iranian proxy group, they also remove it (gender neutral). But seriously, I add like 'Turkey backs Hamas' or Muslim Brotherhood supports GNA', IT GETS REMOVED EVEN THOUGH ITS SOURCED. Thats why I am angry. Mausebru the Peruvian ( talk, contibs) 01:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep This AfD nomination led straight to an ANI discussion about the nom's conduct at this article. The nomination was malformed, but this has been fixed. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

This nomination hasn't been logged for August 9, 2021. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 17:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and logged it. Admittedly without Twinkle, these is quite multi-stepped. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep without prejudice against renomination in the future. Looking at the nomination (and further comments here), the edit history of the article in question, and the talk page, it's fairly obvious that this is a disruptive escalation of a content dispute. WP:CSK#2d applies. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep - this is an issue that can be resolved by discussing with each other, collaborating and editing. Deletion is completely unnecessary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater ( talk) 05:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Karl Bleyl

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

Not clear that the subject meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV or WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

weak keep this is pre-internet but I find this obituary and this bio which is enough to write an article. Also an obituary in a scholarly journal indicates notability but the argument is somewhat weak. -- hroest 15:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Hmmm... For me, this doesn't completely settle the question of notability, but creates a more complex set of questions. According to both sources he was not a professional entomologist but an amateur hobbyist. That complicates things. I would like some opinions from other editors on how to handle someone who doesn't quite fit our traditional model for researchers. Thank you for finding these sources Hannes Röst. I am now on the fence with this one. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree the argument is not crystal clear but in general if a scientific journal (or a major newspaper) publishes an obituary that removes the general issues of RS and it probably also means the person was notable based on the soft criteria. Here we have 2 obituaries. When in doubt I opt for keeping; here the subject is dead, we can write a reasonable article and there is little chance of maintenance work as facts probably wont change. -- hroest

Agreed, I am leaning more towards keep myself at this point based on recent comments by others. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. Being an amateur and not a professional would make him more notable, not less, but I can't see much on GS. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC). reply
Weak keep per WP:GNG and the two in-depth sources found by Hannes Röst. He doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF but (for most of its criteria) amateur status is irrelevant to that: it's about significance of scholarly contributions, not about job titles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Weak keep per weak keepers. Agree amateur status is irrelevant. Johnbod ( talk) 14:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Fabolon Blaise

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

GNG fail. --- Possibly ☎ 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 16:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 18:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

FLEUR

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

Promotionally-written article. Speedy deletion was declined but I believe this article is WP:SPAM. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia has many articles on software projects similar to FLEUR. There are lists of such software projects linked in the article. Each article on such a software package describes the features of the respective code, just like the article on the FLEUR code. A google scholar search on the code's website, with which it is typically cited gives more than 600 results of scientific publications. This is a relevant number in the field. The list of these codes and the articles on each code are used by students and researchers who want to work in the respective scientific field to get a first impression on what tools they can use for their investigations. In my opinion deleting an article on one of these codes would somehow imply that the article is special in some way. I don't see that for the article on FLEUR. If there are inappropriate statements in the article I would reformulate them or look for references if there is none backing the statement. As far as I see for the statements in the article on FLEUR there are references in terms of publications in peer reviewed scientific journals. I would like to understand the deletion nomination. Could you please clarify the thought?

GreSebMic ( talk) 16:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ GreSebMic: To clarify, along with the article being written like its an advertisement, the article has an abundancy of inline external links to primary sources and the official website, used as a way to get readers of the article to visit the website, which should really only ever be included in the infobox at the official website parameter or under the "External links" section of the article for informative purposes. External links disguised as Wikilinks are usually an indication that the article is spam, or that the person who created the article is associated with the product or company. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 17:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ WaddlesJP13: Sorry, I wasn't aware of this external link guideline. I also didn't perceive this as a disguise. I now moved the link to the FLEUR code homepage to a new external links section and turned other external links into links to Wikipedia articles that still have to be written. These are all software projects that are in common use by many research groups and the option to combine them with the FLEUR code may be of interest to people interested in this wikipedia article. I guess at some point someone will write wikipedia articles on them. Before, I used the external links because that is how I saw references to these software packages in other wikipedia articles. I hope this resolves the external link problem in your sense. GreSebMic ( talk) 18:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I just removed from the article a statement on the development of the code in the context of the European center of excellence MaX. Even though the statements were backed by references the wording may have sounded promotional. I think this already eliminates or at least reduces the case for the deletion.

GreSebMic ( talk) 17:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment This looks like a pretty ordinary article on a piece of scientific software. I'm not a fan of long feature lists (they do tend to read like the back of a software box, back in ye olden days when programs came in boxes), but that's a matter of style, not grounds for deletion. The raw number of citations looks pretty respectable, though not all of them are useful for our purposes; abstracts for conference presentations aren't really peer-reviewed publications, for example. I'd be inclined to keep if we had a few examples of the software being used by people other than the developers. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ XOR'easter: I agree that it would be nice to add a few references on the usage of the code that are unrelated to the development group. Scrolling over the google scholar search list shows that there are many scientific articles that fall under this criterion. Finding nice examples that are not misplaced in such a wikipedia article is a different issue. I will look for a few publications, but that will take some time. Of course, some of the cited references in the wikipedia article are on methodological developments of the software. It is natural that you see people from the development group on such publications. GreSebMic ( talk) 19:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ XOR'easter: I now added two highly-cited references of work with FLEUR code usage that are unrelated to the development team. One is a Nature Nanotechnology publication on graphene and the other is a Nature Communications article on certain physics in topological insulators. According to Google Scholar one has more than 1000 citations, the other one more than 200. I think these are nice examples for the code usage. Is this enough or do we need more? GreSebMic ( talk) 20:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. Any promotional content/tone can be addressed on the talk page. I personally am not a huge fan either of the feature lists, but this passes WP:GNG, for example the software is extensively discussed in this white paper on FLAPW methods.^[1] or this German article^[2], along with its extensive usage. In general, I think there needs to be a new criteria for WP:NSOFTWARE since it is a fine line between legitimate accreditation and promotional fanfare. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep It's used in research that has been published in journals which are as good as we could ask for. While those papers don't go into depth on the details of the software itself, they do rely upon it in a significant way. I think there's enough to get it over the wiki-notability bar. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment Thank you all for the constructive feedback so far. I'm still pretty new in creating new Wikipedia articles. Your comments already gave me good instructions on what to care about in future articles and, of course, this article also already benefited from your feedback. I hope we can find a consensus on keeping the article. Of course, I will also try to incorporate further feedback in a constructive way. GreSebMic ( talk) 20:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Weak keep this seems notable but it does need to be cleaned up a bit. BuySomeApples ( talk) 21:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep: Open licensed software license in a seeming specialist scientific area which seems sustained over a large number of years now with some better sources identified. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep, significant use in research.-- Mvqr ( talk) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

References

^ Davidović, Davor; Fabregat-Traver, Diego; Höhnerbach, Markus; di Napoli, Edoardo (2017-12-19). "Accelerating the computation of FLAPW methods on heterogeneous architectures". arXiv:1712.07206 [cs].
^ Hardrat, Björn (2012-11-28). "Ballistic transport in one-dimensional magnetic nanojunctions:A first-principles Wannier function approach". {{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= ( help)

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, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Saint-Louis Blaise

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

Article's primary references are galleries which are selling or have sold the artist's work and lack independence. Doesn't appear to meet WP:SIGCOV or the criteria at WP:NARTIST. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete I did not see sufficient sourcing to support notability in a web search.The same is likely true for his brothers mentioned in the article; all of these articles were started based on a mention in one book. --- Possibly ☎ 16:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. No prejudice against creating a redirect to the series if desired. RL0919 ( talk) 15:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Lorne Blair

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

Primary sources where the subject is the main topic are a closely connected blog by the wife of his child and IMDB and BFI database. None of that rises to the level of WP:SIGCOV per WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There is also a book on the documentary film he made which is notable, but notability is not inherited. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This should probably be a redirect to the documentary film Ring of Fire: An Indonesian Odyssey. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 ( talk) 16:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Frank Mosca

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

Has had some success, but I don't think he meets criteria for own article. There are several possible WP:ATDs, but I was unsure which, if any, would be suitable merge/redirect targets, possibly Harrington Talents. Boleyn ( talk) 15:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 00:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Arrest of Vijay Singh Yadav

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

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS - no long-lasting effects. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

there's no provisions for 'long lasting effects' in the wiki policy. LΞVIXIUS 💬 09:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

"enduring notability of persons and events" - directly from the policy (emphasis mine). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. The subject is a matter of substantial political and legal controversy, not merely news, and it has substantial notability as seen by primary mentions in dozens of reliable sources (see the references section). LΞVIXIUS 💬 09:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep the subject has a significant number of references to reliable and independent secondary sources. The coverage is clearly more than WP:ROUTINE announcements or passing mentions of the event. TipsyElephant ( talk) 13:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep, many reliable and independent sources. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 21:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Naya Tola

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

Reason- This place is just one of the small colony of hajipur city, WP:N not notable, unsourced, I think it should be deleted from wikipedia because of these causes. – ItsSkV08 ( talk) 15:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete This particular place is Vaishali district does not have any legal recognition to meet WP:NPLACE. However, there are other places named Naya Tola elsewhere (such as in Kathihar district, Muzaffarur district, Singrauli district etc.) which are presumably notable. Therefore, I would recommend deleting this per WP:TNT to encourage recreation of new article. -- Ab207 ( talk) 15:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. Chirota ( talk) 20:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 ( talk) 21:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Candace Marie

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Has had some success, but not the necessary significance or coverage. Boleyn ( talk) 14:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Solarized. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)} 15:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Kiss Ya Lips (No I.D.)

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

I felt like this should be notable, but couldn't establish that it does meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Possible ATDs are redirect to Solarized or to Ian Brown. Boleyn ( talk) 14:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Solarized. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP ( talk) 03:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Draftify. Vanamonde ( Talk) 09:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Plus/Minus (film)

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

Film does not yet meet WP:NFF, production has not been exceptionally notable, should exist in draft space until notability has been established BOVINEBOY 2008 14:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment This has existed in draft space for several months as Draft:Plus/Minus (film). I moved a copy into the mainspace article for histmerging. If consensus is to push it back to draft then a redirect should be made to Wanuri Kahiu and tag R with possibilities. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Histmerge was completed. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Draftify WP:TOOSOON applies to this film. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

J. J. Power

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Failed MP candidate, representatives at County and Town Council level don't tend to get articles. Most mentions of him in sources are to do with his notable relatives, and notability is not inherited. I wasn't sure that there was a suitable WP:ATD, though there are a few redirect possibilities, I think choosing any one of them would be more confusing for a reader than seeing there is no article. Boleyn ( talk) 14:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. On the face of it, the subject fails WP:NPOL (in that local councillors in Ireland are not holders of "international, national, or [..] state/province–wide office, or [..] members of legislative bodies at those levels"). In terms of WP:GNG, I cannot find anything beyond what the nom has mentioned (the same routine coverage we might expect for any political candidate -- none of which seems to substantively focus on the subject as a primary topic). Guliolopez ( talk) 15:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. County council is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:NPOL, an unsuccessful candidacy for the Dáil does not help to make him more notable than the norm for county councillors as even at the national level the notability test still depends on holding office and not just running for it, and the article is not sourced anywhere near well enough to make him markedly more special than most other county councillors or unelected TD candidates. Bearcat ( talk) 14:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Françoise Robin

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

Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years, and hopefully we can now answer the question hanging over it. There are indications towards WP:PROF and WP:GNG, but I couldn't find the sources to be sure of it. See also Talk:Françoise Robin for comments there. Boleyn ( talk) 14:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. She is also a literary translator. The corresponding article in the French Wikipedia is longer. fr:Françoise Robin (tibétologue) Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't read French well so I'm not sure whether her publications would help meet WP:ACADEMIC. I moved them to Talk:Françoise_Robin#Publication_List when I cleaned the article. Would benefit from someone familiar with her field, and/or who reads French better. Star Mississippi 16:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep - she seems to be regularly interview/cited for news about Tibet in (esp. francophone) media, which would indicate to me that she has a degree of notability as an expert in her field (or at least that it would be worth having an article on someone who seems to be a frequently cited figure in the news). Like, there's: Tibetan director 'injured in Chinese police custody', Françoise Robin: «il y a une sorte de désespoir riant au Tibet», Violences sexuelles en Asie orientale : la difficile protection des droits des femmes, La sinisation du Tibet se poursuit, Tibet : la conversion forcée des agriculteurs en ouvriers, Penpa Tsering dans la délicate position du rassembleur des Tibétains, French police clear 600 Tibetan migrants from camp outside Paris, etc... She also seems to have taken part of at least one inter-parliamentary friendship group rapport for the French Senate and there's this open letter she co-wrote in Libération that could maybe be used to add some more content to the article? NHCLS ( talk) 14:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep - She gave the keynote address at the 2014 Himalayan Studies Conference at Yale University. That certainly suggests she's considered a significant academic in her field. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 03:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep per above comments. Being G Sec of the IATS also seems like an indicator of notability. Furius ( talk) 13:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Remove nomination per all excellent comments above, Boleyn ( talk) 21:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Hitman (franchise). ✗ plicit 13:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Diana Burnwood

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

Unclear how this fictional tertiary character in a videogame warrants a standalone article. Could be simply merged where possible in the hitman individual pages. nearlyevil 665 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Hitman (franchise) - Upon further research, I believe the article does not qualify for its own page and should be redirected to the Hitman (franchise) page. Eye ay en ( talk) 23:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Eye above, messy WP:FANCRUFT that does not meet GNG, redirecting is the only way to save this from oblivion by deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Hitman (franchise) video game. GermanKity ( talk) 12:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect as per above, not anywhere near enough coverage to show real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Hitman (franchise), no individual notability --► Sincerely: Sola virum 22:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Feedr

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP and WP:SPIP. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely too much on company produced material, press releases and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx ( talk) 13:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete - buzzword-laden promotional piece. . . Mean as custard ( talk) 15:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per Mean as custard and nom. Obviously not fit for Wikipedia as written. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect to Compass Group: A promotionally-worded article supported by funding and announcement-based coverage, which is insufficient for WP:NCORP. A redirect to the acquiring company article where it is briefly described is a possibility. AllyD ( talk) 09:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Hog Farm _Talk 04:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Clone town

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

Essentially about one article by one not particularly lobbying organisation. The concept seems as though it ought to be noteworthy, and an international rather than UK-only phenomenon, but not on the evidence of what we have here. Kevin McE ( talk) 12:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I'd agree, except that a Google search also reveals an article in the Independent from 2015 [11]; they also used the term in another article in 2011; the Guardian used it in 2005 [12], which would be less convincing of persistent notability given that it was only coined in 2004. The Daily Mail used the term in 2010 [13] and while we do not regard the Mail as a reliable source (i.e. we don't believe that what it writes is true) it is undoubtedly a major national newspaper, so the fact it writes about a subject is supportive of the subject being notable. Given that a number of national newspapers have used the term over an extended period, it's got to be a keep. Elemimele ( talk) 19:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - I'm finding enough out there from a basic search to support the notability of Clone town. For example these journal articles: [14], [15]; coverage in this book: [16]; BBC [17], Guardian [18], etc. Netherzone ( talk) 15:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep There is also media coverage of further such surveys, for example which so-labelled Dumfries in 2010 The Scotsman, 14 September 2010, BBC, 15 September 2010, and Glasgow Herald, 1 February 2021 referencing that finding as an impetus for subsequent change. As well as the NEF surveys which triggered much of the coverage discussed above, and its use as a discussion point in for example this 2016 article about the future of Milton Keynes, the term can be found in the UK-government-sponsored Portas review in 2011 (see Report, p9). Overall, enough for WP:GNG and possibility for expansion. AllyD ( talk) 15:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Carhenge. History is available if there is content anyone wants to merge. RL0919 ( talk) 16:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Carhenge: Genius or Junk?

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

Non-notable documentary, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 09:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Merge: almost no good refs. Suggest merging this back into the Carhenge main page. peterl ( talk) 23:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Carhenge. Not independently notable. The main article already mentions the documentary and I don't see anything of significance to merge. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 20:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Maria Lúcia de Oliveira Falcón

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

The article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. Searching Google Scholar found only one uncited publication; maybe I am trying the wrong version of her name, but I couldn't find evidence of passing WP:PROF. That said, copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. So although I tend to agree with the nominator in this case, I think a trout may still be due. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment. She appears to have also been the president of Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária, a Brazilian government agency, and to have held several other senior positions at both state and federal levels. [26]. She's also authored a number of books, according to worldcat. pburka ( talk) 18:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:TNT (at least) for now. No sign of WP:NPROF C1, and the article doesn't make any case for notability, or include much of what an eventual article would include. I don't think the government positions mentioned by Pburka automatically confer notability, although it is possible that news coverage can be found for GNG – in a limited search, I saw only passing mentions (but a good search probably requires someone with language proficiency). The books look to be held by so few libraries that I would not expect a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Watching this discussion in case better evidence of notability arises. I hope the nominator did a careful WP:BEFORE on each article before batching for AfD. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
- Russ Woodroofe, As I said for David Eppstein here. This articles were all created by the same accounts, which I believe are part of a paid-accounts scheme. They all related to the Federal University of Sergipe. As I'm also an editor at the PT.WP this accounts caught my attention. SirEd ^Dimmi!!! 03:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep. As an appointee MundoGeo profile to the "top eschelon" by a president of the country ( Dilma Rousseff), I would think that position parallels the US Secretary of Agriculture, but I'm not certain that presidential cabinets count in our Notability (shouldn't they?). I think if the article were kept, there would also be more time for Portuguese speakers to flesh out the article. LovelyLillith ( talk) 16:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Weak keep. Per User:Pburka. But note that the istituto is a government agency in the Department of Agrarian Development, so she's not the equivalent of the Secretary of Agriculture, but a step further down. A US figure with this profile would probably have a wiki article, but more source material is produced in the States... Furius ( talk) 11:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Weak delete. I wasn't able to find any substantive source material, and I'm unconvinced her post is inherently notable, given that it's clearly not a cabinet-level post. That said, many of us are probably hampered by a lack of Portuguese, so I'm open to persuasion. Vanamonde ( Talk) 09:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Christopher Riley. Daniel ( talk) 02:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Footagevault

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

Possibly worth merge/redirect to Christopher Riley? I am not convinced it warrants this or a standalong article. Boleyn ( talk) 07:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Merge with Christopher Riley - the sources in the article currently are either passing mentions/credits or don't mention the company at all, attempting to inherit notability through the documentaries the company worked to create. I can't find any substantial sources about the company and its work itself, so I am suggesting a merge with its more notable founder. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was procedural close. Daniel ( talk) 23:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Botopass

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

In my common sense, I don't think Botopass is worthy of notice in the world. Only some country know about Botopass. This wikipedia is not Wikipedia-by-Korean to can have many "underrated group". 1Way4Together - J. Smile | Awards and similar items are not for sales 08:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment your reasoning for deletion is extremely incoherently written. I’m not sure anyone is going to be able to refute your arguments if they can’t tell what they’re supposed to be. See: not even wrong. Dronebogus ( talk) 03:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Procedural Keep - I think this AfD should be closed due to the incomprehensible logic of the nomination, as noted by my colleague above. It is okay if the nominator does not speak English as their first language, but in an AfD we need something to work with. At any rate, the group may have made the charts (the link in the article is misdirected) and they have received a lot of coverage in the Korean pop press, such as [27], [28], [29]. Whether those sources are reliable may be worthy of discussion but that discussion should be started in the proper fashion. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater ( talk) 05:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Chuck Lukacs

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. Some additional references have been added since the article was nominated. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep per above, and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 10:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 04:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

GMA Saturday/Sunday Report

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW since it is too hard to find the sources. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator per below.---- Rdp060707| talk 10:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Strong keep: Again, this user has been doing mass AFDs on several Philippine newscast articles. For the source, this program was mentioned on the GMA News and Public Affairs documentary "Limang Dekada". - WayKurat ( talk) 11:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep: per WP:TVSHOW The show clearly falls under this guideline "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." TheHotwiki ( talk) 11:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 04:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Aksyon JournalisMO

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

Fails WP:TVSHOW; although there are some ones from Facebook and YouTube mentions the name (However, they are unreliable [FB and YT]). ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator per below.---- Rdp060707| talk 10:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Strong keep: Again, this user has been doing mass AFDs on several Philippine newscast articles. - WayKurat ( talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 04:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Pilipinas News

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

Fails WP:TVSHOW. I noticed while I made a research on the sources that mentions the program, there are some YouTube videos that mentions the name of this program. But however, YouTube is not an reliable source. Anyways, I cannot find them with the name. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator per below.---- Rdp060707| talk 10:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Strong keep: Again, this user has been doing mass AFDs on several Philippine newscast articles. - WayKurat ( talk) 10:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 04:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Pangunahing Balita

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

Fails WP:TVSHOW. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator per below.---- Rdp060707| talk 10:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Strong keep: Again, this user has been doing mass AFDs on several Philippine newscast articles. - WayKurat ( talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ WayKurat: For the article that mentioned above, it is too hard to find the sources with the name.---- Rdp060707| talk 10:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Here's a source that mentions the existence of "Pangunahing Balita" here. This is about Erwin Tulfo's transfer from TV5 to PTV-4, where he began his journalism career. - WayKurat ( talk) 11:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 04:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Big News

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

Fails WP:TVSHOW ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator per below.---- Rdp060707| talk 10:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep: What is this about doing AFD's on several Philippine newscasts? Big News is one of the first newscasts in the Philippines and once a competitor of The World Tonight. And for heaven's sake, this was a FLAGSHIP newscast of TV5 Network when the network was still called Associated Broadcasting Company. Also, I don't get what is the rationale of the nominator here. They have nominated a lot of Philippine newscasts to AFD in recent months. - WayKurat ( talk) 10:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
- Adding source for notability of The Big News here. The Philippine Star article mentions that this newscast first aired in the 1960s, then was revived again 1992 when ABC went back on air after it was shut down during the Martial Law era. - WayKurat ( talk) 10:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep, no valid deletion reason provided, and seems notable. Geschichte ( talk) 18:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. Per comments made by WayKurat: notable and has coverage in reliable media sources. Koikefan ( talk) 06:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Halbert Brook

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunderberg Creek and several others, this creek is based on a map entry alone, mass-produced, and thus fails WP:GEOLAND. Geschichte ( talk) 09:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: Per the previous discussions; no info other than the coordinates exist regarding this river, meaning it fails WP:GEOLAND criterion 4. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete: Straightforward NN. PrimalBlueWolf ( talk) 09:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Lack sources, and other than it we don't have enough information on this river. Cheers. Tahaaleem ^Talk 10:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - Non notable tributary, no information beyond coordinates exists. – dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Shaw Brook

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunderberg Creek and several others, this creek is based on a map entry alone, mass-produced, and thus fails WP:GEOLAND. Geschichte ( talk) 09:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: Per the previous discussions; no info other than the coordinates exist regarding this river, meaning it fails WP:GEOLAND criterion 4. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - Non notable tributary, no information beyond coordinates exists. – dlthewave ☎ 16:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Stony Creek (Butternut Creek tributary)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunderberg Creek and several others, this creek is based on a map entry alone, mass-produced, and thus fails WP:GEOLAND. Geschichte ( talk) 09:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: Per the previous discussions; no info other than the coordinates exist regarding this river, meaning it fails WP:GEOLAND criterion 4. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - Non notable tributary, no information beyond coordinates exists. – dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Thorp Brook

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunderberg Creek and several others, this creek is based on a map entry alone, mass-produced, and thus fails WP:GEOLAND. Geschichte ( talk) 09:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: Per the previous discussions; no info other than the coordinates exist regarding this river, meaning it fails WP:GEOLAND criterion 4. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails GEOLAND. All of these brooks can probably be PRODded or redirected to the larger creek/river. – dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Derek White (writer)

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Please also see Talk:Derek White (writer), where someone claiming to be Derek White repeatedly asks for it to be deleted. Boleyn ( talk) 08:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, delete, but not because of the statements on the talk-page. We're allowed to take subjects' wishes into consideration in cases of very-marginal notability, but (a) have to be cautious about whether the talk-page posts are really from White, and (b) if a person is definitely notable, then unfortunately they don't get a say on whether they have an article. Even if your name is notable for a desire to be anonymous (as appears to be White's philosophical aim), you can't stop WP from saying so (which rather undermines the whole anonymity thing). But in White's case, he seems genuinely non-notable. His publications are via a publisher that he set up, and are therefore self-published. I can't find any decent secondary source reviews, only a few slightly weird blogs and the usual goodreads/amazon stuff (though it's a bit tricky with a fairly common name like this). Elemimele ( talk) 12:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per Elemimele's explanation. It's always nice when an article subject's (presumed) wishes align with Wikipedia's policies. Gildir ( talk) 21:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Shimul Zaman

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

Tagged for notability since 2012. If one considers G-Series (record label) "one of the more important indie labels", then she might meet WP:MUSICBIO #5. They (or their sister consern Agniveena) released her two albums. Even if that pushes her over the notability line, though, it may be impractical to have a stand alone article about her because there are virtually no independent sources. NABLCC is a convention capsule bio likely written by her. The New Nation is a dead link, but their typical music stories are one-paragraph album release announcements. The third cited source, Priyo, doesn't mention her. Searches of the usual types found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Worldbruce ( talk) 02:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 02:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 02:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete no evidence of notability. No sig coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 22:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 07:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Merry Hempsters

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

The assertion seems to be that it is notable because the owner (not the company) advocated for a law. This did get the company some mentions in coverage. I couldn't find anything to establish WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 07:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Igor Ryjenkov

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

WP:BLP of a person with no properly sourced indication of notability. The notability claim here is that he has a job that isn't "inherently" notable for the purposes of securing automatic inclusion rights in Wikipedia, and the sole reference for it is his profile on the self-published website of a directly affiliated organization rather than any evidence of independent third party media coverage about him. Bearcat ( talk) 05:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete unless evidence of notability can be found. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 05:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 06:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete – all I could find is this, which seems to be little more than an interview. Unless I'm missing some sort of actual secondary coverage, he fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Denmark at major beauty pageants

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

Additional articles:

This is the fourth batch nomination of 10 articles in the "X country at major beauty pageants" series in Category:Nations at beauty pageants (see User:Asartea/Pageants AFD for the full list). Like the pilot article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belize at major beauty pageants, these lists are entirely WP:IINFO, and also WP:SYNTH due to containing no sources about all the Big Four international beauty pageants. We'd better move faster, since there will be 9 more batches like this and Albania at major beauty pageants and Brazil at major beauty pageants were recreated after deletion.

In the last AfD there was a proposal to initiate an ANI report about the creation of these articles by several different users, with reference to the WP:COLOUR-related one that led to these AfDs. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: Delete en-masse. None of them meet notability nor WP Stand-alone lists. On NPP, I refused to mark as reviewed. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 06:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete all per precedent. WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection information with no notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. JBchrch talk 07:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete all. Not notable. -- Bduke ( talk) 07:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete all, for the reasons given. Athel cb ( talk) 09:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete all, as indiscriminate collection of info.-- Chuka Chief _talk 14:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete all per previous consensus Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete all as per above comments. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete all Indiscriminate lists. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Just nominate them all at once. There is no point in doing it this way. More people will notice and participate, instead of just the same guys appearing each time and repeating the same thing. Dream Focus 05:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Good idea — Consensus is rock solid at this point. It would need lots of delsort categories by country, though. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ysabel Bisnath

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

This article is about a living person with reputable sources covering one specific event only. See WP:BLP1E. A previous AfD discussion deleted a large number of related articles, but not this one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roxanne_Allison_Baeyens. This article fits the same category. PrimalBlueWolf ( talk) 06:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: WP:BLP1E clearly applies. (Not directly relevant, but an editor claims that Bisnath no longer wants to be identified as the beauty pageant winner yet still have an article about her. In that case, fails GNG.) David notMD ( talk) 11:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: per WP:BLP1E. Only notable for the one event. My searches (admittedly only in English) don't find anything to suggest she's notable in her current career as a lawyer. Neiltonks ( talk) 14:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Question Have discussions been held before about whether or not winning a beauty pageant established notability? I'm not aware of any, but this might potentially set quite a precedent. Winning a national Miss World pageant, and then competing in a global version, is basically the only claim to notability that many of the competitors of these sorts of competitions have. I clicked on a few links at random from the template on the bottom of the article, ( Trần Tiểu Vy, Natalya Stroeva, Larissa Ping and Jannatul Ferdous Oishee) and they're all the same: they won their national competition then competed in the global one. If that's BLP1E, they all need to go, and probably a few hundred (if not thousands) similar such articles. Does this need wider discussion than a single AfD? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Girth Summit:There’s the one linked above in the nomination, which seems similar and resulted in a number of deletions. I can’t find any others (but that may be due to my lack of knowledge about how to locate them!) Neiltonks ( talk) 17:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks Neiltonks, I really should read the nomination statement before doing anything else. That's a single deletion discussion about a bunch of articles, rather than a wider discussion on the concept of notability of winners of major pageants, but it's something. Looking at a few of the articles deleted as a result of the outcome of that discussion, I came across Tya Jané Ramey (now deleted), which was about the 2019 winner of Miss T&T, who also went on to Miss World 2019. So, in terms of claims to notability, she and this subject would be on pretty much the same level. The precedent has been set, it seems - but I'll be interested to hear what people think of Usedtobecool's SNG linked below. The deletion precedent, and that guideline (if that's really what it is), are not in accordance.

I'll add that, if it is decided that these people aren't actually notable, we probably ought to redirect to the article about the pageant rather than flat-out delete them. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I have been operating under the presumption that national level major Miss pageants winners are notable, but not subnational major pageants or national level minor pageants winners. I haven't yet seen an AFD that violated this presumption, not that I've seen many AFDs in this area. I also expect that calling a Miss [Country] win an 1E would be major shift. In my own country, as of when I still followed these sort of things, there was only one major national pageant. The winner would be Miss Nepal who always met WP:GNG and went to Miss World. The runner up may or may not have met GNG and went to Miss Universe. How does it work in T&T? Are there more than one Miss T&T's? The fact that she went to Miss World suggests she won the biggest one even if there are many. Or is Miss Universe considered more important elsewhere? Considering the number of Miss Universe participant bios under discussion right now, it appears Universe is still smaller than World in pageantland.

We should also be mindful of WP:BIAS. Has any Miss [Country] bio ever been deleted before? Are we going to delete Miss T&T without a certainty that T&T people and media completely ignore the pageant, unlike everywhere else? Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Following the delsort notice, I landed at (has to be unofficial, but is not clearly marked as such) Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants) which is likely the closest thing to a documentation of prevailing consensus. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Usedtobecool The reason it is unofficial is that it is a WikiProject guideline. These do not override the general notability guidelines: see the last paragraph of WP:SNG. Perhaps this does warrant larger discussion? PrimalBlueWolf ( talk) 05:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deleted A10, as a duplicate of the existing List of governors of New York. If the creator doesn't like the title of the existing article and wants lieutenant governors added to it, they're free to use the requested moves process to propose a new title for discussion, but they're not free to just cut and paste the existing article into an alternate title and then leave both pages to coexist alongside each other. Bearcat ( talk) 14:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of Governors and Lieutenant Governors of New York

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

Duplicative of List of governors of New York, which lists all governors and their associated lieutenants. Unnatural search and capitalization so it is an unlikely keyword for purposes of redirection. Urve ( talk) 06:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Urve ( talk) 06:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. 2A00:23C6:1A09:7001:3021:A8C:8965:3678 ( talk) 06:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 2A00:23C6:1A09:7001:3021:A8C:8965:3678 ( talk) 06:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 2A00:23C6:1A09:7001:3021:A8C:8965:3678 ( talk) 06:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete: Should've been WP:A10 speedied, it's literally nearly word for word (besides the lede) an exact copy and paste. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 07:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Political moderate

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

This article is about a non-existent topic. The political moderate is a myth. This article is a hoax. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/ BurritoQuesadilla ( talk) 05:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator. BurritoQuesadilla ( talk) 06:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BurritoQuesadilla ( talk) 05:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BurritoQuesadilla ( talk) 05:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep. Clearly a bad-faith nomination. No clear deletion rationale other than a personal opinion and 538 article. KidAd • SPEAK 05:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

This isn't a "bad-faith" nomination. The political "moderate" is a myth. There is no existing person in this world that doesn't have a strong view on anything. It's not an opinion, it's a pure fact. Everybody has a radical view. BurritoQuesadilla ( talk) 06:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

"It's not an opinion, it's a pure fact." is entirely based on one 538 article. More like pure nonsense. KidAd • SPEAK 06:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Not really? The Wikipedia article describes "Political moderate" as "Moderate is an ideological category which designates a rejection of radical or extreme views, especially in regard to politics and religion." This, right there, is nonsense. Everybody has a radical view. Everybody has one view that is set in stone and are unwilling to compromise on. Being a moderate is literally impossible. Do not try to deny that there is a person out there who truly does not have a radical viewpoint. There isn't. BurritoQuesadilla ( talk) 06:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Read WP:OR KidAd • SPEAK 06:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

You seem to misunderstand this process. You cannot delete an article by simply "debunking" it. Wikipedia hosts articles for conspiracy theories like QAnon or Pizzagate that have been thoroughly fact-checked and disproven. Those articles will not be deleted, however, because they meet WP:GNG and are covered extensively in reliable sources. KidAd • SPEAK 06:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I was unaware of this, and in light of this information I want to withdraw this request. How do I withdraw this discussion? BurritoQuesadilla ( talk) 06:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

WP:WDAFD. KidAd • SPEAK 06:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm aware of WP:OR. This isn't original research-- the linked 538 article agrees with me, and 538 is a reliable source. BurritoQuesadilla ( talk) 06:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep per KidAd. {{u| Squeeps10}} { Talk} Please ping when replying. 05:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep. I really don't know how to respond to this, aside from observing that the topic is obviously notable and that one's personal sentiments about political science obviously don't constitute a reason to delete the article. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep: In the future, I would recommend the nominator assess using the valid reasons for deletion before bringing something to AfD. Curbon7 ( talk) 07:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ambrosiawater ( talk) 05:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Melanin Haircare

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

a non notable company wants to promote itself. unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/ WP:NCORP. GermanKity ( talk) 05:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 05:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 05:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 05:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Procedural keep I have no opinion on the article itself (I haven't looked into it), but it was nominated for deletion recently and that discussion was closed as keep on 1 August, eight days ago. TompaDompa ( talk) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep the article has numerous reliable sources and I doubt that standards have changed that much in the last week since it was last nominated. BuySomeApples ( talk) 21:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
DeleteIf i see similar articles this is more promotional article on Wikipedia. I wonder how it saved in 1st nomination. Here fails WP:ORGIND and not this too WP:NCORP. 2405:205:1003:77AD:E45D:385E:D24D:40E7 ( talk) 04:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Your first edit was to vote on this AFD, quite strange. I would request admins to look into this. Jaysonsands ( talk) 11:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep Agree with TompaDompa and BuySomeApples above, there are good WP:RS present. Jaysonsands ( talk) 11:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

List of National Football League players with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

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

Largely needless list that serves the same purpose as List of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. All the names listed on the NFL page are listed there too. Rusted AutoParts 05:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 06:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 06:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: A pretty pointless list considering ALS isn't a by-product of their football careers, compared to CTE which is a by-product. Curbon7 ( talk) 06:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:DELREASON#5: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). There is nothing worth merging to List of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis since the only thing that isn't there already is which team they played for, which isn't relevant. I don't think this is a plausible search term so it doesn't make for a useful redirect. TompaDompa ( talk) 09:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete pointless overly specific content fork. Dronebogus ( talk) 20:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete per all above. Unnecessary and redundant to List of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 06:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete only because I can't really think of a reason to keep such a list. Um... WP:IAR deleting the list makes Wikipedia better...-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 00:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 07:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Molly and the Moon

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

WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. I'd recommend dratifying it but it already exists in draftspace. Rusted AutoParts 05:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

WindsoriteDOTca News

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

Article about a hyperlocal online news startup, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMEDIA. As always, every new online publication is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and the notability test hinges on externally validated analysis of its significance -- but the referencing here consists of two citations to its own self-published content about itself, three citations to content on the websites of directly affiliated non-media organizations, and absolutely zero citations to any WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about it. Bearcat ( talk) 05:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 05:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails to meet GNG according to my searches. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 22:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1. AfD is not the place to propose mergers; see WP:PAM for that. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Qing literati

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

Virtual orphan (one linked article). No substantial development for years. Few page views. Misleading or incorrect material. Edit and merge into new section "Qing dynasty" @ Landed gentry in China would make that a more useful article. ch ( talk) 05:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 06:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 06:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep: ~~First 3~~ All 4 reasons stated are not valid reasons for deletion. Also, AfD is not the correct venue to specifically request a merger. See: Wikipedia:AfD and mergers (It's ok by the way, I made this exact mistake myself back in the day). Curbon7 ( talk) 06:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: If the article contains incorrect information, that should be corrected, but (outside of WP:TNT) error does not provide grounds to delete an article. The literati context during the Qing period figures in, for example, biographies of Zhang Binglin, and does seem worthy of specific coverage, for example linking 考证学 (on which en.wiki has a Kaozheng article). AllyD ( talk) 07:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Wadeye, Northern Territory. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Evil Warriors

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

Supposed gang in a remote town of 2,000 people only mentioned in three profiles of the town (not the gang) a decade ago. No information about them apart from that they once existed and fought their rivals. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 00:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 06:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 06:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Plenty of coverage, but not really about the Evil Warriors individually. Should be enough to Merge into Wadeye, Northern Territory. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 09:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
- This would raise major issues of undue weight unless it were trimmed down to a couple of sentences about gang violence more generally. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to Wadeye, Northern Territory. Agree due weight needs to be considered, but it did get significant coverage at the time. It is relevant to the social context and history of the town. The subject is not notable in its own right, essentially a single event, but is a possible search term. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

As an ex-Territorian, I think it is clear that there are probably similar groups in many NT towns. They are not notable. I guess a merge as suggested above should be considered, otherwise delete. -- Bduke ( talk) 08:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge or redirect per Aoziwe. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge not much material to merge to begin with, but possible. The current article on Wadeye does not mention gang violence at all. "In 2006, a violent feud between three gangs composed of entirely Aboriginals [correct me if I'm wrong on the ethnicity] forced much of the town's population to flee. The incident received nationwide attention." WIKINIGHTS _talk 04:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Abhilash Shetty

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

Not major films directed by the subject, fails WP:NACTOR. Unable to find siginificant references except one The Times of India. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity ( talk) 08:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 08:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 08:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 08:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ GermanKity: Hi, I have added the few more references now, which are the leading newspapers from India. Koli Taal is a major film which created a buzz in Kannada film industry and also in India.

Keep: There are lot of references regarding him and his film, all cited. Leading Indian news papers like The Times of India, TimesNow, Deccan Herald and The Hindu have an articles on Abhilash Shetty and his film Koli Taal.
- Please note that above comment is from the page creator (user:TridentWiki1289). GreaterPonce665 ^(
  TALK) 18:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete: Per nom. Page was created by user:TridentWiki1289, who had made edits here and on the movie this person made - is a single-purpose user. Seems to me that this is a naked attempt at self-promotion. GreaterPonce665 ^(
TALK) 18:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete, as this does appear on the surface to be an attempt at self-promotion. I am not seeing anything notable about this person. The citations in the article merely confirm the existence of this person and their "work", as well as some personal information without asserting sufficient notability. Bungle ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails GNG based on results of my searches. I'm watchlisting this in case new sources (perhaps not in English) are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 21:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discounting duplicate !votes, we have two editors supporting deletion and two editors seemingly opposing it. That doesn't generate a consensus either way, particularly given the lack of serious source analysis on either side. No prejudice against renomination by an experienced editor. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Zayn Africa

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

All sources provided here was just a paid repeated publication (thesame copy content from newspapers), newspapers discussing about is life not any of big collaboration of event that meets to stay in Wikipedia. This artist has non big collaboration with any notable artists of his own country, that wouldn't make him notable for just newspapers entertaining him or advertising him. This did not meet the WIKI Notable GNG and WIKI Musicians. This article you can see Moved out of Draft AFC by the author himself because it was rejected. It was declined submission already Declined submission by AFC reviewer. Single event did not make it pass the WIKi musicians GNG. This article must meet the WIKI SA list for it to be in Wikipedia. Nigerlite ( talk) 05:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment — I’m intentionally not !voting as the nominator themself are of questionable credibility. I have left this sock puppetry warning on their TP. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment — I’m also not voting on the deletion of this article. Everything was written with good citations from independent news sources, artists do not have to work with other notable artists before they can become notable in their country or have an article on Wikipedia, what is important about notability is having recognised and covered by independent news sources under wikipedia guidelines. Abuthewriter ( talk) 20:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 07:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete! Article subject is a non notable musician who fails to satisfy the basic MUSICBIO criteria, I have also removed the awards section on their article which is a hoax, they weren't nominated in either of the two notable awards mentioned there; see the list of nominees here All Africa Music Awards 2016 nominess and Africa Magazine Music Awards nominees and the Northern Nigerian Entertainment Awards they won seems not to exist as Google search returns no results. The creator could also be a possible COI. The Living love ^talk 00:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Don't Delete! The article has been improved. The musician has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself as noted from the satisfaction of MUSICBIO. Themajidi ( talk) 20:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 08:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete this page might be self bio, and an experienced editor wouldn't pick interest of this sources claim from newspapers as being a notability of the ensemble or musicians. Interviews from newspapers without indicating or documents it significant and demonstrate it notability as what is required, I'll just call this interview advertising a musical artist. The source may be independent but did not documents the subject notability as per Wiki:criteria for musicians for it to be enwik must pass this following criteria guideline of which in it says any article that:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following, which are:

•Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.
•Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
•Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. (article does not)
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. (still does not)
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. (does not)
5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). (record label he is in are just formed group 'crew' of which the head and owner of it does not meet the criteria for enwiki)
6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. (none is)

This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. This page and the sources had not demonstrates that it is independently notable for it to be in enwiki. Nigerlite ( talk) 18:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment — Don't Delete!... The editor who nominated this article for deletion themself are of questionable credibility, joined 2 months ago, looks anonymous and has not completed their user page as well, has not properly read and understood the criterias stated in Wiki:criteria for musicians

which states a musician or ensemble may be notable if they meet at least one of the 12 listed criterias.

This singer met number one criteria of Wiki:criteria for musicians which states Musicians or ensembles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries.

The nominator should understand that not every article on Wikipedia is meant for deletion, some may be stubs Wikipedia:Stub and can be improved with time as musicians or ensembles status and credibility improves, that was why wikipedia stated in Wiki:criteria for musicians "Musicians or ensembles must meet either one of the following criteria", meaning they do not have to meet all criterias listed before they can be notable, they may meet some and others with time. He should also learn to help improve articles not only nominate articles for deletion, that makes a good editor. Themajidi ( talk) 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 14:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ian Moore (musician)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. KidAd • SPEAK 02:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment for UK editors: this Ian Moore is not the same Ian Moore as the Cambridge Buskers musician, who began his musical career as Ian Moore but is now Ian de Massini (and almost certainly notable). Elemimele ( talk) 10:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep as has a decent staff written bio at AllMusic here as well as four staff written album reviews there, significant coverage in Houston Press here continues on second page, and another Houston Press article here, more sig cov here. Overall there is enough coverage in reliable sources for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 01:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - #5 on WP:MUSICBIO includes artists who have "released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." He released 3 records on Capricorn Records, which is a significant indie label. A quick google search also shows that he meets #2, as he had 3 singles crack the top 25 of the the Billboard Mainstream Rock charts: https://www.billboard.com/music/ian-moore/chart-history. And, as Atlantic306 points out, he's had some significant press and reviews. The article needs expanding and improved sourcing, but, per WP:NEXIST, you can't judge notability of the subject based solely on the content of the article. Niftysquirrel ( talk) 20:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

BFIT Group of Institutions

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

Following up on Berrely’s proposed deletion. This article gives no indication of being notable. Neither of the sources are independent of the subject. Looking online, I see many passing mentions but nothing in-depth. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. Helen( 💬 📖) 01:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. I agree, there is nothing to suggest that this article is notable. -- Bduke ( talk) 08:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 17:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Could be mentioned in the Widener University article, but there's no consensus to merge and the small amount of relevant information could be added de novo without doing a merge. RL0919 ( talk) 03:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

William John Wolfgram

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

Fails WP:GNG. An officer who died in World War II and achieved nothing meaningful. Lettler^{hello •
contribs} 00:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello •
contribs} 00:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello •
contribs} 00:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello •
contribs} 00:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: A non-notable soldier. The only other mentions of him I could find are this image, this image in this book, and this source from PA War College that is quite in-depth but doesn't show anything that really establishes notability. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist ( talk) 03:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete fails GNG, as far as I can tell. ( t · c) buidhe 07:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge with Widener University. The University named The Wolfgram Memorial Library after him and there is coverage of this person: Widener, PMC, Tenth Mountain Division, page 184, History of the 87th Mountain Infantry, Italy, 1945, page 181. Because he was a recipient of the Bronze Star Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge and Purple Heart (posthumously) and nominated for a Presidential Unit Citation, he passes WP:ANYBIO and should be mentioned in the libraries and museums section of Wiedner's page. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 17:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete as it doesn't meet GNG in my view. I would support a Merge, although it's worth noting that Wolfgram wasn't nominated for a Presidential Unit Citation...the unit he was a member of would have been. In any case, his individual decorates are rather mundane. Only the library contributes to notability in my view. Intothat darkness 18:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Ghardaqa

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

fails WP:BASIC. Lacks notability and sources. Thepharoah17 ( talk) 00:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 ( talk) 00:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Thepharoah17 ( talk) 00:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete: I'm usually sympathetic to historical figures who are likely notable but have lacking sources, but that is not the case here. There are literally no sources on the guy, and I've tried searching with pretty much every possible combination of his name, both in English and Arabic; he only gets a very passing mention in the cited book. Additionally, I do not believe that the title of Sheikh is one that gives inherent notability. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist ( talk) 03:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Doesn't appears to be notable, and it especially lacks sources, one source isn't enough. Very little is known about this figure. Cheers. Tahaaleem ^Talk 07:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Unfortunately, per WP:BASIC, there isn't enough information out there to qualify as substantial coverage of the person. It would be great if there were a list of former officers/commanders on which to place his name. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 16:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

[1] Davidović, Davor; Fabregat-Traver, Diego; Höhnerbach, Markus; di Napoli, Edoardo (2017-12-19). "Accelerating the computation of FLAPW methods on heterogeneous architectures". arXiv:1712.07206 [cs].

[2] Hardrat, Björn (2012-11-28). "Ballistic transport in one-dimensional magnetic nanojunctions:A first-principles Wannier function approach". {{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= ( help)

[1]

[2]