From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 02 December 04 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was snow delete. Geschichte ( talk) 20:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

McCredie, Washington

McCredie, Washington (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another rail spot along the Columbia which was displaced when the dam flooded the old line. As usual there no particular evidence that it was a town before, so off it should go. Mangoe ( talk) 02:49, 4 December 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The result was speedy keep – withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Maxwell Evarts

Maxwell Evarts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His father, William M. Evarts, is notable. He isn't. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NPOL. The article states He was a member of the Vermont House of Representatives in 1906, which satisfies the Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. criteria from WP:NPOL. It was uncited at the time, but I've add a citation for it since. snood1205( Say Hi! (talk)) 03:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. To my surprise, plenty of coverage of him in his capacity as a lawyer for the railroads. (Perhaps in this trust-busting era, railroad lawyers were a hot topic.) Plus the political position as Snood notes, although I didn't see much coverage of that. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 05:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw nomination. I missed that part about the House of Representatives. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 20:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Jao TV

Jao TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly WP:TOOSOON for this television channel, due to a lack of independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:38, 3 December 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. On reflection, consensus is to keep Fenix down ( talk) 08:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Kolubara Stadium

Kolubara Stadium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small town sports stadium that has been unsourced for over 9 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mentions. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [1]. Ravenswing 12:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep The size of a town is irrelevant. This stadium is used in a top professional football league and all such stadiums have their articles. The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 12:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Not a single such article has been deleted, and none of the articles that were redirected were more than sub-stubs parroting information already in the team articles. Ravenswing 22:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • None of which meets any relevant notability criterion. Ravenswing 00:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No overriding consensus but indication of some level of coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 17:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

*Redirect to FK Kolubara. As of now, the entire contents of the article are Kolubara Stadium is a multi-use stadium in Lazarevac, Serbia. It is the home ground of FK Kolubara. The stadium has a capacity of 2,000 spectators. . Should anyone bother to WP:HEY this to a reasonable size (and I don't see a potential with the floodlight news) I could change my vote, but in the meantime, we're better off without this non-article which we're spending kilobytes to argue about. No such user ( talk) 12:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per WP:HEY by Olos88. I'd like to remind the participants that this is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and we're supposed to provide the best possible coverage to our readers. While there were indeed many junk articles about Serbian stadiums, credits for expansion should be given where earned, and this is one of the cases. The claims that hosting internationally important events do not contribute to a venue's notability are preposterous. No such user ( talk) 22:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've added the references shared above plus a couple more to the article, and expanded it. I think there is enough here now to establish notability. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as there are now enough references to show notability. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 16:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus some arguments that there are now "enough" references to establish notability. Editors are reminded that whilst multiple instances of coverage are required, it is the depth of coverage in those sources that confirms if something is notable. All we seem to have here are a few sources commenting on the basic facts of the stadium. Would be good to see brought out the elements in these sources which show "significant" coverage as its not helpful to any closing afmin to have to try to interpret things like that when closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 20:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect WP:HEY does not apply, as the article in its "improved" version is still based on sources of dubious independence (press releases, ...), and contains very little significant content about the stadium itself (i.e. a further proof of the unsuitability of the sources). The keep arguments by Ludost, N57, GiantSnowman, Olos all argue that somehow, notability is inherent or inherited from the stadium's football club. That is also an argument which can be tossed out, since, explicitly, notability requires verifiable evidence and is not, ever, inherited: such an argument seems to stem out of a misconception that SNGs (entirely forgetting that the only one that applies here is explicit that this still needs to meet GNG) are some form of "criteria", when in fact they are, very clearly, indications and guidelines to help article writers and other editors assess whether their subject is notable (as most of them say, to quote NSPORTS, Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.).
    In addition, outside of the notability (or lack there-of), this "article" is so short that it would actually be very reasonable to redirect it to it's logical parent (the football club which it hosts) and include the content there. WP:NOPAGE is relevant guidance: Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. Given that this can be easily covered in the target article, and that in addition it future proofs this (say, at some point, the club changes stadium/builds new one/...: then both the information about the old and the new stadium can be included, in the same article, with relevant context...), that seems a perfectly valid reason not to have a permastub. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I've added some new data as well as new refs. You can find much more coverage about the stadium, for example: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] I don't think it needs to be added to the article, but I can do it if it's necessary. Olos88 ( talk) 16:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    You're invited to highlight WP:THREE sources amongst these (all of which happen to not be in English...) which best meet WP:GNG. WP:CITEBOMBS don't help anyone. The latest addition to the article: 1) is not very much (one sentence about newly installed lights) 2) part of it is a WP:COATRACK about the club, for example; and suggests again that a redirect is a better option. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    So, these three should be ok: [11] [12] [13] Olos88 ( talk) 20:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    No. 1 is mostly quotes from an individual identified as the "president of CSO Lazarevac", so clearly an interview, and not an independent source. No. 3 is, similarly from "Fudbalski savez Beograda", which clearly is the organiser of the football league. No. 2 only seems to cover the fact the stadium got lights (apparently a rare occurrence in Serbia); and beyond this little detail, much content is clearly cited as coming from "Bojan Stević", identified as the president of the FK ("football club?") Lazarevac, including some statements of thanks to the financial backers of the project and the final paragraph. From those sources the only encyclopedic thing you could basically say is "Stadium has got lights, which were installed in 2019". That's not SIGCOV, nor is it enough to justify a separate article. The other additions to the article seem to (beyond having grammar issues) also be minor and routine occurrences, many of which I removed per WP:NOTNEWS. It would still make far more sense to have this in the article about the club. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 04:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    Apart from your interpretation of this sources, could you just not delete important content, which belongs to stadium's history? I hope next time some admin would react. Olos88 ( talk) 06:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    And now back to the sources: 1) It's not clear interwiev, but even if, published media article with interwiev, where the only subject of discussion is a stadium, should meet GNG criteria 2) There are more encyclopedic things than just "stadium got lights in 2019", the source also states i.e. that local municipalities as well as ministry of finance, ministry of economy, national football association and government including prime minister participated in works at the stadium, which clearly indicates, that it wasn't just an ordinary renovation, article also sais that after this stadium meets UEFA criteria and is just one of several (16) venues in the country, that has an artificial lightning (2nd with LED lamps). 3) FSB is regional FA, the organizer of Prva liga or SuperLiga is national FA (FSS). Olos88 ( talk) 08:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    Olos88 The problem is that you keep adding WP:NOTNEWS trivia which shouldn't be there. If other stadiums have this same problem, then the solution is to remove it from the other stadiums too. We're an encyclopedia, not a friggin fan-site. 1) It is a clear interview; and if it is with someone directly affiliated with the organisation which uses it, then it is not independent. 2) Yes, the stadium got financed by local government and football associations. How routine. That's not an encyclopedic fact. An encyclopedia is a summary, not a listing of everything known about a subject. 3) So this is so important it's even below the notice of the national FA, despite this apparently being only the 2nd stadium in the country with LED lights? Ignoring the fact that whichever FA it is from, it can't be considered independent in any case (as local FAs have a clear interest in promoting themselves...), this is again more proof of the lack of notability. What you are doing is desperate grasping at straws, adding dubious content to make the article look more impressive without addressing any of the actual issues. I.e. nothing short of a WP:CITEBOMB... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    So you should also remove for example this content St Mary's Stadium#Notable matches, Emirates Stadium#International football matches, Keepmoat Stadium#Internationals, Bramall Lane#International matches, Stade Michel d'Ornano#International matches, I'm curious to see authors and admins reaction to your explanation, that Wikipedia is not a newspaper :) Olos88 ( talk) 17:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    You have clearly not grasped either the meaning of my comment here nor my edit summaries. As I said, that WP:NOTSTATS/ WP:NOTNEWS mess needs to be removed from those other pages too. Why don't you go and add a similar list to, I don't know, Wembley stadium? I'll tell you why: cause it is not encyclopedic information, here or there, because an encyclopedia is neither a database nor a fansite. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    Whole "Sport" section in article of Wembley stadium is about sports events, it's just not listed (except rugby section, where are small lists) but described. What kind of informations are more important for the sports venue, than the sports events itself, important games, etc.? How can you claim, that it completely not belongs to venue's history and is not worth of mentioning? Olos88 ( talk) 19:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    There's a big difference between an encyclopedic summary and a database-like listing of every single "major" event. That there are so few is an additional sign there is unlikely to be much coverage for this to warrant an article that consists of more than routine coverage. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    I've made a summary, I wrote just small notices (I can write much more ;)) on the most important events, like international games, which are usually listed/mentioned/described in sports venues articles. Olos88 ( talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    No, you haven't "made a summary". You've just given a listing of every single international game played (based, of course, on primary sources and routine match coverage) as well as a whole paragraph which also consists of nothing but match results (along with the utterly unremarkable quip about the club being promoted, an event which has strictly no relevance to the stadium unless you're a fan of the football club)... This would be akin to adding this kind of listing to Wembley Stadium (1923) (or the equivalent for the modern one; or think up of similar examples in all kinds of other sports: adding every international cricket fixture played at The Oval or at the MCG; every Stanley Cup final held in an ice hockey arena, ...). That is clearly an example of WP:NOTDATABASE, whether it consists of 3 or 300 entries, and does not justify having a separate article about this stadium, protestations to the contrary and accusations of systematic bias notwithstanding. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    Listing of most important facts like the result or character of the game can be considered as "summary", I haven't brought all the circumstances or details of events during the game, as well as data like squads, referees, attendances, etc. There are just three international games in this case, so listing them clearly doesn't affect the proportions in the article, otherwise a collapsible table could be used for example. Three international games or historical promotion of residing club were clearly the key sporting events during ground's 95 years of history, without even mentioning of it, the article wouldn't be complete. If you want to show The Oval as an example, I would like to point out, that there is a list of international football games played on that pitch including friendlies and even unofficial friendlies. Olos88 ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    Well, that was an easy fix (in addition to the fact no reliable source was provided to support said tables). Three ordinary international games are not "significant events" (unlike, say, matches in the World Cup, or the final of a major top-level competition), and if a stadium has held so few of them then it's a sign there isn't much content about it and that merging/redirecting this elsewhere is a more appropriate outcome. Articles should not consist of mostly routine sports coverage. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    You're approaching no true Scotsman. No coverage is good enough. No such user ( talk) 12:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
    Given that the approach here and at other similar articles has been "throw whatever shtick at the wall and hope some of it sticks", you shouldn't be surprised that most of the coverage is "not good enough". Routine sport coverage (as in [Game] was played here on [date] between [Team A] and [Team B], ending in a [result/score] is not WP:SIGCOV, whether there are 500 or 5 such games (although one would assume that with 500, there would be enough coverage to actually write an article which consists of more than a timeline of sports results). It does not help, either, when most of the content in the article is not about the article subject but a WP:COATRACK (i.e. "grasping at straws to save this non-notable page") about the club which played in it (which should, and has, been moved to the relevant page). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, seems genuine and of substance. Hyperbolick ( talk) 08:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there's a decent amount of info on there with some good sources now it's been expanded. It does need some trimming down. JonnyDKeen ( talk) 16:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go on this. Feels like no clear consensus though. Despite there being clear rebuttal of sources presented at pretty much every turn, showing that the sources contain only passing mentions or are focused on club playing at the ground rather than the ground itself, they don't seem to be sufficiently persuasive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 23:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It has more than enough sources and is notable. There is also a clear consensus User:Fenix down I think there a 12 keeps and two deletes, thats a very clear one.

Super ( talk) 00:00, 4 December 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. Geschichte ( talk) 20:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Stadion Hajduk

Stadion Hajduk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sub-stub article on a minor league sports stadium that has lacked reliable sourcing for fifteen years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mentions. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, at this point despite numerous AfDs affirming the redirects, and generally without attempting to source the articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SC Rade Svilar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadion Slana Bara, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadium FK ŽAK, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadion Hajduk Lion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraljevo City Stadium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Pazova City Stadium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadion Pivare, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadion Selters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detelinara Stadium. Ravenswing 11:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Each article has to be discussed on its own, OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST is not a valid argument for deletion. This particular stadium has been used in Serbian Superliga for years ad such stadiums have always been considered notable. Also you conviently forgot to mention other articles (for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surdulica City Stadium), where the outcome was different. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 11:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
What sources are you able to provide as evidence that this stadium passes WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Here, just some from the top of the search: https://www.politika.rs/sr/clanak/447977/Apel-za-obnovu-stadiona-u-Kuli https://voice.org.rs/voice-stadion-hajduka-iz-kule-u-stvari-ne-postoji/ https://www.mozzartsport.com/fudbal/vesti/bio-jednom-hajduk-iz-kule-stadion-na-dobosu-pocetna-cena-350-000-evra/266113 https://sport.blic.rs/fudbal/domaci-fudbal/u-hajduku-iz-kule-se-nadaju-reflektorima-za-narednu-sezonu/r6gener https://www.nasemesto.rs/2017/05/22/video-ceremonija-otvaranja-stadiona-milan-sredanovic-u-kuli-revijalna-utakmica/ https://kula.rs/2017/05/16/stadion-u-kuli-dobija-novo-ime-milana-sredanovica/ Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 14:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Instead of notability-bombing with sources of dubious relevance or independence, please take the time to find the WP:THREE best sources amongst the above, i.e. those that meet all the criteria of WP:GNG (and then include what content there is in the article, to show that there is enough stuff here to warrant a page separate from the club). And if you can't find any, then you should be honest about it instead of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
You should be honest enough to accept the sources as this is discussion about notability itself not about the current state of the article. The article can be expanded later. I see no point of expandind the article now, if you will just delete it later. Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 14:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Why, yes, indeed, the outcome for the Surdulica stadium was different: that's because NemesisAT and Olos88 did some legwork to come up with sources that satisfied the GNG, which is why I withdrew the AfD. By contrast, as in all of these debates, you've been engaging in nothing but obstructionism and changing your tune at every turn. (Like, for instance, complaining about OTHERSTUFF in one sentence and claiming that the Surdulica discussion backs you up in the next.)

Now beyond that ... The first "source" you claim is a letter to the editor. The second mentions the stadium only in the sentence "However, now Hajduk has been shut down and the stadium is for sale." The third source is a single sentence. The fourth appears to be about a different stadium. The fifth namedrops the stadium, and is substantially about a player. I get that you are unwilling to review WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS to educate yourself on what we look for in a source and what a source needs to say to support notability, but you are wasting everyone's time in throwing up random Google search hits in discussion after discussion and expecting them to make a difference. Ravenswing 15:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

LOL, I was the first one who came up with the sources for Surdulica (on talk pages). And I have not "changed my tune". I just showed that not only your argument is invalid, it is also factually wrong. It is also obvious that you do not understand the language and translated it wrongly if that is what you think of the sources (different stadium??? I am actually glad that you wrote that so people will know what to think about your comments). Ludost Mlačani ( talk) 15:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to FK Hajduk Kula. Giant Snowman 13:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per GiantSnowman, can have a paragraph on the stadium there. Govvy ( talk) 14:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. I can't find any SIGCOV from quick searches, and yet I would assume that something like a well-used, modern football stadium (this isn't some obscure place in the middle of nowhere...) would have such sources if it were truly notable (as opposed to being a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, not-particularly-remarkable football stadium which can be covered in it's logical parent's page). The keep argument does not address any of the reasons for deletion, not does it provide any source to support the idea this might be notable and that there is enough content to write an independent article ( WP:NOPAGE is also a concern). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral Not convinced by the sources, but I have absolutely no wish to have any further argument with the person responsible for disputing the redirect, so quietly (I hope) taking my leave. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm going to call keep on this one per WP:NEXIST (although I can't be arsed to expand it and wouldn't mind a redirect until someone does). Here's some SIGCOV:
    • "Apel za obnovu stadiona u Kuli" [Appeals for Renewal of the Kula Stadium]. Politika. 2020-02-15.
    • "Stadion Hajduka iz Kule u stvari ne postoji" [Hajduk Kula Stadium Actualy Does Not Exist]. Voice.rs. 8 July 2015.
    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YApj279sV3c – 2017 (re)opening ceremony on a regional TV.
    • "Opština Kula postala novi vlasnik fudbalskog stadiona „Milan Sredanović"" [Municipality of Kula Became the New Owner of the Stadium]. Naše Mesto. 2018-01-22.
    • "Стадион у Кули добио име" [The Stadium in Kula Got a Name]. Municipality of Kula. 2017-05-20.
    To sum it up: the club of 90 years went bankrupt in 2013 and disappeared, the Municipality eventually took over the stadium, it got renamed but it's now in disrepair... that's plenty of things to write about. But the article still says that it's owned by the club that does not exist since 2013. And we're arguing whether to keep it? No such user ( talk) 14:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Kula, Serbia. I didn't review the football club article enough, upon another review, maybe Kula, Serbia is a better target to house the stadium for the town on. Govvy ( talk) 14:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirecting to the town makes more sense than to the football club, of course. Ravenswing 15:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I've expanded the article, so that now there should not be any objections. Olos88 ( talk) 17:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comments I still don't see it, you did a fair bit of work there and finding sources, but 95% of them? They don't seem to relate much to the stadium. And on a more serious note, you should not have moved the article while it's at AfD. That was a very bad move. WP:AFDEQ. Govvy ( talk) 13:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Well, as a part of improving this article, I moved it because the name was outdated, in 2017 stadium's name was changed and it just needed an update. Article is still fully accessible from this page, so it should not be a big problem. And, yes, some of the sources are in the article only to confirm some of the facts, while there are some, (i.e. mentioned above by No such user), that fulfill GNG criteria. Olos88 ( talk) 14:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
No, also the script involved in the close, can mess up the closes because you moved it. Another reason why you should not move an article under AfD. Govvy ( talk) 15:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
If it's a big issue, it can be undone in anytime, the article should be moved anyway, no matter if now or after the discussion (if it withstands). Olos88 ( talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes GNG, notable stadium, etc.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Sole comment on the above: Making a mere assertion of notability without supporting this assertion with anything is nothing more than a pure vote, and does not help achieve consensus. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 05:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the sources from Olos88 and No such user are good enough. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As with a lot of similar articles recently, a lot of references added during the AfD. This has done the job of proving a degree of coverage, but we do not yet have a clear consensus on their significance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 23:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I would argue that, whilst notability is not inherited for a stadium, this one warrants a separate article due to the coverage brought forth by No such user. [14] [15] [16] That would be three sources providing more than trivial coverage from sources considered to be reliable and independent of each other Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per the sources that have been provided by others. Clear pass of GNG. Also, WP:THREE is an essay. Stop acting like it means anything more than that. Smartyllama ( talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as the coverage provided shows notability. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 20:18, 10 December 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 23:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Jay Rodan

Jay Rodan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BEFORE search does not reveal anything to indicate this person meets WP criteria for WP:ACTOR or WP:CREATIVE, WP:NARTIST. It seems they are an actor who was also part of a gallery. I'm bringing it here to the community, for others to provide their feedback. Netherzone ( talk) 23:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I certainly can find his name mentioned in many places, but I am unable to find any significant coverage about him. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:39, 9 December 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 to Draft:Shut In (2022 film). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Shut In (2022 film)

Shut In (2022 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Premature article. Doesn't pass GNG, NFILM or NFF (notability of future films). Per NFF, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." There was nothing notable about this film's production or even post-production, therefore it is premature to have a standalone article until release, at earliest. Even after release, this film is not planned for general release in theatres or video, so it might not qualify then either. This film is slated exclusively for Daily Wire subscribers (with a later international launch). [17] [18] So far, all the sources I've found for this movie are either primary sources (by Daily Wire) or are based on press releases (not independent and therefore don't qualify towards notability). Per WP:NFSOURCES, "Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent." It already has a paragraph in The Daily Wire article, but at this point the standalone article is just [non-notable] advertising. Delete. Platonk ( talk) 22:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • You'll have to re-open it back if it's deleted anyway so don't worry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:3079:B7D1:2FBC:9CCF ( talk) 03:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Comment What? WikiJoeB ( talk) 06:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify Might be notable once released. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete I found the production notable in that the screenplay was featured on the Black List survey and the fact that controversial figure Vincent Gallo is coming out of retirement to act in the film. I think these two factors count towards the notability factor enough to keep this page. Either way, I think Gallo's involvement (as well as the film's distribution on a somewhat controversial political platform) will definitely warrant an article when the film is released. I don't think the page should be deleted but if it is deemed premature, I think it should be saved as a draft as I think it is obvious the film will garner notable attention upon its release. Brboyle ( talk) 12:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Brboyle ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply
    • No, fanboy notations do not make for notability in production. Notability during production means something like a new groundbreaking technique of special effects (covered in depth), or someone accidentally getting shot on set and getting news coverage for weeks. It doesn't mean some sort of 'inherited notability' because some actor gets a new job after 8 years. Platonk ( talk) 17:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I feel that you are being slightly condescending to me. Fanboy notations? The Black List is an industry survey that Wikipedia has a page on and indicates favorite unproduced screenplays amongst industry professionals. It's a notable survey and its inclusion on that survey made me feel the film's production was notable. Also, Vincent Gallo isn't "some actor" he is an actor that Wikipedia deems important enough to have an extensive article on. If you think it should be deleted just let the deletion consensus play out, I was just explaining what my thought process was. I don't think Wikipedia really enforces the idea that a notable incident or groundbreaking special effects have to occur during production had to have occurred for the film to warrant an article before it comes out. Check Emergency (upcoming film). It is basically very similar in content to this page and is the reason I felt this film was notable enough for an article. The film is deemed notable in the production section not because of an on-set incident or groundbreaking special effects but because it was on the 2020 Blacklist, and its sources are based on press released either regarding the 2020 Black List or the film's production in general (which happens to be sourced from Deadline, the same source used in the Shut In article). Heck, that film doesn't even have a release date yet. By your standard shouldn't that film's page also be nominated for deletion? Brboyle ( talk) 20:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I was referring to 'excitement' garnered pre-release and spread by fanboys all over the internet and some editors thinking that is 'coverage'; such do not make for notability. Again, I point you to WP:NOTINHERIT. Notability isn't inherited from a screenplay ever being on an industry list, nor from the film's use of an actor who was controversial enough to get blacklisted from his own industry for 8 years (necessitating an off-Hollywood non-union gig). Having a company decide it wants to break out into filmmaking and taking this up as one of their earliest projects does not inherit notability from them, either. So far you have produced three citations: 2 generated from press releases and one press release from DW. You should have created this as a draft in anticipation of later notability. So far, it doesn't have it; not just that you haven't shown it in the article. That there are other articles which have slipped through the AfC/NPP cracks though failing WP:NFF is an irrelevant argument. I'll probably nom for AfD that other article you mentioned. Platonk ( talk) 02:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify until released and reviewed. The author's points above are not totally unreasonable, but they still seem a bit borderline in my opinion. The work put in this far though can still be WP:PRESERVED until some additional coverage comes after release per WP:ATD-I. - 2pou ( talk) 21:28, 4 December 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 23:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Cisco Wireless IP Phone 7920

Cisco Wireless IP Phone 7920 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable phone. Fails WP:N. SL93 ( talk) 21:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Only has passing mentions in Google Scholar results [19], the usual non-independent sources [20], websites listing it for sale [21] [22], and a “.edu” website hosting a PDF of a user manual for the phone [23]. Jobie James ( talk) 21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WikiJoeBee. Couldn't find anything significant about this particular VoIP phone model either. WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk) 18:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Can't find reliable source for it. Mommmyy ( talk) 19:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. This AfD failed to get significant involvement from a reasonable number of editors despite having already been relisted twice. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 ( talk) 05:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Alphonse Moussette

Alphonse Moussette (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, this was created at a time when our inclusion criteria for mayors was "inherently notable if the city has crossed the 50K bar in population", but that was deprecated several years ago -- in 2021, the notability bar for mayors requires a substantial and well-sourced article that establishes the significance of their mayoralty by addressing specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects they had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just documents that he existed as mayor, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, which is exactly the kind of article about a mayor that caused us to deprecate the old "50K = free pass" standard. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the referencing from having to be considerably better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 18:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. It depends on if you consider the Ottawa Citizen a RS. They ran a front-page story on his death called "Hull's Chieftain Dies, Aged 59", which covered his political and personal life (source here); coverage of him winning the mayor's seat with "J. Alphonse Moussette Elected Hull Mayor" (source here); and covered that he was a member of the inagural Hull Red Cross board (source here). There's also coverage from the Ottawa Journal, which covered him winning the mayor's seat and gave his political backstory with the story "Moussette Elected Mayor of Hull Defeating Bilodeau by 1,100" ( here); and a lawsuit he filed in the Quebec Court of Appeals (source here). He was additionally and alderman before becoming mayor, and according to the French Wiki, he has a park, street, and beach named after him in Ottowa. So there is coverage out there. -- Kbabej ( talk) 00:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply
That isn't enough to establish the notability of a mayor in and of itself. Mayors are not permanently established as notable just because it's possible to show a couple of "mayor wins election" hits in the local media — covering elections in the local coverage area is literally local media's primary job, and thus every mayor who existed at all can always show one or two of those, so we would always have to keep an article about every single person who was ever mayor of anywhere if that were all it took. The notability test for mayors requires a lot of coverage throughout his mayoralty, enabling us to write a substantial article about the significance (not just the existence) of his mayoralty, but the Red Cross and lawsuit hits aren't enough to do that since the Red Cross hit just namechecks his existence without being about him and the lawsuit hit is just a short blurb. And no, mayors don't get an automatic notability freebie just because they have streets or parks named after them in the local area, either. Bearcat ( talk) 14:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply
That makes sense. What about the “Hull Chieftain Dies” front page article? I’m basing my “weak Keep” !vote with that as the primary RS for this subject. — Kbabej ( talk) 22:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:11, 3 December 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. Star Mississippi 15:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Piru Sáez

Piru Sáez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Text in Spanish. Only reference is IMDb. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - a big thanks to User:Chelokabob for adding the references to the article establishing that notability is met. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:43, 9 December 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 23:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Tawfik Alolo

AfDs for this article:
Tawfik Alolo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence of a competitive appearance for AC Horsens or Olympique de Marseille so this actually fails WP:NFOOTBALL (please note that the Ghanaian league is now at WP:NOTFPL following a lengthy discussion). None of the 3 cited sources provide significant, detailed coverage of Alolo. Google News searches of Toufiq Alolo, Tawfik Alolo and Toffik Alolo bring back nothing at all. Using a DDG search, I was able to find a match report in Modern Ghana that mentions him in passing but nothing towards WP:GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:08, 3 December 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 23:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Jajang (footballer)

Jajang (footballer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer played 3 games in January 2013 then his career seemingly ended as there is no indication anywhere of any ongoing career. In the context of the Asuka Nose AfD, where a footballer with 6 professional games was deleted, I would argue that a footballer with 3 games should also be deleted unless any significant coverage is found to indicate, at the very least, a likelihood of passing WP:GNG. Searches such as this one yield only coverage about footballers with similar names such as Jajang Mulyana, Jajang Sukmara and Jajang Nurjaman all of whom warrant articles. There is nothing at all about this Jajang, though, and even the other language Wikipedia articles for Jajang have no meaningful content so I can't see this article having any potential to be anything more than a Soccerway mirror. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Like you say it is presumed, but here the presumption is challenged, and the community is asked to concretize what might be encyclopedic about Jajang. The precedent is pretty ample. Geschichte ( talk) 19:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
We could also ask the question "What is the point of having GNG if we don't follow it?" There is plenty of consensus that articles on footballers with a handful of appearances several years ago but who comprehensively fail GNG should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masaya Sato (footballer, born 1989) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junichi Watanabe (footballer, born 1988) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryuki Matsuya and others. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: Per above, this is also stated at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES. GauchoDude ( talk) 16:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NSPORT is explicitly subordinate to GNG in all cases, whether someone meets a sport-specific guideline or "barely scrapes by". This is in the first sentence of NSPORT, in the FAQs at the top of the page, and in the first section (where it says In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.). Therefore, given the lack of SIGCOV, the subject does not meet the requirements for notability. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:27, 8 December 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. Geschichte ( talk) 20:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Stefan Kostka

Stefan Kostka (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Virtually no coverage—let alone substantial coverage—in reliable secondary sources, so fails WP:GNG. The book he co-authored seems more notable, with a few reviews covering it, but such notability doesn't seem to extend to Kostka himself. Brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory#Is this theorist really notable enough for WP? and the conclusion there seems to have been aligned with mine. Aza24 ( talk) 19:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Aza24 ( talk) Thanks for explanation. Worth noting is that the Tonal Harmony book is by far the more recognized and influential publication. Apologize if I was unclear. I will obtain additional references and information to substantiate the article. Dash Incredible ( talk) 21:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Keep. I'm delaying my !vote for the time being. While he seems to fail GNG and most criteria of NPROF, I'm wondering whether his book (Materials and techniques of twentieth-century music) gets him over the line for Criterion No. 1. 616 GS citations seems like a lot for a low-citation field. Here are a few examples of other contemporary music theorists with WP articles: Edward Aldwell (highest citation count: 733), Allen Forte (highest citation count: 2082), Roland C. Jordan (highest citation count: 549), Edward T. Cone (highest citation count: 908). Many in the "American music theorists" category had substantially worse numbers. My survey of the category makes me think that his book is enough to satisfy the criterion with reference to his sub-discipline. I'm going to look for some reviews to perhaps substantiate this impression. (It is only co-authored, on the other hand; perhaps the Tonal Harmony book could help as well.) Modussiccandi ( talk) 20:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm linking two reviews of his Materials and techniques of twentieth-century music ( [24] and [25]). I'm also now !voting to keep because of the reviews needed to satisfy WP:AUTHOR.) Modussiccandi ( talk) 23:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No real indication of importance. Does not meet NPROF Salimfadhley ( talk) 20:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak DeleteWeak Keep I think the deciding factor for me is that while the book is unquestionably notable, it's not necessarily the sort of research that WP:NACADEMIC guideline 1 is envisioning. Forte's not a good comparison here - his academic research influenced hundreds of subsequent scholars. Counting citations to an introductory textbook is a weird case; it doesn't necessarily indicate the same level of notability that a corresponding number of citations to a research paper would. You could make the argument that by choosing the arrangement and emphasis of the materials in the textbook Kostka had a major influence - but that just tells me that the book needs an article, not the author. PianoDan ( talk) 22:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I had not considered WP:AUTHOR. I still think he fails WP:PROF, but I think he DOES pass under the author metric, so I'm changing my vote. PianoDan ( talk) 00:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Deleting this article would deprive Wikipedia readers of some information about an author who is cited in almost 50 Wikipedia articles and widely outside Wikipedia, including the MGG. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 00:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • It is worth noting that I am unable to find any sources that verify almost any of the career "information about [the] author", meaning it would likely be removed in its near-entirety if this article is deleted. Aza24 ( talk) 01:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • When you mentioned an MGG citation, I went looking in the online version. To be clear, Kostka doesn't have an ENTRY in the MGG. (at least, not that I can find in the online version) Michael Bednarek ( talk · contribs), can you add whatever cite you're looking at to the article if it seems to fit? That would certainly improve verifiability of information that would otherwise need to be removed as unsourced. PianoDan ( talk) 16:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • True, he doesn't have an entry in MGG, but his Materials and Techniques is cited in "Serielle Musik" there. His Bibliography of Computer Applications in Music is cited in Grove in "Computers and music" and "Bibliography of American music". -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
        • A source about his education, which was mentioned above as missing, have now been added. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 00:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. I think we have enough book reviews for a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. under wp:prof a author of what the workgroup tells us is a mjor textbook. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 20:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Constantinos Louvaris

Constantinos Louvaris (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His 67 mins of league football and 45 mins of cup football provide only a very weak presumption of notability. A search, including one involving Greek sources yielded only a transfer announcement (translated), a post on his club's own website and a copied and pasted post from his Facebook page (translated).

None of this is independent WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 3 December 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. Geschichte ( talk) 08:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Libera Chat

Libera Chat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this completely non-notable network is a honeypot for open-source communities to move to, then the IRCops ban their users after harassing them. just a complex trolling venture, similar to 4chan or ED or other hate sites. Libera and Freenode are major reasons why IRC is nearly dead as a communications medium. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 19:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete. There is sufficient sourcing to establish notability, which is what we actually must consider when discussing deletion, not whether the network is contributing to the downfall of IRC as a medium. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 19:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GorillaWarfare. The article has various sources in each section. Nomination reason is mostly opinion based. Jobie James ( talk) 20:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Keep per GorillaWarfare, notability is clearly established by sources. And, even if it were a "complex trolling venture" (it's not), we have articles on 4chan and ED, so that's not really a reason for deletion either. Legoktm ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    My understanding is that the nominator was recently blocked from the #libera channel, so this seems like some kind of retaliation nomination. Legoktm ( talk) 23:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GorillaWarfare and considering Wikimedia uses Libera for IRC ClaudineChionh ( talk – contribs) 23:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
That doesn't seem like a very compelling reason ( WP:NAVELGAZING). jp× g 06:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep; this article seems to obviously clear WP:GNG and the nominator has made no argument otherwise (apart from the opers being jerks, which may be true for all I know but is completely irrelevant to notability). jp× g 06:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep; A honeypot for open-source and complex trolling venture? Wikipedia's IRC uses Libera IRC network, so is that a honey pot too? Sorry, but this seems like a bad faith deletion listing, and the nominator is exhibiting WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk) 18:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Obviously keep. Broken Segue 00:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; This page has information that corroborates, complements and balances the information found on the Freenode page. A deletion process, if needed, shoulld consider the content of both pages. Libera Chat content could be improved and enriched, but is no subject to deletion in my eyes. Francois Polito ( talk) 10:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per all above. Mann Mann ( talk) 09:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Snow keep as above, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid nomination rationale. This passes WP:GNG unquestionably. snood1205( Say Hi! (talk)) 02:30, 10 December 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) 18:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

List of sport utility vehicles

List of sport utility vehicles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like an absurd page to even exist. Arguments are the following:

1. This is functionally a category (actually, multiple categories stapled together, we'll get to that in a minute), not a list suited for the mainspace.

3. There is no possible way this list will ever be exhaustive at any point in the future. Dozens (possibly hundreds) of SUVs/CUVs are released and discontinued each year, often multiple variants thereof.

2. This isn't even list that is possible to define cleanly, and is incredibly broad. The description already tacitly admits this — crossovers and sport utility trucks are included. Vehicles may be defined as SUV in one territory, and not as an SUV in another territory. No coffee, please. ( talk) 17:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There are a lot of list articles that are virtually the same as categories, just in article form, including List of pickup trucks and List of sports cars. It's somewhat difficult to list every SUV, but it's not impossible because only a couple models are released each month. This list might need a cleanup but I don't think it needs to be deleted. Waddles  🗩  🖉 18:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Could this be turned into a list of lists, with the contents split out into several, more narrowly defined lists? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If its too long then break it off into other list articles for the different types of SUVs. Also erase those entries that don't have their own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 20:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This looks like a perfectly legitimate list. Sure some vehicles don't neatly fit into SUV, but we have SUV as a topic and list of such vehicles makes sense. The broadness of it can be dealt with by splitting into sublists if that's really needed. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Improve the internal detailing within the page to make major distinctions clear. Footnotes, colours, paragraphs, notes etc can be used. DTM ( talk) 06:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 20:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Holy Cross Convent School, Akola

Holy Cross Convent School, Akola (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Just sourced with a related source.Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. A search point to listings, WP-clones and social media. The Banner  talk 17:24, 3 December 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. Geschichte ( talk) 20:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Sweetie Irie

Sweetie Irie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a mess, backed up by a single source. A WP:BEFORE search shows up very little in terms of sources outside of the subject's own social media Dexxtrall ( talk) 15:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 20:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Chew, Washington

Chew, Washington (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable passing siding on the railroad; not a community. Mangoe ( talk) 14:52, 3 December 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. Per consensus agreeing with the merits described in the nom, and also G5. Not calling this speedy since the discussion ran the full length, but it certainly would have been eligible as such. Star Mississippi 15:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Polina Kempf

Polina Kempf (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. ProD was removed because she won a gold medal at the European Games, however these were not the European Championships for Waterpolo, but a junior event (as described in our article: "The aquatic sports are only open to junior-level competitors"). Searching for news reports about her (Latin or Cyrillic) only gives passing mentions, not enough to establish notability. Fram ( talk) 14:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • ...and these various World Junior Championships are relevant to the European Games how? Geschichte ( talk) 19:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
None of those are water polo, and even if they were, the European Games are not equivalent to the listed junior international competitions. And anyway regardless of whether she meets a sport-specific guideline, she must have GNG-qualifying SIGCOV in IRS to have an article. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "«СКИФ-ЦОП Москомспорта» выиграл серебро чемпионата России". waterpolomoscow.ru (in Russian). April 30, 2021.
  • Delete, fails WP:SPORTCRIT in not having competed on the highest level of her sport. Geschichte ( talk) 19:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as has been pointed out by other users, the criteria for notability have not (yet) been met; it is clear that Kempf has not competed at the top level. Akakievich ( talk) 07:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete (also under G5). Non-notable mass creation by Slowking4 sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra ( talk • contribs)
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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Multiverse (EdTech)

Multiverse (EdTech) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and also does not satisfy WP:NCORP MickyShy ( talk) 12:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as it stands - created by an apparently promotional SPA (I asked on their talk page if they were an undisclosed paid editor and they haven't edited since). There's an extensive WP:REFBOMB - but almost all RS sourcing in the article is fundraising rounds (which specifically don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH); almost all other sourcing is RS passing mentions, small trade blogs, press releases and press release churnalism. The total coverage that is independent in-depth RS sourcing is the Wired article on the company under its previous name. I asked in talk what the three best sources clearly demonstrating notability were, no answers as yet - David Gerard ( talk) 18:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Keep- The article as it stands doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH but there is more detailed coverage out there demonstrating notability. From a quick look around, I've added references from the Economist, Times, CNBC etc that do pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd sway towards keeping and improving. 137.220.68.182 ( talk) 22:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Apologies - was not logged in. Have continued to research and the company seems notable. There are at least a handful of sources that meet the criteria under WP:SIRS, and the company is the subject of several newspaper columns by prominent journalists ( eg). Am bumping my comment up to a keep. Ninetytwoseventeen ( talk) 23:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Can you point to any references that meet WP:ORGIND, specifically those with "Independent Content"? HighKing ++ 21:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most of the available references seem to center around successful funding rounds and the fact that one of the founders is Tony Blair's son. None of which help for notable. I doubt the company would be receiving any media attention if it wasn't for the connection to a prominent politician. Since it seems like a pretty run of the mill company otherwise and hasn't even raised that much money in the grand scheme of things. In the meantime, notability isn't inherited. There isn't even an article for Euan Blair at this point. It would be weird to have one for his startup without there even being one for him. Not I think there should be an article on him though, but having one for his company when he's the only thing that makes it at all notable is really putting the cart before the horse. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 21:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The CNN source is superficial, the Wired source is just a digested interview, per Adamant1 the other available references don't look much better, half the page is routine fundraising blather... Maybe it's not as dreadful as some, but I can't honestly make a case for why this article should exist, and in those situations where a page will likely degenerate into advertising, we need an affirmative case to keep it. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Agree with what Ninetytwoseventeen said. Some good coverage are here: techcrunch.com, fenews.co.uk and recruiter.co.uk. Chelokabob ( talk) 09:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • TechCrunch coverage is funding rounds, which are specifically not usable for WP:CORPDEPTH, and TechCrunch itself is specifically not usable for notability per WP:RSP - David Gerard ( talk) 17:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Firstly there was not a consensus per WP:RSP for Techcrunch not being acceptable, but it says it should be viewed cautiously. Secondly, there are 2 articles on Techcrunch [37] and [38]. They both have several paragraph of info about the company, other than funding info. You would have a good point if the articles were solely about funding. This article is also very good and indepth Wired Chelokabob ( talk) 19:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have added some new info and a citations, including startups.co.uk which ranked them as the top company on their Top 100 startups of 2021, which in itself is notable and Vanity Fair. Chelokabob ( talk) 19:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • No, it isn't notable "in itself". Getting listed in a random "Top 100" list is not regarded as meeting the criteria for notability. HighKing ++ 21:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 21:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Comment Here are some of the better sources and evaluation. Tell me how they are not acceptable:
1) Startup.co.uk and Startup.co.uk profile - Independent, Significant coverage (2 paragraph + profile page), Reliable source
2) protocal.com - Some quotations, but mostly commentary by the writer. Independent, Significant, Reliable source
3) recruiter.co.uk - Independent, Significant, Reliable source
4) FE News - Independent, Significant, Reliable source
5) Techcrunch Jan 2021 -16 paragraphs of it is about the company that is not about Raising funds or quotation. - Independent, Significant, Reliable source? No Consensus per WP:RSP
6) Techcrunch Sept 2021 - 10 paragraphs of it is not about funding or quotations. - Independent, Significant, Reliable source? No Consensus per WP:RSP
7) times.co.uk Behind paywall, can only see 2 paragraphs but appears in-depth. - Independent, Significant, Reliable source (on WP:RSP list)
8) CNN - 4 paragraphs of info. - Independent, Significant (medium length), Reliable source (on WP:RSP list)
9) Vanity Fair(Italian version) - Independent, Significant, Reliable source (English version on WP:RSP list)
10) WIRED - Independent (Some quotations, but mostly commentary), Significant, Reliable source (on WP:RSP list)
11) The Times 2nd article - Independent, Significant (behind pay wall, but enough appears on top to seem significant), Reliable source (on WP:RSP list)
- Note about Techcrunch from WP:RSP: "Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability." Still I believe the 2 articles above or reliable and would not appear that this writer has COI, since she is not a contributing writer. Chelokabob ( talk) 00:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Sure, but it would have been more helpful it you'd read WP:NCORP carefully yourself and especially read the definition for "Independent Content" in ORGIND. It is also relatively simple to find the same information/quotes/photos/etc being used across multiple difference publications covering the same topic which is a red-flag that the reference is relying on information provided by the company and (in my experience) likely not to have any "Independent Content".
  • Profile in startups.co.uk contains zero "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. It's simply a regurgitated description of the company, its objectives, funding and key executives without a shred of "in-depth" "*original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". The listing in this organization's "Top 100" is meaningless as both the organization and the "award" is non-notable.
  • This in protocol.com is a standard puff piece that relies entirely on information provided by either the company or by individuals connected with the company (such as Marsterston who got a job via the apprentice system or the extensive number of quotes in the article by the CEO). Same photo used in lots of other articles and announcements. There is no "Independent Content" (on the company) and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This from recruiter.co.uk is based entirely on an interview with the CEO and has no "Independent Content", for example the same photo was provided by the company for other articles, fails ORGIND
  • This from fenews.co.uk is a Primary Source as the "attributed journalist" is the company. Fails WP:RS.
  • This first reference from TechCrunch is a puff piece relies entirely on the various announcements and extensive reliance on quotes from the CEO and their lead investor. There are some comments by the journalist on whether the name "Blair" might open some doors but not nearly enough to say that there is sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" to meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails ORGIND.
  • The next from TechCrunch relies heavily on this PR announcement of their new funding round and summarises the company's offerings and previous rounds but offers no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
  • This puff piece on the CEO might meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the CEO, but fails the ORGIND section of NCORP since the article relies entirely on the CEO or the company for information on the company.
  • This mention in CNN provides a bland company description and a quote from their vice president and general manager of its North America operations. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • This puff piece on the CEO, like the Times puff piece, fails ORGIND for the purposes of establishing the notability of the *company*. Also note where the photos originate.
  • This Wired article is another puff piece that relies entirely on interviews with the founders and information provided by the company. It has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This digest in The Times contains nothing that isn't found in this announcement by their lead investor or this announcement in recruiter.co.uk, has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
There's no doubt the company exists and has been successful in raising capital and has a great marketing department but as of today, none of the articles meet NCORP and it is probably WP:TOOSOON. HighKing ++ 12:47, 8 December 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.

Cyclone Jawad

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

The result was Keep because the original article that was the subject of this nomination was accidentally deleted. The draft was moved into the main space at the same title as the original article. The discussion below has a clear consensus that the draft is acceptable to be in the mainspace. Closing this as a keep as a result. ( non-admin closure) Noah Talk 03:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply


Cyclone Jawad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A draft already exist. No need for the article, plus the article is very poorly written with no reliable source. Bera niladri19 🌀🌀 12:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, since that article covers the topic already. No prejudice to a future G6 to make way for a draft move, assuming that the draft is notable enough (highly doubtful as of now). Chlod ( say hi!) 17:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    It actually is probably ok for an article. Not just a fish storm as it has killed one person so far and all the preps/evacuations happening are just extra info to fill the article. Elijahandskip ( talk) 18:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Elijahandskip: Preparations are usually done prior to impact; this is a routine event that happens to almost all storms with a chance of affecting a country. What really pulls together the notability of a storm is its impact, and one death is not enough to justify an entire article as that can fit easily within the season article. We'd be saving time (both for readers and editors) if it were all consolidated into the season article given the minimal (i.e. can be described in a few sentences) impact. I guess another factor for notability is meteorological significance, which, I don't think this storm qualifies for either. Chlod ( say hi!) 05:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Fair enough. Well when this Afd debate is done and it is deleted, WP Weather can start a discussion about the draft vs season article. Elijahandskip ( talk) 06:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Changing to Keep given the recent presence of decent coverage. Chlod ( say hi!) 07:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There is now a CSD tag instructing admins to delete this article and move the draft to this title which I was going to do until I saw this discussion and that this was not a unanimous decision. I'm going to untag the page for now and ask editors to please not ask to move articles that are subject to a deletion discussion unless there is a clear consensus to delete the article. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Liz:, the only comment that is to keep it, is an anonymous editor who attempted to do a merge during an Afd. There is a clear consensus to delete. The redirect from Chlod was said so there would not be "prejudice to a future G6 to make way for a draft move". I think there is a clear consensus to delete, so I don't know why you say there is not one. Elijahandskip ( talk) 00:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Very important to note the "assuming that the draft is notable enough" part here. Chlod ( say hi!) 05:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Of course, but either way, you agree the "article" should be off mainspace. That was the main part of my comment. Liz said there was a "unless there is a clear consensus to delete the article" and in an edit summary undoing the speedy delete said "there is not a clear consensus for this at the AFD discussion", which is why I commented that there really is a clear consensus to at least delete the article. The draft part is a different discussion to have at a later time. For now, we need to get the article off mainspace. Elijahandskip ( talk) 05:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
There was also the opinion that this page should be turned into a redirect which is why I said it wasn't unanimous. I just was expressing my view as I looked over this AFD, I have no opinion about the fate of this page. I don't generally participate in AFDs, I look over pages tagged for speedy deletion and while I have seen requests in AFDs to do a uncontroversial speedy delete on a page, I've never seen a requested page deletion & move during an AFD so I had questions. There is no urgency, any move can wait until this discussion closes. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete – On procedural grounds. This "article" that is under discussion should've never been created. Instead the draft should've been published to mainspace. Honestly, the draft should've been created directly in the article mainspace instead of the draft space, since it concerned an ongoing/recent event - drafts rarely receive the widespread attention that articles on current events require, anyway. This is already a mess, and the only way I can see to resolve it is to either delete the current "article" and publish the draft, or immediately redirect the article, and then use a round-robin move (this requires Page-Mover rights) to publish the draft to the current title. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 01:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Immediate delete - The draft reads better and this one doesn’t read like an article. Kaseng55 ( talk) 06:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Apologies, I didn't see this AFD. I moved the draft to the main page. Seeing as there is some simultaneous page history, should I restore the edits of the old page (the subject of this AFD), which would create some back and forth between the versions? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Hurricanehink: Um, I don't know what the procedure for this would be. Just based on !votes, the old article would have been deleted with 8 delete !votes (+1 redirect, still a delete) to 1 keep !vote from an IP editor who has caused multiple problems during the Afd. Logically, the Afd should be closed and some discussions should open up on WP's Weather's talk page about notability as a weather event, but half the time, logic doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia. I really don't know. Elijahandskip ( talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Sabeelul hidaya: It already was merged. Elijahandskip ( talk) 07:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The storm seems to have had considerable impact on 3 different states in India. I don't want to go WP:OtherStuffExists on the much less impactful storms with their articles, but this one seems to be WP:Notable enough and has numerous WP:RS regarding it. But yeah just stated my opinion, let the majority decide. Dilbaggg ( talk) 19:27, 6 December 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. Closing as the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

2020 UiTM FC season

2020 UiTM FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The league is not listed in WP:FPL, thus this clubs season page fails WP:NSEASONS. The article also fails WP:GNG. Govvy ( talk) 12:09, 3 December 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 per consensus, sources to support notability. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Rob Roy McGregor (admiral)

Rob Roy McGregor (admiral) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. Awards do not meet #1 of WP:ANYBIO, source analysis follows:


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://archive.org/details/luckybag1929unse No U.S. Naval Academy yearbook, with profiles of students Yes No alumni profile written in tongue in cheek style ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/image/52687379/ Yes Yes No Wedding announcement with 2 sentences about him ✘ No
http://www.fleetorganization.com/subcommandersclassyear2.html Yes No Page is a glorified blog No Page merely lists commanders and their commands ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/image/391116990/ Yes Yes ? Newspaper story only viewable through subscription ? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/image/268592229/ Yes Yes ? Newspaper story only viewable through subscription ? Unknown
https://newspaperarchive.com/coronado-eagle-and-journal-aug-11-1955-p-3/ Yes Yes ? Newspaper story only viewable through subscription ? Unknown
https://newspaperarchive.com/newport-mercury-and-weekly-news-jun-26-1953-p-3/ Yes Yes ? Newspaper story only viewable through subscription ? Unknown
https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/55088 Yes ? Debatable if Miltary Times is RS No Page simply contains his 3 Silver Star citations ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/image/456344461/ Yes Yes ? Newspaper story only viewable through subscription ? Unknown
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0570016/ Yes No IMDB is not considered RS No Mere listing for his role as a technical consultant ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Mztourist ( talk) 11:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment as the page had been ref-bombed by its creator, I have updated the source table above and continue it below from ref 11. As can be seen this is a collection of snippets with nothing significant and in-depth about him:


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Register of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the United States Navy and Marine Corps No U.S. Navy publication Yes No mere listing of promotions and commands, this applies to 6 refs in total ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/image/635175589/ Yes Yes ? Newspaper story only viewable through subscription ? Unknown
United States Submarine Operations in World War II Yes Yes ? Unable to access and assess ? Unknown
http://www.lisbonmaru.com/ No Page is to support sale of a book No Page is a blog No Can't see him mentioned anywhere ✘ No
Results of U.S. Submarine War Patrols No U.S. Navy publication Yes ? Unable to access and assess, presumably just a listing ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
I will never understand, if I write down information that isn't cited you would complain. So I cite the information I am adding and now I am being accused of "ref-bombing." I am only adding sources that support the material in the article. True not all of them lend to his notability, but they do lend to facts in the article. You only seem to be satisfied if the article is on the path to deletion, and don't really care about creating an encyclopaedia. McGregor in just about every book I have about the submarines in the Pacific Theatre, he is notable if you recognise it or not. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 19:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I can understand why this article was listed for discussion in the first place, but I am taking the time to develop the article. Still being the target of Mztourist, I am not surprised he is trying to discredit every source regardless if it is from online or from my personal library, but I would also like to remind everyone that a physical source or source requiring a subscription should not be discredited just because Mztourist cannot evaluate it. I will take time to develope the article further, I have a lot more information still to add. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 14:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Perhaps if you bothered creating detailed pages with reliable sources from the outset rather than a lot of minimally-referenced stubs as you have done they wouldn't be put up for deletion. All you have done with your massive refbombing is add a lot of snippets and side detail about submarines patrols rather than offer any indepth coverage about him. If he was actually notable there should be indepth coverage of him, but there clearly isn't. Mztourist ( talk) 03:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
If you wish I can start AFDing your minimally referenced stubs, there are plenty of them. You should take the time to fix your own articles before pointing your finger at someone else. It's funny, every time I AFD one of your articles you sit around and scream foul while AFDing everything else under the sun. I literally AFDed an article you wrote without a single source, remember? You just sat around screaming it was out of revenge, yet here we are again. You might want to read over WP:MILMOS#FLAGS before you reference it, and if you so strongly believe they shouldn't be in the info box, why are they in just about every biographical article you have written? WP:MILMOS#FLAGS states, "When dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death. " Jamesallain85 ( talk) 00:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
No I haven't created "plenty" of minimally referenced stubs. I don't create a page unless it contains useful and properly referenced information. But if you wish to try WP:REVENGE AFDing my pages again knock yourself out and see what happens. I really don't understand your approach to page creation, you created a whole lot of stub bio pages in December 2019 and January 2020. If you thought these people were notable and worthy of record why didn't you actually provide some detail about them to share with the world? Instead you gave minimally referenced 1-2 sentence thumbnails which tell us next to nothing. Now I would understand it if you were going to come back and expand them later, but after 2 years you still haven't done so and you only seem to make any effort to expand them when they're AFDed. It seems you were just keen to create a big list of all the pages you created to show on your User page rather than provide encyclopedic information. Mztourist ( talk) 03:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I have better things to do they play your petty games, keep AFDing my articles and making yourself look like an ass. Just like when you deleted my references and then AFDed the last article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley C. Norton, you are just going to fail again. You have some kind of an issue that goes beyond anything I can help you with, if it makes you feel almighty and powerful just keep trying I guess, I don't know what else to say. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 09:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
If only one of those "better things to do" was actually writing detailed properly referenced pages... Mztourist ( talk) 13:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Are you autistic? Because every time I attempt to discuss something with you, you hang on one little issue and fail to grasp the larger picture of what is going on, and just ignore everything out of your little window. You are living in your own little world. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Move to the draft space Man was a flag officer, a hard rank to reach, and has awards to justify his claim, but hte article is a work in progress and needs help. I think it may be that its simply out in the mainspace too soon for its own good, and would recommend moving to the draft space for completion and fitting out before launching. TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep
I have changed to Keep. He does have the medals and he has made about dozen patrols, sinking several ships, but the article, I really don't like the referencing structure. I really don't like Newspaper story only viewable through subscription There is several places where you can view on WP, with editors, with a WikiProject and by signing up. scope_creep Talk 20:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Have you actually read any of the supporting book references? If not, how would you know if they support an article or not? Jamesallain85 ( talk) 14:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep For whatever reason, some of you didn't sign up yet to Wikipedia Library so you could read news articles at Newspaper.com, and thus can't see the significant coverage this person has received. Globe-Gazette (Mason City, Iowa) 08 Feb 1947, Sat Page 10 Submarine Skipper Coming With Caravan to Mason City They refer to him as "famed submarine skipper" and write: The "subs" under Capt. McGregor's command sank thousands of tons of Jap shipping during the late war. For these deeds he wears 3 silver medals, the successful sub-marine combat patrol emblem and the gold dolphins of the submarine service of the U. S. navy. He is one of the youngest officers in the navy to hold the rank of captain. The article goes on about him in detail. Dismissing the coverage found because "Newspaper story only viewable through subscription", is ridiculous. You can freely sign up for Wikipedia Library at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ Dream Focus 14:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • User:Dream Focus I have signed up for Wikipedia Library, I don't see Newspaper.com listed there, how are you accessing the Globe-Gazette story? Mztourist ( talk) 10:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    They have two things with similar names. Newspaper Archives and Newspapers.com by ancestry. Dream Focus 17:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:SOLDIER is deprecated and "its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged". - Ljleppan ( talk) 16:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Duly noted. Does not change the outcome. It is cumulative in any event, since there are lots of sources. See WP:Before, which makes article improvement a preference to deletion. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
7&6=thirteen, a myriad is inconsequential if the sources do not count towards notability. Which are the key sources which shaped your judgement here please? MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. in the nomination, the basis for deprecating many sources is that they require a subscription. WP policy is firmly established that this is not an adequate reason--sources need not be in open access. They are in principle available, and can be requested in multiple ways. including going to a library that hasacess or usingthe Resource Exchange. For book references, we assume good faith. They too are available in libraries. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per DF, 7&6 & DGG and all the criteria that has clearly been met. WHY is this nom even here? Have to wonder about that, and all the nasty comments as well. Clearly there's some personal issues that need to be sorted out somehwhere else, instead of wasting people's time here. - wolf 18:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per previous opinions. Amazes me that Admirals (with supporting sources) can be disputed when the rules for Actors, Singers, Professors and especially Sports people are so broad Lyndaship ( talk) 19:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I prefer to see that as a problem with SNGs. If everything was decided on available sourcing articles would probably be distributed in a more equitable fashion. - Indy beetle ( talk) 19:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Amazing isn't it? One can spend a career including commanding warships at war, reaching high command levels (or significant service in any field) and not be as notable as some passing pop singer or "personality" with reams of trivial press. Palmeira ( talk) 13:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I looked at the sources and did some digging in my university database, and was honestly expecting to find plenty of material, but in reality there's a lack of in-depth WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. A look at what the provided sources actually support seems to indicate this article is littered with WP:SYNTH ( some of my edits), which makes it appear much stronger than it really is. I sincerely wonder whether the books cited actually mentioned McGregor much at all, or if they are talking about the Grouper. The newspaper articles are almost all single mentions, with the exception of the wedding notice (probably info provided for by the family). - Indy beetle ( talk) 19:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment it's about as straightforward as a military bio can be, listing htesignificant commands and actions. Putting material in chronologicalorder is not SYNTH. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ DGG: SYNTH is writing The Navy would seemingly take back its punitive action against McGregor, as in March 1945 he would be awarded a second Silver Star when the source provided only demonstrates that he was given the award; it makes no comment about what the Navy was "seemingly" doing. Or writing While serving aboard the S-14, McGregor became qualified on submarines when the source provided doesn't say that. Articles with subjects that have SIGCOV generally don't have this problem, since the SIGCOV sources will weave the disparate facts about the person together. This is simply name drops in newspapers and in the naval register. - Indy beetle ( talk) 00:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Exactly, he has no significant coverage. This page is a string of name drops and non-independent sources bulked out with details about patrols that belong on the respective submarine pages. Mztourist ( talk) 09:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
This sort of synth was also common in many of the Tuskegeee Airmen articles (along with misrepresentation of sources). Since many of those were retained, it would appear source integrity is not especially important in many cases. Intothat darkness 13:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I note the inclusion of genealogy blogs to also “win” the deletion argument. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a correlation between an article being “rescued” and a decline in its integrity. - Indy beetle ( talk) 18:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Seriously? A blog called Time Detectives? This just keeps getting worse... Mztourist ( talk) 04:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as there are clearly enough sources to show notability. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 20:17, 10 December 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 00:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Miss Teen All American

Miss Teen All American (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pageant, essentially unsourced { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:56, 3 December 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 snow delete. Geschichte ( talk) 08:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Sri Balaji Video

Sri Balaji Video (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film distribution company. Unable to find significant coverage during a WP:BEFORE search that would indicate notability. Article created by a promotional account with a COI. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Article creator and frequent editor has COI, no News results, passing mentions on Google Books [39], the usual social pages [40] [41], and websites listing its existence [42] [43]. Jobie James ( talk) 21:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unable to find significant sources Juggyevil ( talk) 16:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Advert. Unable to find significant sources. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 06:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: Non notable. Kolma8 ( talk) 02:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:PROMO and a lack of any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 15:08, 8 December 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 10:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

All Pakistan Petrol Pumps Dealers Association's Demonstration 2021

All Pakistan Petrol Pumps Dealers Association's Demonstration 2021 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:IMPACT and WP:10YT. Geschichte ( talk) 10:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - It's difficult to gauge impact for a current events so soon after it has occurred, but this one looks be a lot of news coverage when it happened and that's it so WP:NOTNEWS seems to be very applicable. -- Whpq ( talk) 22:09, 9 December 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. Happy to restore for the purpose of merging, if anyone is interested in that. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply

DeskTime

AfDs for this article:
DeskTime (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous article instance was deleted at AfD in 2017. The present recently-created article instance is sourced to start-up coverage and to publicity around 2014 and 2017 studies published by the firm (including a Forbes Contributor item and an article authored by someone at the firm itself), which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Although a recent review of the product's features and pricing options can be found [44], I don't regard that as sufficient in itself for WP:NSOFT and am not finding the reliable, 3rd party coverage about the company and its product required to demonstrate attained notability. (A redirect to the Draugiem.lv parent could be an option, though DeskTime is not mentioned there.) AllyD ( talk) 09:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 09:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 09:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 09:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - PR fluff Dexxtrall ( talk) 11:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per AllyD. The only RS I could find is WP:FORBES, but the source doesn't seem to be independent of the subject being covered. Either way, the subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG threshold. WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk) 19:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Draugiem.lv since DeskTime appears to be a product of that company. Maybe at one time they thought of spinning it off to a separate company? The notability case is easier for a combined article on a company and its products, until each product reaches the threshold by itself. Or delete if that is consensus. W Nowicki ( talk) 15:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per W Nowicki, given sources proving the relationship between the software and company. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 11:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Are the sources in Latvian being taken into account for this article? Because a couple of sources are articles in the web editions of national newspapers in Latvia, that could definitely be considered as reliable sources and the articles are solely about the company, which should take it above the "trivial coverage" threshold. As the notability guidelines state that sources do not have to be written in English, my reasoning when translating the article into English was that these sources should be sufficient for notability. However, based on the comments above, I'm not sure whether these sources have been considered unreliable or just simply ignored? Cdsfd ( talk) 12:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It's not whether the sources are "reliable" or not, but whether they meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. They must also contain "Independent Content" and in-depth information. So nothing which simply regurgitates company executives or announcements but independent opinion/analysis etc. HighKing ++ 15:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The 2013 diena.lv item is effectively a paraphrase of the Forbes Contributor piece from 2 days previously, so I don't think has any stronger standing than the Forbes Contributor piece itself. The 2017 la.lv item consists largely of direct quotations from the company CEO. AllyD ( talk) 21:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either based on interviews, standard business listings or short articles based entirely on information provided by the company and/or their execs - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 15:07, 8 December 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 11:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The Real You

The Real You (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND; I can't find any significant coverage of this group. No reliable sources are cited (mostly a defunct web forum). The claims that their songs were used in MTV shows and that they toured with notable acts don't establish notability either (and I really can't find any evidence that they "toured overseas with Flo Rida", by the way). Lennart97 ( talk) 09:22, 3 December 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 per consensus, WP:OR. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Culture of Twitter

Culture of Twitter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough for a stand-alone article, already covered in main Twitter article Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - pointless article, straying well into WP:OR Dexxtrall ( talk) 12:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Pure OR, cannot be improved regardless of references. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 12:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per other commenters. I suppose it's remotely possible a reasonable article could be created here, but only remotely. Burn it down, and if anyone REALLY thinks they can make this topic notable, let them go through AfC. PianoDan ( talk) 18:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per others, pure WP:OR Rexh17 ( talk) 23:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per others. I found a series of Wired articles discussing this + I imagine that there's been some academic work on this topic, but it's nothing that can't be covered in the main article. ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 15:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per no original research. Mann Mann ( talk) 16:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as OR. HighKing ++ 21:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Though a merge with Twitter or Twitter usage would also be fine. It's baffling and a bit demoralizing that some of the comments here are so unnecessarily hostile, such as PianoDan's "burn it down" remark and Royal Autumn Crest's "cannot be improved" remark. What gives? Those comments and others here regarding original research are baseless and unsubstantiated. Currently this article is approximately a meta-article, which Wikipedia has thousands of examples of: Index of Turkey-related articles, List of lists of lists, etc. Wikipedia also has established articles on Twitter subcultures such as Black Twitter, so within this context, having an article about the culture of Twitter (as opposed to a specific subculture) is perfectly fine and likely expected by readers. Finally, this article also provides a nice target for redirects such as Meltdown May and Twitter thread, though as I said, with some edits to target articles, these redirects could easily point elsewhere. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I'm fine with merging anything worthwhile in that article into Twitter, but original research by its nature isn't appropriate on Wikipedia and no amount of modification can change that unless that the original research can be removed, and I don't think that was the case here. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 13:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G4). ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 22:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Khaas Re TV

AfDs for this article:
Khaas Re TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable YouTube channel. Fails notability. Behind the moors ( talk) 09:01, 3 December 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 11:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Ada, Delta

Ada, Delta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced and has been since 2009. I cannot find any evidence that a place of this name exists in Delta State at all. The only source I can find that mentions it and is not clearly circular is geoview.info, which is not particularly inspiring. An Ada-Irri exists in roughly the correct area, so I suspect a mixup. Rusalkii ( talk) 08:12, 3 December 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 11:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

GLOSS

GLOSS (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Total Promo content, fails WP:ORG Behind the moors ( talk) 07:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Hello. Thanks for your comments, but I would love to understand this a bit more. The subject is definitely notable, as they both have a large following and have had a lot of press published about them by major publishers. I only included the top tier publications as I thought that was a pre-requisite, but there are also several other publications that have written about them as well. In addition, I thought I wrote the piece in a very neutral tone, and it definitely isn't promotional. I am simply an artist that has followed their socials for a long time and was suprized they didn't already have a wiki entry given how much press they have received recently about the Banksy NFT they made. I also reviewed other wiki pages of similar social media companies like unilad and worldstarhiphop and made sure I wrote mine in a similar style. In any case, I have obviously spent quite a bit of time researching it and getting all the references correct, so I would appreciate the opportunity to further work on it rather than the article being deleted. Knightingales ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom; insufficient WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources; most of the sources are press releases or passing mentions. Created by single-purpose account who's first 10 edits were pointless edits to get autoconfirm status and all subsequent edits have been to promote things related to a company that it trying to associate itself with Banksy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep With respect, it is unfair to say that my first edits were 'pointless'. I was new to Wikipedia, and making small, grammatical and punctuation changes is how you start to learn the platform. I have subsequently made several, larger edits to improve Wikipedia and am continuing to learn how the various Talk Pages and other resources operate on this platform. Finally, I am not trying to promote anything. I follow the account on social media and noticed they didn't have a wiki page while other similar businesses like worldstarhiphop does, so I thought I would make one. Knightingales ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:ORG. I've been unable to verify the "most watched video creator across the globe" claim at Tubular Labs as their stat archives only go back a few months, unable to verify the Cannes Lions Festival of Creativity award as the link is dead, and after finding that the "No. 3 globally in the Top Media & Entertainment Properties" source was actually talking about LADbible it becomes apparent that... all the claims being made about GLOSS, and most of the article content (even the April 3 date of foundation) are just copied from Wikipedia's LADbible article. I've removed all the awards and history copied from LADbible. It's possible the hoax goes further and "media company Gloss" and "NFT website GLOSS" are not the same organisation, the only reliable source about the Banksy artwork stunt does not explicitly link it to a particular company website or NFT auction site. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 09:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per WP:PROMO, a self-serving promotional article. HighKing ++ 15:01, 8 December 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 11:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Dharia (singer)

Dharia (singer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable singer. Fails WP:GNG WP:SINGER Behind the moors ( talk) 07:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment: @ Behind the moors I don't think she's an Indian singer. I believe she's Romanian. Eevee01( talk) 08:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Eevee01 Yes, you are right. This page should be deleted speedy. Behind the moors ( talk) 08:33, 3 December 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 17:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Albé Geldenhuys

Albé Geldenhuys (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure Promo. Fails WP:GNG Behind the moors ( talk) 07:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete - The material is in part copied from probably press releases which were incorporated into "articles" like this reference. The rest of it reads exactly like a press release. I'd say this qualifies for speedy deletion under G11 and G12. -- Whpq ( talk) 22:16, 9 December 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 Jack Christian. ✗ plicit 11:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Filmology Finance

Filmology Finance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Finance company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- coverage is largely WP:PASSING mentions in articles about films or actors. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:04, 3 December 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 11:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hipólito Sánchez Rodríguez

Hipólito Sánchez Rodríguez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A person of local note only. Sources are lacking. Clarityfiend ( talk) 06:39, 3 December 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 11:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Anastasia Yankova

Anastasia Yankova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She fails WP:MMABIO notability criteria, as she does not have any fights in a top tier promotion, her highest ranking according to FightMatrix was #39 in the Women's Flyweight division. Also fails WP:GNG, she appeared in a few Russian Nike commercials but I highly doubt that's enough to pass GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 06:07, 3 December 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. OtherPancakes does not address the reasons for deletion provided in the nomination. Sandstein 17:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Zack: Enfrentamiento Mortal

Zack: Enfrentamiento Mortal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repeatedly recreated article. Appears largely promotional about non-notable film. No references have been offered other than self-created/editable sources like IMDB, or sites with press releases from the creator. It's a "written, directed by, starring" one person project. Needs to show notability. JamesG5 ( talk) 03:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. This website provides a (from what I can tell from translations) a critical review of the film: “ I still can't find the words to describe Zack: Deadly Showdown. The closest I can come is "Bollywood, Boricua style", with all the absurdities, exaggerations and insanity that goes with it...and then some. This film doesn't follow any known rules, but rather establishes its own, only to end up breaking them. I had a brutal time, though probably not for the reasons Lando expects. I want to see it again in a room full of people under the influence of substances. I'm not sure writing that is legal but, if I end up in a cell, it will be with a smile as long as I get my wish.” Jobie James ( talk) 04:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Message by creator of the article: Hello everyone. I am OtherPancakes, the creator of the 'Zack: Enfrentamiento Mortal' article. I created this article because I wanted people of Wikipedia to find out and read information about this wonderful film. In fact, as a Spanish speaker, I have watched the film, and have updated the article accordingly, adding new information that is accurate to what the film is about, as well as outside information without any spoilers for the film. I have added information on the plot, cast, music, and production. This information has come from my experience by watching the film, as well as other sources that I cited in the references section of the article. I will probably continue to edit the article, adding new information and updating existing text. Anyone who wishes to contact me may do so via my talk page, linked below.

OtherPancakes ( talk) 02:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC) MrP4nc4k35 ( talk) reply

Continuation of previous message: I am aware that Wikipedia pages are not based off sole opinion, and that they must remain neutral wherever possible. That is why I must note that the page contains detailed descriptions of every category listed, and that the majority of the information written comes from verifiable sources, rather than opinions. Hence, I'm siding with the course of action to keep the page, rather than delete it.

OtherPancakes ( talk) 17:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC) OtherPancakes reply

  • Delete Seems largely promotional and there is no RS to establish notability. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 23:00, 7 December 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 due to lack of participation. Aervanath ( talk) 20:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Cedric Noel

Cedric Noel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not seem to have much coverage in reliable secondary sources. I notice that we also have Draft:Cedric Noel which was declined for lack of notability.

Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • information 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: 2021-11 ✍️ create
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:30, 3 December 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. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 ( talk) 05:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Shujitsu University

Shujitsu University (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. ThatIPEditor - Public ( talk) 19:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The Japanese Wikipedia article is awful ( sasuga, jawiki). Nothing in it suggests notability. Mlb96 ( talk) 06:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Yahoo! News refers to seven Okayama universities including Okayama University of Science and Shujitsu University (岡山理科大学や就実大学など市内7つの大学). Given this, I'm willing to err on the side of notability. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 14:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete Most of the references in the Japanese article are primary. Except for two. Neither of which looks super great. My guess is that if there was usable sources out there that they would already be in the Japanese article. That said, I'm airing on the weak side because who really knows. Maybe there are some. I don't speak Japanese and don't want to presume to know, but we still have to work with what we do or don't have meantime. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 08:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The Manvils

AfDs for this article:
The Manvils (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Buried Love (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Strange Disaster (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article about a band with no particularly strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test requires concrete evidence that they have accomplished something significant (charting hits, notable music awards, etc.), referenced to independent third party coverage in real media. But the strongest notability claim here is that some of their music was used in film and television, which (a) is not sourced, and (b) is the one claim in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article" proviso. And for referencing, it relies entirely on marketing content self-published by their own record labels, with no evidence of any media coverage shown at all.
Note that I'm also bunding the two albums of theirs which have Wikipedia articles, both of which are referenced solely to AllMusic directory entries that just provide the track listing without any form of written review by one of AllMusic's professional critics -- but to the extent that AllMusic can be a useful or notability-assisting source, it hinges on the written analysis, not the track listing per se.
Nothing stated in any of these articles is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 16:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Well, keep it I suppose. It's true that their albums appear to be self-published (looks like Sandbag Records is just them). That's not a good sign, at all. They do not meet meet NBAND, which puts them behind the eight-ball.
But... here is a full album review at The Georgia Straight which has an article. Reading the article, Georgia Straight looks notable enough to count. So there's one in-depth source. Then there is this review, one paragraph but a meaty one at PopMatters. PopMatters also has an article and also looks notable enough to count. So there's your WP:GNG right there FWIW. Here is the Globe and Mail with a short review, and the Globe and Mail is a big deal. There's more at their press kit.. Oh and here is a interview, has a little bit (not much) which to fill out the article if anyone cares to.
So now we're piling on with GNG sources, and the band existed for 15 years (and counting), so it's not complete ephemera, and then there's a couple other peripheral things... soundtrack for Never Cry Werewolf which is blulinked, granted it's a straight-to-TV B movie, but still... I don't know if a non-zero number of people will care about them 50 or 100 years from now. But considering that they've been on the big city scene long enough to have a presence and put out tendrils and influences and intersections and relationships, maybe. Hard to say, but since they meet the GNG fairly handily, I'd say keep the article.
Get rid of the individual album articles tho. Prefer merge, but that's work so delete OK.
(Another way to look at it, tho, is that they've been around for 15 years and no major or indy label has troubled to sign them. I think meeting the GNG trumps that, but others may reasonably differ.) Herostratus ( talk) 20:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:26, 3 December 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 10:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Potamophylax

Potamophylax (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A hatnote is okay Leomk0403 ( Don't shout here, Shout here!) 03:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

One's a genus, one's a synonym. The genus should be more significant, in my opinion. Leomk0403 ( Don't shout here, Shout here!) 04:13, 9 December 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. Only comment casts doubt on the nomination and there was no other participation. RL0919 ( talk) 05:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Friendship Association Norway–Albania

Friendship Association Norway–Albania (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. I tried searching under its English and Norwegian names and could not find any coverage. There isn't even a Norwegian version of this article. LibStar ( talk) 22:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 02:33, 3 December 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) — Coolperson177 ( t| c) 21:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Hack!

Hack! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded because of one review. I can't find any other sources, though Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep Like others have noted it is linked by RT and many other sources.02:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep Several reviews for this movie can be found online. Add a new section for Reception in the article itself. Jobie James ( talk) 06:28, 3 December 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. Consensus is that it does not have the sourcing or recognition required for GEOLAND. Star Mississippi 15:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Moonax, Washington

Moonax, Washington (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So here things get weird. This is another place along the Columbia that got "moved" because the original rail line was inundated by damming, but the searching produced some real surprises. Unfortunately, there are no aerials that show the area before the dam, and there's only a single such topo, which shows a couple of buildings between the rails and the river. The modern "location" is an otherwise anonymous spot on the rails, which are sandwiched between the road and the river on the usual carved-out ledge; there's no siding or anything else, and it's quite clear there was never a "settlement" in the fifty years since. So then we turn to the Ghits. The web hits are down in the bottom-of-the-basement clickbait level, but the book hits are both bizarre and illuminating. First up is a passage from Sinclair Lewis's novel Free Air, where the "town" appears in a list/poem of town names from east Washington state. More potentially useful is a passage from Blue Highways by William Least Heat-Moon, which describes looking for gas while running on empty, but I have say that an anonymous woman hanging out in a gas station does not constitute a reliable source. Last, in the illuminating department, this environmental impact statement from 2002 describes Moonax as "a small community", when at the time it was nothing more than a name on a map and an entry in a database. Finally, we have the name origin story, which is a perfect bit of " just-so" fabricated from Lewis and Clark's journals. The entry in question is definitely Clark's work, and does nothing to pin down a spot to such exactitude. So in all of this the most notability is mention in a couple of books, which isn't enough. Mangoe ( talk) 02:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Very little mention outside of books chronicling Lewis and Clark journals, and a few geological surveys which do not indicate nobility. Additionally, this geological survey claims it was a station. Jobie James ( talk) 02:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Comment. The user who created the page has a long history of creating articles similar to these, most undergoing AfD as well. [45] Jobie James ( talk) 04:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:GEOLAND#1 requires legal recognition, and there is no evidence of that here. There is also no significant coverage of the location in independent, multiple, reliable sources that would allow a WP:GNG pass for this. The Lewis & Clark coverage is not coverage of the location, but instead just what the native word for Woodchuck was.
The keep !vote above, as often in these issues, is a collection of Wikipedia:ITSUSEFUL, WP:NOHARM, and WP:ITEXISTS, except we don't even really know it ever really existed as a community. Even if it did, Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, we do not have articles about every single location, inhabited or not, recognised or not. Instead we have articles about subjects that are notable enough that we can write an encyclopaedic article about them. FOARP ( talk) 14:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, it is a gazeteer. Pleast don't cite essays as if they are policy or guideline. Smartyllama ( talk) 01:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:GAZETTEER is also an essay. It also states It is therefore important to clarify that Wikipedia is not a comprehensive gazetteer of all places, but one with defined criteria for inclusion, so notability would still need to be demonstrated. eviolite (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
That's why I wasn't citing it as if it meant anything. You'll notice I didn't !vote, I just rebutted your !vote. I have no opinion on whether it should be kept at present, but would disagree with your rationale for deleting based on a random essay. If it was indeed a town, it should be kept, despite your assertions to the contrary, but that seems to be in some dispute and I don't have time to research at the moment. Smartyllama ( talk) 14:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I didn't !vote either (you are confusing me with FOARP). I just saw your comment when scrolling through the geography deletion sorting page. eviolite (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Smartyllama - I also cited a bunch of examples of why the sole keep argument here was based on common fallacies, cited GEOLAND and GNG, but you seem not to have responded to any of that. It is perfectly reasonable to cite essays as an explanation of your position, particularly because it avoids having to explain yourself repeatedly at length.
However, if you have a problem with the idea that Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, let me explain: Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, there is no consensus expressed anywhere ever on this project that ever said it was one per se. To the contrary, there is a very strong, long-standing, repeated consensus on here that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which is something quite different to a gazetteer, which is ultimately just a directory/dictionary (i.e., things that Wikipedia is explicitly not, again, according to very long-standing policy). Therefore, even if this place ever had been a "town", it should still not be kept without either a GNG pass or a GEOLAND#1 pass, because we shouldn't host single-line articles that say "XXXX was a town in YYYY" and literally nothing else. People who wish to write such content should be directed to Geonames, Wikivoyage, or other such open-source, non-encyclopaedic gazetteer or gazetteer-like projects. FOARP ( talk) 09:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
A town is a "populated, legally recognized place" and as such it would pass GEOLAND #1 if true. My apologies to you, Eviolite for the mixup. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
A “town” is simply a human settlement. It is not automatically a legally-recognised place. Simply being a “town” does not mean it has an automatic pass. FOARP ( talk) 14:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I would add that we've deleted many places listed as towns in Washington Place Names that turned out to just be rail sidings, stations or grain elevators. I'm not impressed by any of the sourcing here. – dlthewave ☎ 15:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
In order for a place in Washington state to be classified as a "town", they need some sort of legal recognition from the state. See Town#Washington and List of municipalities in Washington. That being said, I'm not seeing any evidence that actually happened here. As for Dlthewave's comment, the fact that some places that are purported to be towns are not in fact towns does not change the fact that actual towns are notable. But all that is irrelevant to this discussion as I am seeing no evidence this place is or ever was a town. Hence my !vote below. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Absolutely 100% agree that if a place can be shown to have been incorporated then it has been legally recognised, but simply being called a town is a different thing, since the terms is commonly used for a wide range of settlements. FOARP ( talk) 18:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - These few passing mentions (even the Lewis and Clark one) are insufficient to meet GNG. I also note that the place names list in the EIS is compiled from Washington Place Names, likely without fact checking, and should not be considered a separate source. – dlthewave ☎ 13:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As I explained above, contrary to the assertion of some editors, if it were actually a town it would be a clear pass of WP:GEOLAND as towns are legally recognized, populated places under Washington state law. However, I'm not seeing any evidence that the State of Washington ever recognized this place as a town, and it's not listed at List of municipalities in Washington so unless evidence can be provided to the contrary, it fails the criteria. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The discussion indicates that sources exist to show some notability. RL0919 ( talk) 05:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Samarium(III) bromide

Samarium(III) bromide (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No demonstration of notability. Firestar464 ( talk) 05:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. OK, but why does the article itself not include any "nontrivial detail about this compound"? Essentially there are two pieces of information (1) that it contains one samarium atom and three bromide atoms, but that is obvious from its name; (2) that it is a dark brown powder, which is not obvious but is trivial. Athel cb ( talk) 09:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Athel cb: See WP:NEXIST. Why not add the sources I provided yourself? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to sources identified by LaundryPizza, I also found [50], [51], and [52]. Not a well-studied system, but at least one paper used it as a dopant for lanthanum(III) bromide infrared detectors [53]. 〈  Forbes72 |  Talk 〉 06:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Appears to be sufficient academic sources presented above and scope for article expansion from someone familiar with the subject matter. NemesisAT ( talk) 10:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep current sources are not reliable but sources exist, expansion needed. Tagged accordingly. Polyamorph ( talk) 09:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep SmBr3 has 174 hits and its hexahydrate has 11 hits according to SciFinder. References are sufficient. -- Leiem ( talk) 14:31, 5 December 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) asilvering ( talk) 21:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Stephen Szabo

Stephen Szabo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an undercited BLP stub that's been tagged as autobiography. He has an extremely low google footprint (mixed in with many other Stephen Szabos). He's not at the TAA anymore (it has not existed for half a decade). I had intended to update this section but it doesn't look like there's much to replace it with.

His work has had scholarly impact, been reviewed, used in courses, and so forth, but my understanding of WP:PROF's "significant impact" criteria is that more than this is required. asilvering ( talk) 05:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Four major books by reputable presses, all with significant professional reviews. Enough to meet WP:PROF. And certainly enough to meet the incredibly weak standard at WP:AUTHOR. (hint: Every academic in the humanities or social sciences who has published 2 or more books that have gotten RS reviews will meet WP:AUTHOR. That basically means everyone associate professor or higher at a top level research univerisyt, and quite a few assitant professors and a good number of postdocs and unaffiliated scholars. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but that's the side effect of one of the other SNGs.). DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    I'm glad at least for confirmation that my "but then every tenure-track professor is notable" is correct, though now I'm confused about how any have managed to get deleted or challenged in the first place. I'll pull the AfD. -- asilvering ( talk) 21:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The issues leading to the delete arguments have been addressed and remaining consensus is that the content should be kept. Whether it's a standalone article or merged with ASEAN is an issue that can be handled editorially and does not need further extension of this AfD. Star Mississippi 17:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

ASEAN Centre for Energy

ASEAN Centre for Energy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NPOV and WP:COPYVIO issues. Draft:ASEAN Centre for Energy exist; This page may be a "copy and paste" move. RPSkokie ( talk) 04:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Copyvios have been removed but article still needs consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Needs a lot of work but appears to a legit government organization that has press coverage. Super ( talk) 03:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge selectively to ASEAN. The article does not appear to have enough coverage to merit the requirements of WP:NCORP to sustain its own stand alone page. Graywalls ( talk) 07:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as it has enough coverage for notability. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 20:16, 10 December 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 Concept class. Sandstein 10:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Subclass reachability

Subclass reachability (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD'd per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Subclass reachability, where commenters Jochen Burghardt and Caleb Stanford did not believe it was notable as a standalone or that it ought to be merged anywhere. On a search I have found no sources indicating that this is even used as a technical term, let alone a notable one.

De-PROD'd by Spinningspark who recommended "Merge to reachability problem", except that article does not mention this term, and no reliable sources mention this term in that context, so that would not be appropriate in my opinion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Is it relevant that the target article does not mention it? If it did already, then a merge would not be necessary, and if it doesn't then the merge will make it so. It's true that finding the phrase "subclass reachability" is rare, but that doesn't mean the concept is rare. There are plenty of papers talking about the reachability of subclasses, [63] [64] for instance. Spinning Spark 13:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluate expansion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Merge, to Reachability problem. I've added a reference but I don't think that this topic is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 11:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Concept class (or some other article relating to computational learning theory). AFAICT the general idea of a reachability problem is basically determining whether it's possible for a system to reach a certain state, whereas the idea of "subclass reachability" as described in this article is instead about a special property of certain subsets of sets of sets important in computational learning theory, so merging to Reachability problem would be inappropriate and create a confusing Frankenstein article. (I'm starting to doubt whether I can find good sources on this topic - some frantic Google Scholar searches like this one or this other one don't seem to turn up anything else related to this particular idea, at least of the papers I checked out - so that's why I'm not !voting for Keep.) Duckmather ( talk) 09:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Concept class. Thanks go to Duckmather for investigating this topic more thoroughly and adding citations for verification. Given the development, I think WP:HEY applies for a merge to concept class. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 18:46, 4 December 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 Ex-Mormon#Ex-Mormon organizations. Selective content merge at editor's discretion. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

PostMormon Community

AfDs for this article:
PostMormon Community (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely superfluous article given the existence of Ex-Mormon. Based on the capitalization of the "C" in "community," the title may lead some to believe that this article is about a specific platform or website. This is not the case, however. The article directly refers to Postmormon.org, but the website has been shut down since September 2019 and is not independently notable. KidAd • SPEAK 02:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 08:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

List of people known as the Sage

List of people known as the Sage (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't a list of people called simply "the Sage", but rather "the Sage of [something or somewhere]", which seems to me to be too loose of a criterion. Next, we'd have to have "the Wizard of" Westwood, Menlo Park; "the Prince of" Tollywood, reggaeton, Punk; and so on. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Could you explain exactly why the "of" makes an important difference? cagliost ( talk) 14:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Actually we have many of these, see w:Category:Lists of people by epithet. cagliost ( talk) 14:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Well, they're all terribly ideas. We need to start clean up somewhere. Mangoe ( talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I see, so this is a ploy to delete everything in w:Category:Lists of people by epithet? cagliost ( talk) 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a useful list, and tightly defined enough that it's reasonably short. We have many similar lists, see w:Category:Lists of people by epithet. I don't agree that the fact that they are sages of somewhere is an important difference. I don't agree with the slippery slope argument: we do not have lists for people known as the Wizard because there would only be one person on it (the Wizard of Westwood), but if there were more than one person on the list, it would be a useful list. cagliost ( talk) 10:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I understand you are claiming the "of" is an important difference, I just disagree. Could you explain why the "of" is an important difference? You say it is too loose a criterion, but that's not true. This list is well defined and not longer than List of people known as the Bald. If your complaint is that allowing this list means we'd have to allow other lists, that's begging the question. What is the problem? cagliost ( talk) 14:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The slippery slope argument is a fallacy, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. cagliost ( talk) 11:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • You don't see the distinction between a historical epithet and something made up by some journalist or sports reporter? Also, it's "the Bald", period, not "the Bald of Peoria" or "the Bald of Kalamazoo". Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • If it were well referenced, that would be fine, e.g. if there were some kings called Charles the Smart and Rodolfo the Smart. We don't have such a list because no such references exist. Unlike this list, which is well referenced. cagliost ( talk) 11:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails our most important notability criterion for lists, which is that the list topic should be discussed in sources as a group. It is not sufficient that there are sources for each person being called a "sage" – there should be some sources that discuss that there is a group of people known by this term, or at least the concept of calling people by the epithet. -- RL0919 ( talk) 05:17, 10 December 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 merged with Plant Sex Chromosomes — duplication already fixed. Paintspot Infez ( talk) 01:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Plant sex chromosome

Plant sex chromosome (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a duplicate of Plant Sex Chromosomes Gjs238 ( talk) 01:44, 3 December 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 03:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Horaisan

Horaisan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails verification. Article is completely unsourced. A few Japanese gardens contain an "island" named Horaisan after Mount Penglai, but I don't see any evidence this is a generic term for an element. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The term “horaijima” turns up very sparse Google results. Among these is this webpage that says that “One of the most frequently encountered symbols in the Japanese gardens is Horaijima, the ‘treasure island’. Horaijima is a mythical place inhabited by immortals, and in the garden it is represented inside the pond, as a small island made from a rock (or group of rocks. There are no bridges and the island is not connected to the shore in any way, because Horaijima is inaccessible to mortals.” Also [66], which has similar content to the other website. Additionally, as per nom, the primary topic in scholarly articles is not about this term in the context of the article. Jobie James ( talk) 03:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

FunnymanGaitlin

FunnymanGaitlin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not pass WP:GNG, as there are not enough sources to verify his notability. A WP:BEFORE search did not yield additional sources. The article creator has stated while removing PRODs that the subject is notable because he has been interviewed by other notable people, but those sources are not WP:RS as the websites do not provide an editorial masthead, and seem to be promotional in nature. Z1720 ( talk) 01:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Although having 600k followers on Instagram, Google shows no indication of news coverage outside of websites with no proven editorial reliability. Among the heaps of unusable sources are various “famous person biography” websites, social media pages, and his Cameo page. Jobie James ( talk) 03:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. -- Zander251 ( talk) 06:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Seems to be yet another influencer that, although moderately popular, doesn't meet WP:GNG or any other notability standard. ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 22:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Don’t delete it. He is a legitimate comedian and influencer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C58:67F:9405:E9D6:58A2:BC72:CC3B ( talk) 15:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    • This comment was originally placed at the top of this page. I moved it to this position. Z1720 ( talk) 16:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete being popular on social media =/= passing as a notable person to have a WP article. Mann Mann ( talk) 19:18, 9 December 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 10:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Pyrocynical (Youtuber)

Pyrocynical (Youtuber) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NBIO, reliable sources do not mention him. The article is largely primary sourced or sourced to social media besides some unreliable gaming sites that mostly just cover a single controversy he was involved in. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 01:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment It should be improved. He is notable in drawn and views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Article is currently sourced to YouTube, KnowYourMeme, and Twitter, which is better than nothing but doesn't indicate passing WP:GNG of *reliable* sources covering him ( WP:RS). Note that there's a catastrophic BLP violation in the article currently discussing damaging claims sourced to Dexerto (unreliable per WP:VGRS), Twitter, and Reddit. YIKES. (Note that I just removed it, still doesn't speak well of the maintenance of the article.) SnowFire ( talk) 19:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or WP:TNT. The sourcing isn't up to par (16/23 current sources are from his YouTube channel, which isn't exactly independent from the subject. From what I can tell, only the Distractify article could be considered a reliable source for this article.), and the article itself has some big issues with it (the "Humour" section is effectively a trivia section, and the "YouTube Career" section reads like a timeline). I couldn't find any proper sources through a cursory look, but if people can find them I say blow it up. If not, delete. OctaviusSlockpit ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Given the weight of the grooming allegations, much better sources are required than a Distractify piece and YouTube sources.-- Mvqr ( talk) 11:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No SIGCOV in independent sources to justify an inclusion. VirenRaval89 ( talk) 12:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:ARTIST. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Before any admin closes this discussion, I would like to add my two cents. There appears to be another Pyrocynical draft titled after his real name, which contains three sources from The Daily Dot. However I'm not sure if these sources constitute due weight, and the third reference is quite brief - it just calls him a " LeafyIsHere clone." Beyond that, there's an Insider source, a couple of brief mentions from Polygon, and a brief EGM source, but of the sources that give him significant coverage (as in 100 words or more), they're of either WP:BLPCRIME material or egregiously silly things (drinking Belle Delphine's bathwater).
At best, one might extract that he's a popular commentary channel like Cr1TiKaL whose opinions on issues surrounding the YT community have been very briefly synthesized in reliable sources. But I don't think it would extend the article beyond a stub, unless we add the BLP crime sources or a whole bunch of original research/YT videos. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 21:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Sidenote: Also I would like to comment that this discussion wouldn't have happened had user HutchDoesStuff not moved the draft to mainspace, when they should've known better that 1: there was already a draft for Pyro which had been declined numerous times for the same issues brought up here, and 2: WP guidelines are extremely strict when it comes to YouTubers, and this article at hand was the exact opposite of what this site considers notable. I'd suggest a Draftify or Redirect to the previous draft, as at least that one has some of the secondary sources that I found, and isn't referenced bombed with unreliable sources. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 22:00, 9 December 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 03:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Mosler J-10 Sport

Mosler J-10 Sport (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic. Most of the sources appear to be passing mentions or not relevant. ― Blaze The Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Most of what I could find about this vehicle was worthless. Among the results I found was this [67] Jalopnik article of dubious reliability. The article states that an “anonymous sleuth” told them about the vehicle. An update at the bottom of the page features a Q&A with very trivial information about the vehicle. Google hits actually relevant to the vehicle end about eight results in. Jobie James ( talk) 04:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Scrat's Continental Crack-up

Scrat's Continental Crack-up (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As much as Ice Age happens to be my favourite film of all time (the first one—the rest were terrible) (can you tell I don't like movies all that much?), I'm not seeing any independent coverage on this one. At least, nothing critical; there's the usual roundabout of various organizations prefacing with basic material (this is a film, it is by these people, it is this long), but nothing in the way of actual coverage. The article seems to reflect that as well. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 00:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, definitely doesn't seem to meet notability. Better suited for a small subheader in the article for the franchise. LittleLazyLass ( Talk | Contributions) 00:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Although I found a few websites talking about this short, most of them, as per nom, offer nothing up in terms of critical review. This website mentions the short and its appearance in Ice Age 4, but the article is mostly about Scrat rather than the short. No critical review of the short itself is provided. This one is just promotional junk. Again, similar to the other two, this website discusses Ice Age 4 coming to theaters, then gives a link to watch the short as well as a synopsis at the end of the article. Even this Wall Street Journal article offers no critical review and essentially just states that you can now watch it free of charge. The closest it comes to any type of critical review is “Now you can watch the short free of charge--and without having to see Jack Black trash Swift's masterpiece. Enjoy.” Jobie James ( talk) 04:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Comment. Christ, [ more promotional junk. Admittedly though, this site hilariously says that “I’m pretty sure this short film is the closest any Ice Age property has ever come to being genuinely educational. Ok, granted, the short does seem to mistakenly intimate that the faces on Mt. Rushmore and the Sphinx are some sort of naturally occurring phenomenon, but show this to your kids and they might actually learn something about the composition of the Earth’s crust and even get some idea of how continents were formed. It’s easy to imagine this being shown in some third grade classroom. Educate the next generation with cartoon violence. This can only end well. I approve.” Jobie James ( talk) 04:29, 3 December 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_3&oldid=1059987935"