From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 21 July 23 >
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 no consensus to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus for deletion, and an apparent preference that the article be kept. The arguments for keeping the article are relatively weak. No number of books published makes an author notable, although it is implied in the arguments that these books constitute a significant or well-known body of work in certain countries. Similarly, the fact that an article has gone unchallenged for some length of time is meaningless. We have had actual outright hoax articles sit in our collection for over a decade before being discovered, and numerous very old articles on non-notable figures have been deleted after existing for years. There is, however, a penumbra of an argument here that the subject has received sufficient coverage for his work to merit inclusion, so the aforementioned concerns aside, it is impossible to wring a consensus for deletion out of this discussion. I have no reason to believe that yet another relisting will yield a different outcome. BD2412 T 04:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Joaquín Barañao

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

Article does not pass the WP:AUTHOR criteria for creative professionals. Honestly I don't see merits of Barañao for notability. He went to university, graduated, worked for some politicians ( Andrés Allamand and Sebastián Piñera) and then wrote and published various books which are neither very novel nor cited. Dentren | Talk 13:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I also suggest the author may be related to Barañao, who was also a Wikipedian (user:Jbaranao). Kuatrero ( talk) 17:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I received this notification in my mailbox. Since I created boths articles, my opinion is known in advance, but I accepted the invitation to discuss anyway. The proposal caught my attention, because I created the articles 4 years ago, there had been no questions in that period and in the meantime Barañao released 6 new books. Some were published in Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico and Brazil (a Portuguese translation). I do like his books. A lot. That's why I became interested and went to Wikipedia to find out more, and created the articles as there was none. But the decision on whether to keep or delete must be regardless of my personal taste, and I can't see how someone who sells thousands of books in five countries and two languages does not deserve a space in Wikipedia -- El Ribereno ( talk) 19:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ El Ribereno: You should disclose any potential conflict of interest. You say in the Spanish Wikipedia you are from the Los Ríos Region. Barañao worked before in the Wikilosríos project. Is there anything you have not said? -- Kuatrero ( talk) 19:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Kuatrero: Look, I met him. I like his books, as I mentioned. I helped in Wikilosríos (under the same username, in fact). I already said that my opinion is not neutral. Said all that, I can't see how the existence of the article depends on it. If you think that the general tone is not neutral, let's change it. But here you have someone who for a period have been one of the best selling authors in a middle-sized country, with dozens and dozens of appereances in the media (many in Argentina), whose article was not questioned when he had 4 books and now has 10. How come? -- El Ribereno ( talk) 14:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Extremely strong keep: Passes WP:AUTHOR easily. There might be a WP:BIAS problem here against non-Anglophone writers. Seems to be WP:SNOWing in July. Dr. Universe ( talk) 21:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    Would you bother telling us what makes this "pass WP:AUTHOR easily". I don't see them passing any. And no, there are no bias here, both Dentren and me are from Chile, apparently. -- Kuatrero ( talk) 06:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • First of all wouldn't have seen this reply of yours if it weren't for being pinged here by a different user for a different reason. Second of all: the 10 works under the section titled "Works" on the Wikipedia page, are what allows the subject to pass NAUTHOR. Be careful not to WP:SEALION me now. The fact that you're from Chile doesn't mean that there is no WP:BIAS problem here. Dr. Universe ( talk) 18:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 10:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Dr. Universe, if we are here to do unsubstantiated claims of bias I would like to add the possible bias Barañao may have had by his political contacts, you see El Mercurio is a newspaper that is very close to Barañao's patrons. Dentren | Talk 13:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure why his political contacts matter. Seems like two Chileans (yourself and Kuatrero) trying to remove a Chilean author and also making the effort to point out that the subject has political contacts, when having political contacts is not against any WP policy. Let's see what the non-Chileans say about whether to keep or delete! Dr. Universe ( talk) 18:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hey @ Dentren:, now it's looking like a personal issue or something, you are losing sense of objetivity. Does he have a connection to El Mercurio through Allamand, with whom he worked a decade ago? Maybe, but the reason El Mercurio is referenced so many times is very clear: it keeps the books ranking of record in Chile, and the sole reason Barañao has an article is that he sells many books. As simple as that. You might use your influences to get an interview or two, but not to hack a national ranking. As I mentioned above, there are dozens of references in different news outlets, including many in Argentina (newspapers, radio, TV) and I can't see getting all that through dark influences -- El Ribereno ( talk) 23:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: In four or five years, no one challenged notability until now. What I see is that someone you might consider a confessed fan created the article. That would be the only issue. I think Barañao passes WP:AUTHOR, but above all I'm surprised by the strong divergence among the opinions expressed here. I see this debate headed toward no consensus unless we go to the substance. The possible political biases of El Mercurio are by no means an argument against notability, he has 856 ratings in Goodreads, and he also performs well in Amazon's rankings for books in Spanish. Let's focus on whether the tone is neutral and encyclopedic, but to delete it makes no sense to me. Cato censor ( talk) 18:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as Baranao has multiple published works, and he has enough coverage for notability, but this article could definitely use cleaning up. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 11:26, 29 July 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. When the notability of an unsourced article is challenged, the only thing that a Keep voter can do is present sources that satisfy GNG. That hasn't been done here, so I must ignore the Keep votes in this discussion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Myanmar Council of Churches

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

Was deprodded by user who deprodded several such because these organizations might be notable, but as that person didn't add any sources and concerns are not resolved, I am bringing it to AfD. The Council of Churches is not a church but an organizaton made up of churches. I didn't find sig coverage on the organization. My PROD statement was: "Non-notable religious organization. BEFORE completed. Please add good sources if you deprod or the article will go to AfD. Thank you." Please see AfD that took place for a related organization: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Council of Churches of Nepal to see how a discussion might progress/stall. Happy to change my vote if significant, independent sourcing can be *found* (not just the "sources *could exist* argument, please). Thanks! DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Comparing one organization to another is in lists of arguments the avoid in deletion discussions, isn't it? And no offense meant, but have you read the GNG? Because it says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." No sig coverage here, so no GNG, unless you're sitting on sourcing. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 08:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Obviously keep -- Christianity is a minority religion among the ethnic Burmese, but the majority among several ethnic minorities. This is the national member of the World Council of Churches, which should be enough for it to be kept. It needs tagging as a stub, not deleting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Which is why we have the article Christianity in Myanmar. Which may well need major improvement. Christianity being a notable religion in Myanamar, does not prove that every Christian organization in Myanamar is notable. We need sources about this, not just claims it is notable just because it exists. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • National membership of the World Council of Churches should be enough to establish notability. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
How so? Got a link to policy on how one organization being a member of another establishes notability? DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 00:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless people can present some actual sources showing actual coverage. I know that several ethnic groups in Myanmar are majority CHristian, but no one has even presented evidence that the Christian Churches that the Karens, Nagas and other majority Christian ethnic groups in Myanmar belong to even affiliate with this group. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you for sharing what you found, Otr. If the article had had sources before 2021 that were now deadlinks, I'd be able to point that kind of issue. But this problem is not unique to the article on the Myanmar Council of Churches. The creator of this article is autopatrolled and doesn't include sources or follow Wikipedia conventions. While I can be sorry Myanmar does not have the freedom of religion that my country has, the English language encyclopedia having such a waste as this doesn't help anything. That's what the World Council of Churches website is meant to be. Thank you for your efforts. -- DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 00:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as am seeing enough substantial coverage in the links provided above by OTR500 to enable a pass of WP:GNG and to facilitate the improvement of the article so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
About that "substantial" coverage: Naw, it is insubstantial, as Otr recognizes. Wikilinks and listings of memberships of other interdenominational organizations do not help the notability argument.
  • One of those sources, here, I'm not sure where it was first published. It seems to be primary. Example: "In order to be more effective in inter-faith dialogue with main religions in Myanmar, I believe that we need to concern on the basic principle of inter-faith dialogue. On the other hand, we need to continue our work in doing dialogue and fellowship. We want to move on to engage in our common concerns in especially in the fields of social matters." It's not independent. The author has worked for the Myanmar Council of Churches for years if his LinkedIn is accurate. That's a NO.
  • A legit albeit short article that mentions the Council in the lead and not elsewhere. "The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Myanmar (CBCM) and the Myanmar Council of Churches have appealed to the military for the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other detained leaders while urging them to act in a peaceful way." So this is not significant. NO.
  • The source here, A paper, presented by the Associate General Secretary in Manila in 2008. This is neither independent, nor secondary, nor significant. NO.
  • A directory listing on the World Council of Churches site does nothing. NO.
  • The Frontier Myanmar article just says: "The Myanmar Baptist Convention, a member of the larger protestant Myanmar Council of Churches, estimates its congregation at about 1.6 million people." Not significant. NO.
  • Wikilinks are not to be considered. NO.
So, we're still at 0 on coverage. What exactly is worth saving in this article? Why are several people partial to it? All I see is a bias towards including anything to do with Christianity. I find that problematic. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 00:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ DiamondRemley39 I usually have around 30 tabs open when researching articles but was somewhat indisposed. Thank you for your critique of what I quickly found but my intention at the time is more along the lines of what I found versus what I wasn't able to locate. This becomes more critical when there is a government takeover and a blanket thrown over the media.
At AFD a "presumption of notability" can be evidenced by several mentions in sources. I DID NOT even think of considering this on any religious (or non-religious) grounds nor have any partiality. I am utterly astonished at your comments "All I see is a bias towards including anything to do with Christianity." Your comments would make one wonder if you have some agenda in excluding material on anything concerning Christianity. Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:NPOV) include assigning weight "in proportion to their prominence". I saw where something like 5.6 to 6.2 % of the population is considered Christians so a minimum amount of coverage is in line with WP:BALANCE. The subject is also a member of the larger Christian Conference of Asia. In 2020 members of the MCC helped fight Covoid 19.
It saddens me that, even if well-intentioned, you have slung bias mud with zero proof that seems to be just casting aspersions. I would also like to state, that as for as I know and right or wrong, an editor does not have to give the reasoning for deproding. If I am wrong someone can please correct me as I will look later after work. I will also attempt to look for more sources. I agree that sourcing through the "External links" is insufficient and also not keen on little more than dictionary entries. On a before I attempt to be as thorough as I can be which is why I only made comments thus far. If the Karens, Nagas, and others, (according to Johnpacklambert belong to churches that are under the umbrella of the MCC which is certainly part of the larger WCC (that gives some in-depth history on the subject), then there is a presumption of notability. The current state of an article may not reflect actual notability. Bear in mind that a certain amount of primary sources are allowed. I did not have the allotted time to dig more in-depth. You have given your opinion so thank you, -- Otr500 ( talk) 06:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Otr, I was responding not to you but to Atlantic306 who did no analysis of what you found and made a quick vote that didn't reflect information presented. It was done for the benefit of the closer, who may take the included analysis of the sources rather than make their own.
I thought I was properly complimentary of your efforts, so I was surprised that you would want to accuse me of bias when we agree on so much here. "Your comments would make one wonder if you have some agenda in excluding material on anything concerning Christianity" is quite a different thing than my calling out people in general for voting not in alignment with policy. My vote is aligned with policy. You didn't vote, so you were aligned with policy. But you take my questioning others' votes and say I may be anti anything to do with Christianity? Quite a jump to conclusions.
I know how many articles on Christianity topics I've started and how many I've helped survive AfD, so your comments on my apparent bias against "anything concerning Christianity" indicate you are unfamiliar with my work, (which is fine) and made me chuckle, so thank you for the laugh. I always do the work and don't argue towards inclusion without it. I am more of an inclusionist, as JPL and doubtless others can attest, but, no, the dozens of smaller organizations are NOT presumed notable because they make up a large. Absolutely not. And it has nothing to do with the population % that is Christian. Point to it in policy if I have somehow missed that this is how Wikipedia looks at companies.
Now that I've been hinted at being biased against anything to do with Christianity, I would like to remind everyone that I am not trying to see the article on Christianity in Myanmar go bye-bye here. That's a different article.
Your comment about "you have slung bias mud with zero proof that seems to be just [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]" is out of line, poorly written, and, like the other bias comment you made, may be worthy of striking. This isn't the sort of thing for which there is "proof" but rather "indication"... Even "evidence" is a better term. I'm not going to keep repeating myself, so if you want to accuse me of anything else or reiterate anything (not recommended), take it to my talk page. I've not been very active on WP for several months. Thanks for reminding me what kind of a place it is.
Wikipedia would be better served if you'd do the work you say you want to do in finding articles rather than provide this lengthy "but what about you?" response to my comment to someone else. Have a good day! DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 09:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Now that we have both had a good laugh I might suggest that a name be included after comments such as "All I see is a bias towards including anything to do with Christianity." They are under the material I provided (not arguing as not significant coverage) but it would be advisable to "try" to refrain from these types of comments no matter who they are directed at.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Bob Donaldson (news anchor)

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

The most significant award in this local television news anchor's career is a regional career achievement award [1]. It does not confer sufficient notability to meet WP:ANYBIO. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 23:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 23:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 23:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Local news anchors need significant coverage on them beyond their own channel's bio. Reywas92 Talk 05:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 10:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 10:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A regional achievement award would be fine if the article were reliably sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG — but it isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be well-sourced just because the article has the word "award" in it. His own staff bio on the self-published website of his own employer is not an independent source for the purposes of establishing notability, and the only other source here is a glancing namecheck of his existence in his own employer's announcement of a network affiliation change, which means Bob Donaldson is not the subject of that source. Bearcat ( talk) 12:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm noting the keep !vote from SheHerHers who has added some material to the article but put the !vote in a comment on the page. She notes as well that, when the CBS Weekend News was produced from a rotating list of major network affiliates during COVID-19, Donaldson hosted for one of two nights when the newscast originated from WXIN-WTTV ( [2]). Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 05:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    Reproducing the comment by SheHerHers from the article, since I have now removed it:

    KEEP - Please read new info and see video links - just think 40 years in a biz and 30 years in one market while anchoring on TWO NETWORKS (Fox and CBS) AT THE SAME time is unique. Agreed, there are many news anchors out there but these credits are unique to Donaldson. Perhaps a rewrite to highlight? She/Her/Hers

    — Goszei ( talk) 07:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I found one piece of SIGCOV in 30 years of anchoring. That's not enough... Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 17:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Hall, Steve (October 8, 1992). "Home is anchor for a couple of newscasters". The Indianapolis Star. pp. B-1, B-2.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Evan Davis#BBC. MBisanz talk 18:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The Bottom Line (radio programme)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. One could maybe argue that it passes WP:RPRGM because it was on BBC, but the SNG also states that "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." I nominated it for a merge into the host's article, but honestly I'm not exactly sure what would be merged as there currently are no sources and very little prose. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant ( talk) 15:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable BBC multi-format programme with a global audience; I've added a few references Piecesofuk ( talk) 16:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Out of the recently added sources the Independent.co.uk source is clearly the most in depth. I would argue the others are borderline trivial mentions or not independent in the case of the OpenLearn source. Generally more than one source is used to determine notability, and personally I would want to see how in depth the Financial Times article is before making that judgment. TipsyElephant ( talk) 02:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 00:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Exile (1990 film)

Exile (1990 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed, was no sources as tagged for 2 years, let alone anything that would show notability. Fails WP:NFILM. Web search found directory level info, IMDb (which appears to be source of article content) and some reviews in non-reliable sources, not sufficient to show notability. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 19:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 19:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are no claims in the article that meet WP:NFILM My search for references does not find anything to add. Jeepday ( talk) 17:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 00:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Veloren

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

Videogame does not meet WP:NPRODUCT- coverage is largely fansites and WP:ROUTINE announcements. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I'm not sure about this. It's a real thing, but no high-profile sources document it. « 2nd| ias» 02:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Except for probably GamingOnLinux and even GitLab, on the arguable side. The latter is more likely higher-profile compared to the former. « 2nd| ias» 02:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: GamingOnLinux is a sufficient source for an open-souce Linux game, keep in mind Linux is not as widely used as Windows and the level of coverage needs to be compared to other Linux games rather than other Windows games where the coverage will be expected to be much larger. Dr. Universe ( talk) 20:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:12, 22 July 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. Daniel ( talk) 23:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Comparison of online trading platforms

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

Wikipedia is not a comparison website GloriaJFM ( talk) 19:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 23:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While the nominator might be a sockpuppet, they are unfortunately correct about this article (probably a "good" edit to disguise bad edits). This isn't the right way to think about online trading platforms and is a bizarre bit of OR. There are valid "Comparison of XYZ" articles on Wikipedia (e.g. Comparison of web browsers), but this is not one of them because it's charts of irrelevant things that can't be reduced to yes/no and is hard to reference, unlike simple valid material for a chart like "is this open source or proprietary code". SnowFire ( talk) 01:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Draftify per Jumpytoo. Maintainer seems as if they're interested in fixing the issues on talk page, so while I don't think the current article works, it's possible a future article could fix them. SnowFire ( talk) 16:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I also replied to existing AfD comments on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_online_trading_platforms Jasonkhanlar ( talk) 06:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify I think this could be a valid article, but in its current state it's not ready for mainspace (most of the rows not filled in, inconsistent columns...). Draftify it until the tables are filled in. Jumpytoo Talk 07:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify: There are a lot of rows that need to be filled in. Definitely WP:TOOSOON to become an article. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • WP:DRAFTIFY I'm not knowledgeable enough about online trading platforms to be able to say if this is a reasonable article to have, but I don't know that there is anything wrong with "comparison of X" articles (such as comparison of web browsers, comparison of BitTorrent clients, and comparison of programming languages) per se. That being said, this is hopelessly incomplete at present. Incubating in draftspace seems like a sensible solution for now. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify At the very least, this is a woefully incomplete article that is not ready for prime time. Whether the more serous issues of WP:OR and WP:N are applicable cannot be addressed until there is an actual article worth evaluating. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:18, 28 July 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 23:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Yukari Kanasawa

Yukari Kanasawa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(search for Yukari Kanasawa Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(search for 金澤ゆかり Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. The sole source in the article leads to Yahoo! main page instead. There's no good source found in the ja.wp version either. enjoyer -- talk 22:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. enjoyer -- talk 22:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. enjoyer -- talk 22:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I added a search for her name in Japanese script at the top of this discussion. I used the Internet Archive to find the Yahoo page that was cited as a reference and added an IMDB link as an external link. I don't think her film roles add up to notability, but the language barrier keeps me from being certain. An additional credit is found at https://www.cinematoday.jp/movie/T0014881 I also don't know whether her modelling work is enough to pass GNG. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 23 July 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. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Mukti (organisation)

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

Promotional nightmare that would have to be stubified to even be recognizable as a bona fide article. Bbb23 ( talk) 22:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is an article about a community service organisation in West Bengal. Community service (aka NGO) is directed to the poor and those caught in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. It needs a copyedit and a bit of a clean-up. Community service is common in India, among the deserving poor. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 23:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • First, you have not argued that the organization is notable (in all fairness, my nomination doesn't address notability directly, either), but, second, have you looked at the article? It needs a copyedit and a bit of a clean-up? If you think it's that easy, I'd sincerely love to see you take a stab at it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Blatino Erotica Awards

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

A defunct pornography industry award associated with Blatino Oasis, a vacation party for gay men of colour. It's possible that the party itself is Wikipedia-notable, but I doubt that the award is. The current references are:

  • 1. An article about the party that mentions the award only in passing.
  • 2. J. C. Adams's blog
  • 3. The award website
  • 4. An XBIZ article by J. C. Adams about conflict arising from the similar names of this award and the FlavaMen Blatino Awards (a non-notable in-house award given out by a pornography company).
  • 5. The party website.

I looked for additional sources and found award rosters and WP:SPIP in the pornography trade press, plus a few passing mentions elsewhere (one sentence in a book: [4]; mention in an article about the party: [5]). Cheers, gnu 57 22:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as per closure of WP:PORNBIO, "significant awards" do not correlate to the subjects meeting WP:BASIC, to which PORNBIO is a supplement. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 22:54, 22 July 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. This did not need to be relisted, as soft-delete was an available option. Daniel ( talk) 22:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Givara Budeiri

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

BLP that does not appear to pass WP:JOURNALIST and may even be a case of WP:BLPIE. Mccapra ( talk) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr. Universe ( talk) 21:34, 22 July 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Borghild Project

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

This article describes a minor hoax. It got a brief mention in few news outlets and a few passing mentions in the books of weird trivia (and one a bit longer entry in a single reliable source I mentioned below). Media coverage of this hoax seems rather sparse and limited to low quality tabloids and like, our article cites huffpost article which in turns cites Daily Mail (the last time I checked HP is considered a low-quality source and DM is not even allowed on Wikipedia). The only reliable source is the one debunking of this, in the form of a few paragraphs in this book ("The Sex Doll: A History"). The book is reliable (publisher-wise, I couldn't find out much about the author who does not appear to be a scholar, and is described in the book's blurb as "an author and editor living in Perth, Australia."), and the story is discussed there on 3 pages (24-26). That said, the book spends two pages presenting the hoax, and then one not very detailed paragraph debunking it - it's hardly good scholarship. I have serious doubts this hoax is notable enough to merit a stand-alone article, but maybe someone can unearth better sources. This book (self-published so not reliable) claims the story got coverage in 2005 in Der Spiegel, Corriere della Sera, and Clarin, but I couldn't verify those claims. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Mztourist ( talk) 04:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 16:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - The topic, and subsequent reveal that it was a hoax, got a small bit of coverage, but I agree with the nom that its just not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG as a notable hoax. The one Sex Doll book is pretty much the only good source - the rest are either brief "interesting fact" mentions or are from tabloids. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully the last relist. Please try to come to consensus in the next 7 days!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr. Universe ( talk) 21:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Penn Sylvan Health Society

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

Inadequately sourced article about a nudist camp, not making any strong claim to passing our notability standards for organizations. This essentially just states that the camp exists, without making any particularly strong claim that its existence warrants the attention of an encyclopedia, and it's referenced to a single article in the local newspaper, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly get the topic over WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH all by itself. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write something more substantial and better sourced than this, but just single-sourcing its existence is not enough. Bearcat ( talk) 13:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 13:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 13:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It should be noted that the camp seems to be called "PSHS Inc." nowadays, as indicated by the article's sole source. However, searching for that term does not result in any additional sources to be found either. And a single one, reliable as may be, is not enough to establish notability. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 23:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully the last relist. Please try to come to consensus in the next 7 days!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr. Universe ( talk) 21:26, 22 July 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. czar 17:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Rinrin Marinka

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

Fails WP: ANYBIO, lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Has been tagged as such since 2014 without any improvements. Dan arndt ( talk) 13:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 13:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 13:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 13:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully the last relist. Please try to come to consensus in the next 7 days!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr. Universe ( talk) 21:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The subject was jury of MasterChef around 2011 and published this book in 2013: https://books.google.com/books?id=U5NnDwAAQBAJ I couldn't find any relevant references. Even the profile on MasterChef was removed already. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 22:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — a single search about her came up with tens of articles(Indonesian) about her on google. I've added few to her article, and will add more later. She clearly passes WP:GNG. Thank you. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep between Republika, Jakarta Post, and CNN Indonesia, she seems to be getting enough significant coverage. —valereee ( talk) 19:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - a good case of WP:HEY following improvements to article, WP:GNG pass now demonstrated Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 17:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Omoha Nduka John

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

No indication of notability. References to till date do not demonstrate the notability. fails WP:GNG GermanKity ( talk) 09:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 09:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 09:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

All the references are independent secondary reliable source and more 90% has significant coverage. Looking at him age (25 years) he accumulated unlimited achievement in life. Vanguard newspaper, Guardian newspaper, punch newspaper, Sunshine newspaper, leadership newspaper are all independent source and he has significant coverage as such I see notability here. There is clear indication it has WP:GNG if you check it well. He done a lot for example his foundation which support thousands youth in Africa on how to expose to entrepreneur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adabaruku ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Per norm. Slovenichibo ( talk) 22:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete  – Coverage consists mostly of interviews and PR placements. The bits that could count towards GNG are rehashes of one another so SIGCOV does not exist. Princess of Ara(talk) 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The article page should be keep, the subject is notable, have highly credible independent sources, and have not violated any of Wikipedia guidelines. If there are typical errors it should rather be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchtoknow ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The article should be keep, interviews are part of notability clarification and there has never been any notability without “PR”. Even notability is basically publicity of a figure in regards of importance, the subjects have been verified by numerous independent sources as I can see from there and also was a multiple award winner with recognition. Another feat is been nominated for Forbes class of 2021, those are facts that makes it notable from the neutral part that shows his tendency for WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchtoknow ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully the last relist. Please try to come to consensus in the next 7 days!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr. Universe ( talk) 21:21, 22 July 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. For biographies, SNGs generally do not matter once WP:GNG is met. And as for that I see an even split of opinions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Jakov Mrvica

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

While tragic, not enough in-depth coverage about him, outside his death, to show that he meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have added Haaretz source with in-depth coverage Shrike ( talk) 16:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, a soldier, killed during a combat operation, does no make him notable. Huldra ( talk) 21:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. He is probably not notable, but I wonder if the monument to him is? But there is some peacock wording "This monument gathers numerous admirers of Jakov Mrvica, including tourists". Errrr. Anyway, maybe there's a chance to rewrite this into an article about the monument? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Piotrus, interesting. But I couldn't find any in-depth sources in English, perhaps someone who knows Hebrew or Serbian might. Onel5969 TT me 15:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • From what the article says, the monument was designed and led by his girlfriend, not a government monument. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 16:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist ( talk) 10:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the individual and monument have significant coverage.-- Geshem Bracha ( talk) 14:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. Only notable for being killed, limited media coverage, the article even states the monument was designed and led by his girlfriend, not a national effort. I do not see any notable action or achievement, wikipedia is not a memorial website. Jamesallain85 ( talk) 16:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, significant coverage and he was the subject of a movie-- Steamboat2020 ( talk) 00:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; even if WP:BASIC has been (arguably) met, it only established presumed notab[ility]. However, the subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:VICTIM. Apart from the interesting fact that he decided to join IDF as an (originally) foreign citizen, which apparently sparked increased media coverage, nothing in his biography stands out from the thousands of soldiers killed in action worldwide. No such user ( talk) 08:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • The only thing that matters that he meets WP:GNG and he does. The Haaeretz pretty much extensive Shrike ( talk) 10:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
      • WP:GNG: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article. Much as I admire the efforts of his girlfriend and friends to preserve the memory of him, which apparently successfully brought attention of Israeli media, I still do not think the subject's achievements are worth a biography article.
        For a comparison, I'm just reading an article about the last working blacksmith in my county, a quirky story which happened to catch the attention of the national TV, and a newspaper several years ago. Extensive coverage about him? Yes, barely. Worthy of an article? Not in my book. No such user ( talk) 10:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
        • @ No such user: The world isn't a fair place. There are people who do great things with their lives but never receive the coverage that they deserved. Then there are people who have the right connections and receive prestigious awards for things they didn't really deserve. Clearly, if not for his girlfriend he wouldn't have received extensive media coverage nor would he have a monument dedicated to him. However, it isn't our place to determine whether not or a person truly deserved the recognition and significant coverage. The only thing that matters is that he meets WP:GNG and he does.-- Steamboat2020 ( talk) 19:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
          • @ Steamboat2020: Thanks for you input, but I strongly disagree. We Wikipedians wrote the rules and guidelines in order to support our mission: coverage of encyclopedic knowledge about the world and its history. Those rules are not the God's commandments, but only fuzzy guidelines through this complex mission, and should be used with common sense. Being the encyclopedia editors, it is our place to determine whether or not a person "truly deserved the recognition". GNG is not the only thing that matters, and thus it is called a guideline, and contains disclaimers for a purpose. Should I create an article on my blacksmith now? No such user ( talk) 20:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully the last relist. Please come to consensus in the next 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr. Universe ( talk) 21:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The sources are good enough, especially 1, 2 and 6. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 22:29, 22 July 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 Devel Sixteen. It appears that most of the sources cover the company only in the context of one of its products. Devel Sixteen was redirected here as the result of a poorly attended AfD, but given the new opinions presented below the article will be restored. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Devel Motors

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

References do not show the notability. fails WP:GNG. Draft is previously declined here and here. However it should be a speedy. GermanKity ( talk) 11:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 11:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 11:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Google News brings up dozens of results which, although not really deep, show some form of coverage. There are Youtube videos about the cars with >1M views [9] [10] and many many discussions on car forums which, interestingly enough, argue that their cars are fake. It might be worth keeping the article just to document their failure. JBchrch talk 14:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I do not believe that the company meets the threshold for significant coverage. Most results mention it in the context of the Devel Sixteen, which again has not attracted significant or in-depth coverage of its own. I personally believe they should both be deleted, so feel free to count this as a !vote in that direction, but if the Sixteen is found to be notable than I believe it should be discussed as a subtopic of this article and merged here.
    5225C ( talk • contributions) 08:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully the last relist. Apart from nom there's been only one !vote (weak keep) and one more comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr. Universe ( talk) 20:44, 22 July 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. There is one reference in the article and it fails as a Primary source. JBchrch above says "Google News brings up dozens of results" but fails to link to a single one, and the only ones I can find are based on announcements or fail ORGIND. The YouTube videos are not reliable sources and fail WP:RS (and are blatantly promotional to boot). Since I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND whatsoever *about the company* which is the topic of this article, topic fails WP:NCORP. Happy to look at this again if someone manages to locate a couple of good references. HighKing ++ 20:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ HighKing: I don’t mind your !vote but one of the two YouTube videos, the French one, cannot be “blatantly promotional” since it actually mocks the brand and their vehicles. Maybe you don’t speak French—and that’s fine—, but in that case you should maybe refrain from using superlatives. JBchrch talk 20:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
My French is fair enough to follow the discussion, perhaps too poor to tell the difference between being especially "mocking" and their usual style of comedic "reviews" of supercars. I accept I may have got that wrong in this particular review but the main point about YouTube not being a reliable source still stands. Anyway thanks for taking another look. HighKing ++ 11:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:CORPDEPTH concerns are apparent. I found a lot of coverage in reliable sources in English, Spanish, Russian and other languages but nothing in enough detail about the company itself. Almost every time, Devel Motors was simply just named as the company behind Devel Sixteen but with little to no detail about the actual company itself. This is the main concern here. Unless there has been consensus that car manufacturers are not required to pass NCORP (such as how some might apply WP:NMUSIC to music record labels rather than NCORP), I can't see how this article meets the guidelines. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Move to Devel Sixteen. There is quiet a bit of coverage about Devel Sixteen and some about the company. If page is not kept, then it should be renamed to Devel Sixteen instead. I have gone a ahead and improved this article a lot from the initial 2 liner article. There are a lot of in-depth coverage about the Devel Sixteen. These articles have info about the company [11], [12], [13]. Lesliechin1 ( talk) 21:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
No issues with an article on Devel Sixteen. The sources above only mention the company itself in passing and don't contain any significant analysis of the company so I would still support either deleting Devel Motors or changing it to a redirect to Devel Sixteen. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per G5 by User:Ponyo. (non-admin closure) enjoyer -- talk 23:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Sahnil Bhatnagar (Indian Tv Actor)

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

Sahnil Bhatnagar is salted. In searches, I can find some coverage but it's also highly promotional articles written by 'Brand Buzz' instead of a proper journalist. He doesn't seem to pass WP:NACTOR as the only possibly notable role is in Warrior High but there's no evidence of the multiple notable roles required. Definitely not seeing WP:GNG either.

Also see history at Draft:Sahnil Bhatnagar. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

*Keep as notable So I can see that Sahnil Bhatnagar is an Indian Television actor as we can actually see his episodes, For Example- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPfXD_zEw8U ( Please start the video at 18:45 mins) , there are lot many other appearances like this, Apart from this, He is a social media influencer with over a million followers - https://likee.video/@Sahnilbhatnagar/?lang=en. Check his google knowledge panel - https://g.co/kgs/f7xYRy Well! I can see his work and as well as I have seen him on the television appearing in many ads too, for example - https://www.facebook.com/1mgOfficial/posts/1849875838418043/ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-HDaVrlFNI So We can cleary notice he is an actor. Talking about news articles there are other articles too from China and Russia too which I could find out so it is just not one journalist. Sparta67 ( talk) 22:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The articles talking about him as part of an Indo-Brazilian couple towards the end of the article are, at best, tabloid junk. Two of them are also identical to each other word-for-word so are effectively the same source. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:20, 22 July 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. Fenix down ( talk) 21:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

WMF World Cup U23

WMF World Cup U23 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

minifootball.com, minifootball.eu and wmfworldcup.com are all run by the World Minifootball Federation and so fail the requirement of WP:GNG to have coverage that is independent of the subject. I found a routine announcement in Tasnim News but nothing better in my searches, sadly. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://euromf.rsportz.com/news/news1 ? No No This is about an U21 tournament not U23 ✘ No
https://www.ucfb.ac.uk/news/ucfb-news-hub/ucfb-students-represent-great-britain-at-mini-football-u21-world-cup/ ? No No Also relates to wrong tournament ✘ No
http://www.minifootball.com/divisions/26646/standings No No Org's own website No Wrong competition ✘ No
http://www.minifootball.com/pages/U21news No No Org's own website No Wrong competition ✘ No
http://www.minifootball.com/pages/Womens-World-Cup-and-U23-World-Cup No No Org's own website No Brief and routine coverage ✘ No
http://www.minifootball.com/pages/U23-in-Ukraine-2020 No No Org's own website No Brief and routine coverage ✘ 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}}.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

DJ MITHUN

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

Article on a DJ with no reliable sources and nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE search. Two of the press releases are word-for-word identical and contain warnings such as This post has been self-published on Youth Ki Awaaz by M AUDIOFX. Just like them, anyone can publish on Youth Ki Awaaz. and, in fact, they appear to have been submitted by the record label that is promoting this DJ. Clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO as far as I can see. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion for DJs struggling to get exposure. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 22 July 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. Fenix down ( talk) 21:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

János Tompa

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

Tiszakécske FC were not a top tier club at any point during the time in which he allegedly played for them so there isn't any assertion of passing WP:NFOOTBALL. In terms of WP:GNG, searching his name in conjunction with his year of birth and Tiszakécske yields no valid results. Searching his name alone only gives unrelated results about chess and historic figures of the same name. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, unless something remarkable turns up. Govvy ( talk) 11:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. Jogurney ( talk) 18:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 04:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 23:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

9 June 2018 'free Tommy Robinson' protests

9 June 2018 'free Tommy Robinson' protests (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An entirely redundant duplication of material already covered in the Tommy Robinson (activist) biography. I simply can't see what the purpose of this article is, and it does nothing to demonstrate that protests which took place in 2018 have any independent notability. Robinson is clearly a significant person, fully deserving of encyclopaedic coverage. This article however treats specific events in isolation, and decontextualises them in a manner that does no service to the reader at all. And then struggles to find enough to say about the protests themselves, the supposed article topic, since the majority of the article instead concerns itself with events that led up to them: events again fully explained, in a much broader context, in the Robinson biography. If there was anything of real significance here to justify merging into the biography, I'd propose that instead, but since there appears not to be, it should simply be deleted, as the unnecessary fork it clearly is. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Agree that this is largely a repeat of material at Tommy Robinson (activist) and isn't worth a separate spinoff article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - everything except the final paragraph is not about the demonstrations. There's clearly no long-lasting ramifications about the demonstrations. No need for a separate article. Sionk ( talk) 20:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Clearly a FORK or maybe even POINT-y example. I can't see any reason for this to exist. It's a blog-post, at most.. Not needed as an article, certainly. doktorb words deeds 21:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • At least transfer more text to Tommy Robinson (activist) page. Currently the Tommy Robinson page has two sentences on the rally. Namely:
On the weekends following Robinson's arrest, his supporters held rallies in his support. [1] [2] Demonstrators prevented a Muslim woman from driving a bus, [3] performed Nazi salutes, threw scaffolding, glass bottles and street furniture at police and damaged vehicles and buildings. [4]
There should at least be a mention of "over ten thousand protesters[2] blocked the roads around Trafalgar Square and some attacked police, injuring five officers", that is in the lede of the 9 June 2018 'free Tommy Robinson' protests. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 21:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why you couldn't have added that to the biography in the first place. Why did it need a separate article? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Had not had any luck making edits to the article earlier. It seemed carefully guarded by people who didn't want changes. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 18:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Why did it need a separate article? as I've said before, when 10,000 people block roads around Trafalgar Square and five cops are injured, that seems like a notable event. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 19:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
You seem to be saying that because your edits to the biography were reverted (with what to me looks like a clearly-worded proposal that you discuss them on the article talk page), you created this article to include the material instead? If so, I suggest you read WP:POVFORK. And try actually discussing things when asked, rather than going off in a huff to do your own thing... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Working with poor connectivity, spending a couple of hours or more writing something to fit in what's already written, going through news article, making sure you have your facts right ... and then see it deleted minutes later with a throw away "A lot has been removed that needs discussion etc". Yes its frustrating and yes it encourages you find another area that (you hope) is more time cost effective. That being said I think 9 June 2018 'free Tommy Robinson' protests stands on its own, though obviously I'm outvoted. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 23:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Have to correct myself. I had forgotten. I created the soon to be deleted 9 June 2018 'free Tommy Robinson' protests article April 24 2021, BEFORE adding to Tommy Robinson (activist) (April 26). -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 16:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC) So at the risk of changing my story, rereading the article it wasn't just the 10,000 demonstrators it was also "The Guardian newspaper described the arrest as cementing Robinson’s journey from "fringe player" to what Rob Ford of the University of Manchester called “a valuable niche in the radical-right ecosystem” -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 16:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't need a separate article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 08:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - These protests can be covered at the subject's article. There is nothing to suggest that they had the kind of impact (in terms of coverage, notability or legacy) that would be needed for them to require a separate article. Dunarc ( talk) 20:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Clear case of WP:COATRACKing as most of this information is already covered in the Tommy Robinson (activist). This lengthy and obscure title is not suitable for a redirect either. Frank Anchor Talk 17:44, 27 July 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.

Aliza Kelly

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 19:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Organisational ideology

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

totally vague and unencyclopedic , and presented as if it were the only theory of organized behavior. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organisation's goals (2nd nomination) DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete looks like a vandalism-only article made by an internet troll. - SomeWhatLife
  • Comment if somebody comes up with a good target this should be a redirect. I am struggling far more than I should to find a redirect target. Surely the concept of companies which have an ideological view has been discussed somewhere; everyone from Ben & Jerry's to Hobby Lobby does it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:32, 22 July 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. MBisanz talk 19:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

10th Annual Cybersocket Web Awards

10th Annual Cybersocket Web Awards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The parent article Cybersocket Web Award was deleted at AfD in 2019. The two references provided here are an award roster on J. C. Adams's blog (NSFW) and effectively the same roster on XBIZ-- there's nothing to indicate WP:NEVENT notability. Cheers, gnu 57 17:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 17:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 17:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Looks like it should have been proded in 2019, and let go, when the parent article was AfDed. Jeepday ( talk) 17:46, 28 July 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 Party for the Animals#PINK!. Sandstein 07:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

PINK!

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

Non-notable. Tagged for notability since 2011. Lacks sources. It is a sub-group of Party for the Animals and already has a sub-section at the parent article. An additional stand-alone article is not justified. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete barring Dutch-language sources coming to light, I can't see this reaching the notability threshold. Stuartyeates ( talk) 18:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with and redirect to the Party for the Animals section. The section, which does not have any references, could use the reference from the article, as well as any more descriptive content on the article. WaddlesJP13 ( talk | contributions) 03:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. This organization is notable but, as others also pointed out, totally unnecessary at present. Spinoffs start with well developed sections in the parent and other important information to elaborate. Right now, both the section in the parent and this article contain a miserable amount of information. gidonb ( talk) 09:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This article was started by a known sockpuppeteer from his account that has not yet been flagged. gidonb ( talk) 09:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Editing WP for 18 years I have stepped up and provide some background on articles. Otherwise this experience goes to waste for the community. Now if you had read my comment in combination with my opinion, you could have noticed that I hold this PvdD-affiliated organization to be notable. The topic is notable but the article unjustified. gidonb ( talk) 14:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • So what is your stance on merging? A topic can be notable while a merge is warranted. gidonb ( talk) 14:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Gidonb it might make sense to move content from Partij voor de Dieren to PINK! and then use the Template:Excerpt in the PvdD article. This syncs the PvdD article with the first paragraph from the PINK one. But I'd keep a separate article since some readers will specifically search for info on the youth wing. Having little content is no WP:DEL-REASON even though I see you'd prefer otherwise. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 19:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Trimton Again, I do not think that deleting is a valid option as the subject is notable. There isn't enough here for a spinoff so merge is the only good option. This makes WP:DEL-REASON 100% irrelevant! The direction of content movement prescribed by you is not how an encyclopedia works or should work. gidonb ( talk) 20:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Gidonb DEL-REASON is a nonexhaustive list. So yeah, it's not that we cannot delete under policy. But we don't have to delete, either, as PINK meets WP:GNG. You say we should delete despite GNG, right? Because meeting GNG only provides "presumed" notability(=right to an article)? I'm not familiar with PINK at all. I've only Googled it briefly. Could you perhaps explain why you think there is not enough for more than a stub? ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 19:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Oxygen (2018 film)

Oxygen (2018 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing of substance, except 1 review (2 are needed) was found in a WP:BEFORE that could help support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No other reliable reviews are found in English. Gujarati sources may exist but one review is not enough to keep under NFLIM. Ab207 ( talk) 18:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Looks to fail WP:NFILM foreign language film with only and English language article. Jeepday ( talk) 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Lone Bellow. czar 17:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Kanene Pipkin

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

Fails GNG. In my WP:BEFORE search, Kanene's name only comes up as tangential to being in the band The Lone Bellow. None of the sources cited in the article are about Kanene. I even tried an extensive newspapers.com search, but no independent, reliable, third-party sources were found about her as an individual. Her name is only ever mentioned as a band member. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 15:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to The Lone Bellow in case anyone searches for her name, and I would recommend doing the same for her occasional stage name Kanene Donehey Pipkin. Like the nominator, I can find nothing notable outside the band. This individual article achieves nothing beyond telling us she's in the band, went to college, and had a job. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, redirect. No individual notability. Drmies ( talk) 17:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:28, 22 July 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Bloodbrothers (2005 film)

Bloodbrothers (2005 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing of substance was found in a WP:BEFORE that could help support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Fairly well-known film by well-known director. Reviews in all the major Swedish newspapers (mixed ones, but that's not really relevant here), articles about the production before it was released and so on. I've expanded the article somewhat, adding a little bit about the production and reception, and added a number of sources. / Julle ( talk) 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the BEFORE clearly didn't include anything from the country the film is from. Geschichte ( talk) 18:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved since nomination by the use of reviews in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as GNG is met thanks to added Swedish sources. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 11:17, 29 July 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 BiblioQuest. As WP:ATD ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

BibliOZ

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

Non-notable website, fails WP:NWEBSITE. Only sources I can find are press releases. — Berrely •  Talk∕ Contribs 14:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Berrely •  Talk∕ Contribs 14:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Berrely •  Talk∕ Contribs 14:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Berrely •  Talk∕ Contribs 14:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable, does not meet WP:GNG. TipsyElephant ( talk) 19:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I couldn't find a single IRS source via Google. Newsbank database search of global newspapers and magazines and ProQuest both returned the same 2 brief mentions that I have added to the page for completeness but in my view these are not sufficient to satisfy GNG.
  • Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Lesliechin1 ( talk) 09:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG. Nexus000 ( talk) 11:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - I agree there is not sufficient notability to have an article, but per Wikipedia policy on alternatives to deletion there is a suitable alternative which is redirecting to BiblioQuest (the operating company). No merge is necessary given the lack of sources. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to BiblioQuest. Not notable in its own right. Aoziwe ( talk) 04:34, 27 July 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. MBisanz talk 19:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Angker Batu

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews or significant coverage was found in a WP:BEFORE. Donaldd23 ( talk) 14:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 14:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 14:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Still not enough to meet WP:NFO #1 or 2 in my opinion.- KH-1 ( talk) 07:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. - KH-1 ( talk) 07:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per the sources identified by Spiderone that show reviews in reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 08:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The Albino Code

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews or significant coverage was found in a WP:BEFORE. Donaldd23 ( talk) 14:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 14:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 14:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:37, 22 July 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. Article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

WGCS

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

Student college radio station with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The one reference and the external links confirm existence, but there is nothing to suggest notability. JBW ( talk) 14:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I have never been keen on arguing for keeping or for deleting on the basis that someone has said somewhere that in the past similar pages have been kept or deleted respectively. Even if we assume that the statement is true (which does not by any means go without saying, as such statements are posted by individual editors without having to provide statistical evidence) it merely means that for some other articles on similar topics there has been evidence of notability: that does not absolve us of the need to check whether there is such evidence in this case. This is, in fact, a form of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. A striking case was the issue of secondary schools, where for a long time people used to dismiss the possibility of even considering deletion, because someone had written somewhere that such articles were always kept. When eventually, after several years, someone had the audacity to question that accepted view, it was found that consensus was against it. Nor had there ever been any discussion anywhere which had establish consensus for it: some editor had just said that was what happened. Indeed, the page you cite actually says "This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change", "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as Verifiability and Neutral point of view", and other things along the same lines. JBW ( talk) 22:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ JBW: Please see below and the article as it is currently. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ JBW: You happen to have come into this at the tail end of some significant changes in guidance for this topic that pretty much have led to what you describe. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 06:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes. When I wrote my comment above I wasn't aware of some appallingly disingenuous activity related to this, which is currently the subject of a case at ANI. I intend to comment on it in more detail when I get time. JBW ( talk) 13:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per Nate and as I have completely revamped the entire page, added a SLEW of sources that more than meet GNG and N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've added more sourcing, mostly on the historical side with newspapers. I'll say this while I'm here... The vast majority of US radio stations have sourcing sufficient to meet the GNG: it's just that they either weren't digitized in the late 2000s when stubs were being written or that they are paywalled behind services like Newspapers.com. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 06:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:GNG per Nate's argument. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:21, 24 July 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. Daniel ( talk) 23:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Chamoli

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

Fails GNG, my BEFORE was unhelpful in finding any coverage. Fails the subjective criteria of WP:ORG per WP:NSCHOOL. Schools are not inherently notable and are supposed to meet either GNG or the ORG criteria or both, and this one does not. The best in my opinion would be a redirect to List of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas where all such schools are mentioned. I would feel happy if any editor helps in locating coverage about the school in order to get it kept. I would happily withdraw my nomination then. Thanks ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:18, 22 July 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

St Aloysius' College (Jabalpur)

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

fails WP:GNG WP:NSCHOOL DefenderBoy27 ( talk) 12:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DefenderBoy27 ( talk) 12:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DefenderBoy27 ( talk) 12:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DefenderBoy27 ( talk) 12:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DefenderBoy27 ( talk) 12:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Sportpursuit

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

lack of of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/ WP:NCORP GermanKity ( talk) 12:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 12:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 12:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 12:18, 22 July 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 Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte.

The discussion is whether individual barangays are villages or settlements that deserve separate articles, or if they are in most cases too small and insignificant to develop into full articles (this is where WP:GNG comes in). Standard practice (not policy) on Wikipedia has been to keep articles on villages and settlements, but not on individual neighborhoods unless there is something significant to write about them. Barangays do have separate local councils so they are not merely statistical units, but their significance and numerosity makes significance very local in nature. Barangays are usually quite small (average population is around 2000 individuals), although this is not by itself decisive (communes in France, all of which have an article, can have populations in the low hundreds).

There appears to be some variation in barangays. Some have significant coverage to write up a substantial article. For many others, this one included, the only content is basic demographic information, and a list of educational and religious institutions.

In making the editorial decision to make this a redirect it is for the following reasons:

  • A large majority of participants in this discussion oppose having a separate article.
  • The article lacks sourcing to develop anything beyond the skeleton and a directory of public services. (In comparison, communes in France typically have more sourcing that can be used to develop the article.)
  • The most active editors on Filipino topics have expressed concern that just maintaining and patrolling, let alone developing, large numbers of articles on unremarkable barangays is difficult.
  • For the sake of consistency, I am following the precedent set on the previous AFD on the individual barangay Tarusan.

Perhaps it might be advisable to expand the lists of barangays into tables that can contain basic information (such as population) but that is just a thought. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte

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

Stubbish (and directory-like) article of a barangay. Such type of Philippines-related articles have been point of contention for the past decade, with latest discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. Consensus remains that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles.

For this barangay, it only contains one external link to the 2007 mid-decade census (outdated!), and contains basic info like statistics, barangay captain, and natural description like geographical location. But it lacks other encyclopedoc content. It does contain a list of educational institutions and religious buildings, but see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Worse it lacks reliable sources. Thus this should not benefit from WP:GEOLAND and must be nuked.

Note that if this and the other article about another barangay of the same province are nuked, the category Category:Barangays of Camarines Norte may be colaterally deleted as an empty category. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 09:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This one does appear to be a separate and recognised settlement, so passes WP:GEOLAND. It's a village miles from the main population centre of the municipality and separated from other settlements by countryside. This would be the definition of a separate settlement anywhere else on the planet, so not to recognise it as one because it's in the Philippines makes no sense. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Necrothesp: the consensus of Pinoy WP:Tambayan community has been clear. Barangays must be considered on case-to-case bases. I don't want another debate as that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. The recognized settlements here are the 1,634 municipal divisions (cities and municipalities or Philippine towns), as opposed to thousands of largely-obscure barangays. Unless in your context you treat the 1,634 cities and municipalities of the Philippines as equivalent to Chinese prefectures or U.S. counties! (since below basic provincial or state-level) JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 14:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    As I have already said, in the UK we treat every hamlet that is a recognised settlement as separate and have articles on them. They are all part of parishes, which are our lowest level of administrative unit, but they are still separate settlements. The same goes for any other country in the world (apart from, in your opinion, the Philippines). A settlement is a settlement, whether it is actually an administrative unit or not. Ironically, in the Philippines, these are actually administrative units of a sort, yet still you refuse to recognise them on Wikipedia. Which is, frankly, bizarre, and I do not understand your reasoning. It is clear that they meet the criteria of WP:GEOLAND, which is our main notability guideline on the subject. The problem is that "barangay" effectively has two meanings: a subdivision of an urban area and a separate village. They may be treated the same in the Philippines, but they are not the same in a Wikipedia context. The former are frequently not notable per WP:GEOLAND, but the latter are. You, however, seem to be assuming a blanket non-notability. GEOLAND, however, is quite clear on the matter: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. I see nothing that says except in the Philippines! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Necrothesp: that comparison won't work here. England's 10,449 civil parishes are dwarfed by the 42,046 barangays of the Philippines. Some towns, like Adams, Ilocos Norte, only have a meager number of barangays that can be counted by hand. In three Metro Manila cities ( Caloocan, Manila, and Pasay), barangays are named numerically. Like Barangay 1, Barangay 2, Barangay 3, and sometimes up to Barangay 468 or Barangay 678. It is impractical to create articles on every one of them, especially if majority of them do not have reliable, non-blog-type sources on their own. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    You clearly have not read what I just wrote about the difference between urban neighbourhoods and separate villages. And an English rural parish can have several separate villages and hamlets; each one is considered to be notable on Wikipedia if it has its own identity. The same applies in any other country in the world. WP:GEOLAND is the standard here. India, for instance, has far more villages than the Philippines does, yet AfD has found every one to be notable if it is considered to be a separate settlement (no, not administrative unit, but settlement). Why exactly do you consider the Philippines to be an exception to this? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Necrothesp: if you contest the Tambayan consensus, feel free to submit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan to WP:Deletion review forum. But I still stand that barangays are only notable by case-to-case basis. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 17:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    Is an AfD for a completely different place not a case-by-case basis? And I still fail to understand why you think the Philippines should be an exception to the notability guideline which applies to the whole of the rest of the world. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Necrothesp: that's because barangays are located within settlements. In our country, the 1,634 municipal LGUs comprise the nation's settlements or populated places. Barangays are just mere subdivisions of these settlements. Unlike your Indian comparison: a sample from Anuppatti reveals this division level: India -> Tamil Nadu state -> Tiruppur District -> Anupatti village (excluding dìvisions with no government bodies). They have secondary level between provincial/state divisions and settlements, which are the districts. That is unlike our case, like for instance: Philippines -> Bulacan -> Malolos (city) or Pulilan (Philippine municipality or what other countries call towns), excluding administrative regions which have no real governing officials (except Bangsamoro of course) and legislative districts (which are not part of the administrative subdivision hierarchy of the country). We don't have administrative districts between provinces and cities/municipalities, as such cities/municipalities are the settlements here, whereas in India villages are considered as settlements. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 07:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    You really don't seem to understand what I'm saying. A settlement does not just mean an administrative division. For example, the lowest level of administrative division in England is the parish. A parish may consist of several villages and hamlets. They are not administrative divisions. They have no councils. They have no "legal status". But they are still settlements (i.e. populated places with a name and an individual identity, just like barangays) and they still have articles on Wikipedia. This is also the case elsewhere in the world. There is absolutely no reason why the Philippines should be an exception. Just because the Philippines calls its villages barangays, makes them subdivisions of municipalities and does not legally distinguish between a barangay that is an urban neighbourhood and one that is a rural village does not mean the latter is not a settlement under the definition of WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Necrothesp: There's little to no benefit in keeping these articles here. Imagine having 42,000+ stubs with just the lead and an infobox. Barangays can be notable, but this one simply isn't. As far as I know, a subject/topic must satisfy the general notability guidelines of Wikipedia before passing WP:GEOLAND. Let me emphasise that the lead of WP:GEOLAND states that "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable". This one barely passes the GNG. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 09:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply
If settlements meet WP:GEOLAND they have almost invariably been considered to be notable at AfD. This has generally been considered to be an exception from GNG. Per the second bullet point at the top of the page: Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable. I see nothing that says "unless they're in the Philippines!" -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Necrothesp: cities and municipalities (Philippine towns) are the recognized settlements here. Barangays are just mere divisions of them, but people usually associate themselves with their city or town (if not province), not barangays. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 14:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
We're just going round in circles here. The salient point is that, for some reason, Filipino editors seem to think their country should be an exception to every other country. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Necrothesp: Just like what I've said below, with or without local consensus, most barangays do not meet WP:GNG. It can't be the other way around. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 16:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
What you're not understanding is that WP:GEOLAND is an SNG. Per WP:SNG, if something meets the criteria of an SNG it does not have to meet the criteria of WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Necrothesp: again per GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Take note the word "presumed". It is not written as "are absolutely notable". Plus barangays are only mere administrative subdivisions of 1,634 cities and towns which, I repeat, are the legally-recognized places here. Thus the redirect List of populated places in the Philippines redirects to List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines. Barangays are not real populated settlements, but just mere subdivisions of those populated places. In most of our maps (overview maps of the Philippines and regions), cities and municipalities are represented by dot or similar objects. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 06:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet on whether to keep, delete, redirect or disambiguate the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Necrothesp's arguments. No one seems to be contesting that this place meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated recognized settlement. The issue is that local consensus in WP:Tambayan is trying to override the community wide notability guideline of WP:GEOLAND. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS explicitly says this is not allowed. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. If the community at Wikiproject Philippines wants the WP:GEOLAND notability guideline to be changed so that barangays do not meet the guideline, then WP:TALKFIRST to establish wider consensus. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Qwaiiplayer: if you are contesting, then try to submit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan and the recently-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurelio, San Jose at WP:Deletion review. Note that much of these articles have little to no reliable sources that are not supportive of inclusion as articles. Maintaining an outstanding 40,000+ articles of unnotable barangays leaves open opportunities for problems like vandalism, directory-like content, promotional content, and fictional etymologies. I went through a few of Indian village articles though (those pointed out by Necrothesp), and some of them are stubbish and unsourced articles, like Pedda Elikicherla and Jamthi Khurd. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 13:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Qwaiiplayer: With or without local consensus, most barangays do not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Based on previous outcomes (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurelio, San Jose) which demonstrate at least some broader community consensus, and a strong consensus that Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte does not meet even the most broad definition of basic notability, I'm changing my !vote to merge to Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte#Barangays. Ultimately an article for an encyclopedia needs encyclopedic content, and no one has provided evidence (nor can I find) that WP:SOURCESEXIST. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 17:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Qwaiiplayer: Note: A redirect to Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte#Barangays isn't plausible since two other municipalities in the same province have a barangay named "Santa Cruz". Is your merge !vote also a redirect one or is it similar to Howard the Duck's !vote above? — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 03:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment Like Howard the Duck's !vote. If anything, multiple baraclays in the same province with the same name is a candidate for a DAB page (would be DABed at Santa Cruz (disambiguation), but if possible the relevant information from Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte should be included in Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte#Barangays, similar to Alcantara,_Cebu#Barangays. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 04:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
In the Philippines, this was a badly named article. Barangays aren't named "<barangayname>, <provincename>" just like this one. There are many ways to name barangay articles, but presumably, for this article, its "best" name would've been "Santa Cruz, Jose Panganiban". A person searching for a barangay named "Santa Cruz" in Camarines Norte won't search as "Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte"; presumably that person know where what municipality it is from. Strongly oppose making a dab page if that's needed. Howard the Duck ( talk) 22:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It's really mindblowing that foreigners think they know better than Filipinos on how to classify places in the Philippines. It's like the Spaniards invading all over again. Filipinos don't even use the term "hamlets!" Nothing is going to be deleted. All of the information will be placed someplace else, except for elected government officials, which can be added. Howard the Duck ( talk) 13:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte: The barangay article is simply a listing of schools and whatever there is. If we proceed with the argument that all barangays are notable since these are settlements, we will be stuck with all 897 barangays in Manila numbered from 1 to 905, not to mention the barangays in Pasay and Caloocan. Following the same logic, it would merit the creation of articles for sitios and puroks. The barangay article, itself, must be merged to its higher administrative division. Hiwilms Talk 03:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    • As has already been pointed out ad infinitem, they are notable per WP:GEOLAND if they are clearly separate settlements (i.e. towns and villages), not simply subdivisions of larger towns. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Necrothesp: Who told you they're separate from "larger towns"? — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 08:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
If a settlement is self-contained and has miles of countryside between it and another settlement than it is a separate settlement. If you are incapable of understanding this then we are just going round in circles. Once again, you obviously believe that the Philippines should be an exception to a convention that applies to every other country in the world. Fine. I have no idea why, but if you want to believe something so odd then that's obviously your prerogative. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Necrothesp: You clearly don't understand how barangays work, do you? — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 08:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, I completely understand the situation. It's you who clearly doesn't understand the Wikipedia notability guideline and what a populated place is. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Necrothesp: If that's the case, then why are you saying that they're separate from cities/municipalities? — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 08:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
<sigh> -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Necrothesp: however, Barangay Santa Cruz is a subordinate of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte. It is not considered a village in our local government administration. Thus the recognized settlement goes to Jose Panganiban which is a town. Santa Cruz is just a mere division. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 10:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
And settlements are intertwined with local government administration. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 10:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
No, you're still not getting it. Never mind. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Necrothesp is imposing the standard of foreigners to concepts native to the Philippines, then telling us Filipinos, "nope, you people and your government are idiots". If Apolinario Mabini was alive he would've stood up to this nonsense! Howard the Duck ( talk) 11:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
No, I'm suggesting the worldwide standards of Wikipedia should apply to the whole world and editors from one country should not for some bizarre reason decide it's an exception! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
!!!ALL HAIL MOTHER ENGLAND. ENGLISH STANDARDS APPLY TO THE PHILIPPINES!!! Somewhere, someone from Barangay Santa Cruz is asking "what's a hamlet"? Howard the Duck ( talk) 14:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Necrothesp: You're not listening. No one is saying that they are an exemption. Barangays can be notable just like your hamlets or villages, but not all of them. Your beloved GEOLAND never said that if a settlement passes it, it passes GNG too. GEOLAND, being an SNG, is saying that "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable", therefore, a settlement must meet GNG first. WP:GNG is blood thirsty for WP:RS. Most of them don't pass WP:GNG because aside from listings on some government websites, there's really nothing else you can find about them. They are not separate settlements either. Your definition of a populated place does not apply to the Philippines. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 12:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
No, you're not listening. If you look back over previous AfDs, you will find that almost every recognised populated place (not farms, railway stops, etc, but actual groups of dwellings) everywhere else in the world that has been sent to AfD has been kept. There is clear consensus that they should be. Arguing that barangays are not recognised populated places is just ridiculous. Of course they are. In fact, they have more legal recognition than many other settlements (e.g. British hamlets, which have no official status whatsoever, as I have already said). Those that are parts of an urban area are mostly not notable (I've already said this, so I don't know why it's continually brought up). However, those that are separate rural villages, as this one is, are (and no, I don't mean separate as in a separate municipality; I mean separate as in divided from other populated places by open countryside). Their administrative status is utterly irrelevant to the guideline. The fact they are part of another municipality is utterly irrelevant to the guideline. The only thing that matters is that they are recognised populated places. That means they meet the guideline's criteria. But, as I said, we're going round in circles. Your little group are not going to agree with me and I'm not going to agree with you. Let others contribute. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
We're not deleting. We're just putting Wikidata like entries on another place. Howard the Duck ( talk) 14:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Howard the Duck: To add, we will literally have thousands of one-sentence articles if we create an article for every barangay in Manila, Pasay, and Caloocan, alone. For example, the article for my barangay here in Manila will only read as "Barangay 55 is a barangay in Tondo, Manila, Philippines." While there is an elementary school here, there's literally nothing except houses here. Meanwhile, the next barangay is just across the street. The same can be said with the majority of barangays, especially in Metro Manila. Notable exceptions are Alabang, Baclaran, and Fort Bonifacio which are major hubs. In the case of Manila, it is better to keep just the articles for its 16 old districts. Hiwilms Talk 14:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
As for this Wikidata entry Wikipedia article, I'd be okay with including even the barangay chairman in a list of barangays in its mother municipality. While barangay elections are supposedly every 3 years, they are as frequent as the quintennial census. The DILG has a list of barangay officials in their website. Nothing is going to be deleted! Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm really trying to write something about Barangay 666, Manila, the site of the largest papal mass in history, and some notable executions (before its establishment as one), but it's actually quite hard to pass WP:GNG. Howard the Duck ( talk) 14:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Wait, apparently, I forgot that foreigner Wikipedians here are better than the Philippine government's Department of the Interior and Local Government. Barangay 666 is not a separate village, but this one is. SORRY! Just ignore my dreams for 666. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
To be fair, there are a lot of settlements in western countries whose articles don't pass WP:GNG. I created one recently, Crudie. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
 Question: @ NemesisAT: so in your opinion, do 99% of 42,046 barangays in the Philippines (except Poblacion or downtown barangays) deserve their own articles? Are there any countries that have higher number of places below municipal-level settlements? Note that French communes are = Philippine cities and towns. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 15:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
FWIW, any settlement in history, that's not contiguous to another settlement, is another "town" per WP:GEOLAND. (Is Taal Lake's Volcano Island a town? Yes, according to GEOLAND!) Ergo, our puroks and sitios, which are usually far away from the main town area, are separate settlements and are "towns". You'd notice this insistence from foreigners on calling Rio Tuba in Bataraza as a separate "town", despite local sources never calling as such, instead preferring to call it as a "community". Now, are these "towns" notable. GEOLAND says they are presumed to be notable. The presumption of notability then is connected to hamlets of England -- a form of OTHERBULLSHITEXISTS argument: if hamlets in England are notable, and such places in the Philippines are to be considered as hamlets if they were in England (WHO CARES WHAT THE LOCALS THINK? #BRITTANIARULESTHEWAVES!), then they are notable. Damned what the locals think. Damned what the government thinks. They're more reasonable than us... FOREIGNERS? LOL. Howard the Duck ( talk) 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
This is English Wikipedia. There is generally considered to be a bias against the inclusion of topics from non-English speaking countries here, so I find this argument a bit odd. To answer your question @ JWilz12345:, if a settlement is officially recognised, that it is separate from others (not a suburb), and we can verify that it exists, then yes I support it having a dedicated article here. NemesisAT ( talk) 16:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
WE
ARE
NOT
DELETING
ANYTHING.
We're just putting it in another place... well, for things that aren't already in other places in Wikipedia. That's what my !vote is... dunno with the others.
FWIW, the Philippines has more English speakers than grand old England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Howard the Duck ( talk) 17:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I find the line of argument that says that "foreigners" shouldn't be commenting on any article about a place deeply shocking. What is your motivation, User:Howard the Duck, if it's not racism? Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I did not say "foreigners shouldn't be commenting on any article about a place". It is foreigners knowing better than locals on what to do. If an Englishman tells me a hamlet is notable on an AFD about an English hamlet, that's fine with me. If a Filipino tells a foreigner "barangays are not notable", I suppose that Filipino knows better. Howard the Duck ( talk) 18:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
And where have you ever seen me (an Englishman, as it happens) say that a foreigner's view of the notability of an English hamlet is any less valid than that of an Englishman? I believe, and very much hope, that the answer is "never", and that also goes for any discussion about a place anywhere in the world. This is an international encyclopedia, and people's opinions count for just the same whatever their nationality. We apply the same standards to populated places everywhere, rather than make an exception because a few people out of the many millions who inhabit the Philippines refuse to abide by our policies and guidelines. You have written nothing to disabuse me of the thought that your comments are based on racism. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
As a foreigner, I have no idea how an English hamlet should be notable, at least on Wikipedia terms. Should I prance around every English hamlet AFD? Of course not. Filipinos have explained -- extensively, to non-Filipinos -- why barangays such as this are not notable. It's not they are basing their arguments on ignorance. It's a good idea to heed their advice. If you have found this racist, then please I humbly apologize. Howard the Duck ( talk) 20:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Howard, there are two basic problems with your argument that if hamlets in England are notable, and such places in the Philippines are to be considered as hamlets if they were in England ... then they are notable. Damned what the locals think. Damned what the government thinks. First, to implement GEOLAND, you have to know what the "government thinks": presumptive Notability is for "officially recognized" settlements, so one policy-relevant consideration (as opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is, to what extent the settlement is recognized.

The second and perhaps more fundamental problem with your argument here is that you don't seem to understand what Notability means. To be notable, a topic has to meet certain criteria, and your argument that barangays are not subjectively notable is not a policy-compliant argument why they do not meet the relevant criteria for Notability, in this case those specified in GEOLAND. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment FWIW, any settlement in history, that's not contiguous to another settlement, is another "town" per WP:GEOLAND this statement is funny but not actually true. The provision on question only applies to places that have been legally recognized at some point, not to any settlement in history. And legal recognition for very narrow purposes, such as Census Subdivisions, is specifically excluded from Notability under GEOLAND. But hahaha. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, yes, it has to be legally recognized. All barangays, even those in downtown urban areas, are "legally recognized". What the foreigners love though are barangays situated far away from the main settlement/town/city. That in their eyes -- as a legally recognized place -- makes it a town, no matter what the Philippine government says. Howard the Duck ( talk) 20:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I was about to ask Necrothesp about this: I don't see anything in GEOLAND that would grant presumptive Notability specifically to barangays situated far from the main settlement - Necrothesp mentioned the idea of something being "a separate settlement", but I don't see anything in GEOLAND or elsewhere that would make that a factor in Notability.
Anyway, Howard, why are we talking about towns now? You have just said that barangays are legally-recognized inhabited places, and that makes them presumptively Notable. I don't see how (or why) the Phillipine government would create a category of places that are "officially recognized" that would not be presumed Notable - unless they were single-purpose creations like Census Divisions, but you haven't made that argument. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
On another AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, some foreigners mistake some self-sufficient barangays as "towns", probably to bolster their argument; this was also where I learned that "each settlement away from the main settlement is a separate settlement, and since barangays are legally recognized, these barangays pass GEOLAND, but not say, barangays in the downtown area". For me such self-sufficient barangays are probably notable already, like the one they're referring to at Rio Tuba. Howard the Duck ( talk) 21:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The fact that someone made a certain argument in another AfD doesn't make it compliant with WP policy and guidelines; that argument isn't. In the AfD you pointed to, the closer interpreted GEOLAND as presumptive of GNG Notability, which is flat wrong. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm assuming good faith on the person who made such argument; it does seem reasonable (hahah). As for the closer, I don't really know what to do about that. Howard the Duck ( talk) 21:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm not suggesting that you do anything about it at all, but both aspects are good examples of what I said about AfD in the Talk:GEOLAND discussion. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Newimpartial: Barangays are not independent places on their own. They are components that make up each of the settlements - the 1,634 true settlements (cities and towns). So there are 1,634 settlements in the Philippines. As such barangays are only notable on case-to-case bases, like Canlubang or Forbes Park, Makati. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 02:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Right, but I understand that this AfD nomination is based on Notability, and for that the relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND. The guideline attributes Notability, not to independent places or "settlements", but to all officially recognized inhabited places. So if a barangay is officially recognized and inhabited, it is Notable; this isn't a matter where some might be notable and some not, according to policy. There might be other reasons to have articles for some barangays separately and redirect others to lists, but Notability doesn't offer such a reason. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Newimpartial: even if there is only one source? (Let's assume, a source from Philippine Statistics Authority that lists 2020 census of Philippine cities and municipalities, and their barangays by region?) JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 11:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Only having one source is not a problem in terms of GEOLAND, as long as it is a good source. In terms of your example, it makes a difference whether barangays are officially recognized for other purposes or only for the census, since some census-specific geographies are actually excluded from Notability under GEOLAND. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Newimpartial: the functions and purposes of barangays are outlined in the article itself. It is just a click away. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 12:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks. As local government units, then, I can't imagine how either (1) only one source could exist or (2) anyone would argue that they don't meet WP Notability criteria. In fact, quite a bit of reliably sourced information should be available about each of them, though, granted, not all in English (but that doesn't matter). Newimpartial ( talk) 12:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Newimpartial: Non-English sources are virtually non-existent. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 12:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
There aren't any newsblogs keeping track of local politics at the barangay level? That's...disconcerting. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Newimpartial: Yep, there are none. No one really cares to be honest. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 13:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Newimpartial: There is no reason to keep track of them. In Manila alone, there are 897 barangays. Even in cities and municipalities with less barangays, the focus is always on the municipality/city or provincial LGU. Hiwilms Talk 12:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hiwilms is right. Barangays are not as important as provinces and the "true settlements – the 1,634 cities and municipalities or Philippine towns. The cities and towns are already settlements of their own, it is just several of them have substantial territories (like Doña Remedios Trinidad and Calbayog) that span several barangays that may have their own mini plazas and mini sports facilities. But majority of local-level services are handled by the municipal-level LGUs (the cities and Philippine towns). Barangays just facilitate and assist the services conducted by 1,634 municipal-level LGUs. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 13:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
But none of this argument is compliant with WP policy. What matters is that they are inhabited and officially recognized, and that sources can be provided documenting those facts. How important, substantial or independent they are is just not relevant to questions of Notability, which was the basis of this AfD nom. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Newimpartial: That's the problem, we have no sources aside from censuses and lists like this one. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 13:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
AfD is not the solution to permastubs, though. The solution to permastubs (if such this article topic turns out to be) is consolidation up to an appropriate unit (in this case, a unit of geography), and redirection to the appropriate article. While an AfD closer can decide to do this, there is no need to send such cases to AfD (nor does AfD typically handle them very well, IMO).
There is also no policy against articles that are dominated by census data; presented appropriately, such articles can actually be quite useful. Just an FYI. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Newimpartial expressing surprise on the lack of newsblogs. This is not jolly old England. Internet is bad. People are dirt poor. There aren't even local newspapers. Dear foreigners, please stop imposing your first world standards. Listen to the Filipinos here. It is not them arguing from the point of ignorance. Howard the Duck ( talk) 17:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

WP policy is that inhabited, officially recognized places are Notable. That isn't a first world standard, and I dare say it would be considerably more ethnocentric to argue that only inhabited, officially recognized places in rich countries with good internet count as Notable. As far as ignorance goes, I have only pointed out that you in particular don't seem to understand the Wikipedia concept of Notability; I'm sure there are many other topics on which you are not ignorant at all, and I have certainly made no generalizations about Filipinos.
And Zambia, for example, has newsblogs, so yes, I am surprised if the Philippines does not. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Presumed notable, that is. Again, this is the ammo of GEOLAND proponents here. It does not confer automatic notability! I for myself am not espousing deletion. I'm for merging these Wikidata entries Wikipedia articles to a list somewhere else.
NOTHING
IS
GOING
TO
BE
DELETED. (Do I have to do this multiple times because foreigners can't get it?!)
The Philippines has newsblogs. What it doesn't have are newsblogs for each 42000+ barangays. Or even for 50 barangays. I'd be interested if Bagong Silang has one. Howard the Duck ( talk) 17:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, presumed Notable, just as a GNG pass is presumed notable. In both cases, this means "presumed to merit a unique article", but an article is never guaranteed because other factors also apply.
The thing is, I am not sure that I actually disagree with you about what the best treatment is for the barangays. But from a policy point of view, it is simply incorrect to argue that they "aren't Notable" (in fact there isn't any basis for deciding that anything presumed Notable under WP:N somehow isn't notable, because Notability itself is only the presumption that a topic should have an article).
An argument can certainly be made that the best treatment of barangays is to group them up to a higher level of geography and present stats on them in a table, for example, but the basis of that argument can't be that they are not Notable, because that isn't the way WP:N works. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm not arguing all 42000 barangays are not notable, end of. I'm arguing this barangay is not notable. The article even is badly named, it is masquerading as a town when it isn't. This approach can lead to Imperial Manila bias (the best analogy is East Coast bias) but if there are sources, it won't be hard to make a GNG-compliant article that doesn't look like a Wikidata entry that hasn't substansially changed for almost a decade.... hey, like this article! Howard the Duck ( talk) 18:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
But this is what I mean when I state politely that you don't understand what Notability means. If Barangays are officially-recogniced and populated, then they are (presumed) Notable, and they don't become any more Notable/deserving of an article if they also meet the GNG. GNG criteria simply don't apply to the Notability of places, and shouldn't really affect the decision of how best to organize information about places into articles. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Newimpartial, as you may know, people can twist the meaning of every page in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. I'm not saying you do, but as you can see with the discussion that I started re: WP:GNG vs WP:SNG, no one actually agrees on anything. You even disagreed on an AFD close (Well, that's not new!) What you understand about "Notability" is not the sole source of truth. Foreigners cite GEOLAND. Us Filipinos cite GNG. Something's got to give. Personally, there has been an evolution of positions.
Filipinos have barangays since there were people in the Philippines. Filipinos know what they are talking about when they tell you "This specific barangay is not notable. We can't make a proper article out of it. This article has zero WP:RS aside from the fact it exists, it has this land area, this many people, and these are the government officials." Is this barangay notable? GNG says no. GEOLAND says yes, but then again, every province, city, municipality and barangay does. Howard the Duck ( talk) 18:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
But no editor of any nationality - not even your esteemed self - can make a policy-based argument that a certain place is not Notable if they do not understand what WP Notability is: which you, apparently, do not. There have now been many very clear replies at WT:N specifying that the GNG criteria do not apply in certain areas where they are set aside by SNGs, and that GEOLAND represents one of these. Your attempt to argue that "this barangay is not notable because it doesn't meet GNG criteria" just isn't based on policy; this has nothing whatever to do with nationality, so I wish you would stop throwing that red herring around. It stinks. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

St. Aloysius' High School, Kanpur

St. Aloysius' High School, Kanpur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Lack of reliable references which are independent of the subject.. Fails WP:NSCHOOL GermanKity ( talk) 12:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 12:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 12:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 12:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 12:11, 22 July 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) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 01:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Eevee (band)

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

Fails WP:Band. All sources are YouTube except the first ref that was widely unreliable sources, can't find more reliable sources on google search about this band. It has been sent to AfD in 2010, but was obviously not discussed properly. 49.149.126.227 ( talk) 10:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

AFD nomination on behalf of anon user. Their comment is pasted above. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 10:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

* Possible deletion: Article needs more sources to justify keeping. -- Kevin19781 ( talk) 00:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Released two albums on Sony label, and charted in Philippines so meets WP:BAND. Sourcing needs help though. LizardJr8 ( talk) 19:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about the band and their activities: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19]. The article needs some update. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:BAND. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 5 (only one criteria needed) and also has multiple reliable sources coverage as linked above so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. meets WP:BAND and WP:NMUSIC, but still needs to require some few updates. CruzRamiss2002 ( talk) 12:36, 25 July 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Uchi Uchibeke

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

Article about a person that fails WP:GNG. Sources in the article are but passing mentions of the subject. The company he founded also has a questionable notability as well. Riteboke ( talk) 11:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Riteboke ( talk) 11:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Riteboke ( talk) 11:41, 22 July 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Mobile Police Command

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

Overblown article with a great deal of bulleted content, insufficient breadth and depth fo referencing to pass WP:NCORP, moved once to Draft by Onel5969 and not improved since then. Creating editor moved to mainspace more than somewhat prematurely. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 11:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete - it exists, but not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 12:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep - Following the addition of numerous citations to the article, I think it meets notablity guidelines now. RealKnockout ( talk) 15:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. National agencies like this one have always been considered notable. Passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 12:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep greatly improved by refs added by User:RealKnockout and while sources are largely primary that is unavoidable in a state without free press referring to a government entity. Mztourist ( talk) 10:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Now meets GNG thanks to additional refs, and I don't really think a government agency needs to pass NCORP. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 11:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of compositions by Max Bruch where it's mentioned. Anyone is free to add some content to the artist's article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Für die Eltern

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

The only reference is a YouTube link, which is not acceptable. The listed Fifield book makes no reference to this obscure work, if it exists. In fact, I can't find any reliable sources about this work. Probably does not meet notability criteria. intforce ( talk) 10:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I add a source, where it is written there, Lulanep ( talk) 15:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
And in the Max Bruch archiv in Collogne it is named. Lulanep ( talk) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Max Bruch in case anyone searches for the title. Classical experts may have more to say here, but it appears to me that the article is copied from minor book entries, which is not enough for Wikipedia. Brief mentions of the composition can be found in directories of classical works but it does not appear to have attracted the professional research that leads to notability in that realm. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 15:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, Redirect to Max Bruch, and move the material to that article, where it will fit nicely, with good context, and without unbalancing the article on the composer himself. That way, nothing is lost, and the existence of such a tender gift of a young composer can still be found in Wikipedia by those who are interested. But it is difficult to justify a stand-alone article on a song that, by the article's own admission, may only have been performed once in nearly 200 years. Elemimele ( talk) 20:56, 22 July 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Virtual Places Chat

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE, can't find any reliable sources for the article and the whole article is almost entirely unsourced. — Berrely •  Talk∕ Contribs 09:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Berrely •  Talk∕ Contribs 09:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Berrely •  Talk∕ Contribs 09:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, lots of unsourced text and the references' reliability is questionable. enjoyer -- talk 10:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article does not have any reliable sources. LSGH ( talk) ( contributions) 07:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The references used in this article are unreliable. Pachu Kannan ( talk) 08:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Unsourced artical to established notability. TheDreamBoat ( talk) 04:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 08:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Joseph A. Bank (IT Specialist)

Joseph A. Bank (IT Specialist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP subject does not meet WP:NBIO. I think that notability hinges on the ACM Gordon Bell prize, and it does not seem that this award would automatically establish notability for every recipient. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:37, 22 July 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 09:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

James Palm

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

Promotional article with content substantially from SPA. No evidence of notability; grandiose claims of notability centre on founding a redlinked company, cited to questionable and non-RS boosterism sources. The bigger problem is zero RS coverage of any depth, and only press releases and light churnalism - once you've dug past all the other people called "James Palm" for what little material there is about this one, there's nothing that could substantiate any reasonable WP:BLP. I'd happily be demonstrated wrong, but it would need to be shown. David Gerard ( talk) 07:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 07:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 07:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 07:58, 22 July 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Jackie Baumgarten

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

no evidence of notability, besides placement on a list. The refs are promotional or mere notices DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:31, 22 July 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

CAASie.co

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

Article appears to have been written by one of the founders. Doesn't present sufficient reliable secondary sources for verification or to meet guidelines at WP:NCORP. Citing ( talk) 04:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Citing ( talk) 04:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Citing ( talk) 04:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Article was improved for secondary sources and neutrality. - jaravedffej ( talk)
  • Delete: Agree with the nomination, a lot of references are about partnerships, not about the functions of this company, nor reviews of its activity. An ABN lookup does not constitute a reference. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - significant coverage about the company itself, rather than passing mentions of partnerships etc, appears to be lacking. Therefore I doubt it passes muster for notability. firefly ( t · c ) 06:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – caasie.co has been added as a reference for articles such as Billboard ‎and Out-of-home advertising. If it's not notable then we might want to reconsider whether it's a reliable source. Certes ( talk) 11:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I cleaned up the section the section at Billboard because it was rather spammy. The second link is a bit tougher... unfortunately, it's hard to find reliable sources online for articles about advertising because the search results are always a crab bucket of ad firms maximizing their SEO. It's hard to tell when a blog post isn't simply an ad for a particular firm/service (...so hats off to the marketers I suppose). Citing ( talk) 15:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 04:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

List of national pickleball associations

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

A new created list which does not expand on the primary topic in any meaningful manner. The only source is a primary source. This list would only be good if we had articles of the national associations instead of just countries. This fails WP:V and WP:N. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 04:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 04:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 04:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Agreed, the links only go to countries, not the national associations of those nations. As such, it is a meaningless list. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:LISTN, links only to go the countries themselves. No notability whatsoever. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I wrote this article using List of national tennis associations as a template. The aforementioned tennis article also only has one primary source, and none of the links therein link to their respective nations either. There is very little difference between these two articles. Therefore, I believe the reason for deletion is a double-standard. Cvscvs2 ( talk) 13:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS this is one of the arguments to avoid here. We don't judge any article based on any other article. Each article must be judged on it's own merits and applicable policy. What you do need to do if you think this list should stay is find the inclusion criteria that you think it meets and prove it with referencing or evidence. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 02:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Whimbling iron

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

Suspected hoax, all citations fail to verify existence or general notability EdwardUK ( talk) 03:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: appears to be direct copy from these sites -- Whiteguru ( talk) 07:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Dictionary and google searches for "whimble", "whimbling" and "wheft" didn't show anything much other than copies of the original article, which was created by an editor who appears only to have created this article. If this is a real thing, I'm sure that sooner or later a campanologically-inclined editor will re-create the article with better links, but for now I think it should go. RomanSpa ( talk) 11:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel ( talk) 04:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Arnab Bhattacharya

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

A limited works that are unable to justify subject's notability. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN DMySon ( talk) 03:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 03:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 03:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 03:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon ( talk) 03:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: One of the references is definitely a press release, and one other is rather short. Remainder of references validate he is a Sarod player of some renown, known on Doordarshan and hosted one Indian Embassy music recital. Notability established. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subject is meeting WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Bapinghosh ( talk) 10:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - just about scrapes GNG with New Indian Express and National Herald Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets GNG per sources above. There may be other offline and non-English sources given the nature of the subject. -- Ab207 ( talk) 09:45, 25 July 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. Daniel ( talk) 04:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Bitpanda

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

Non notable organization that fails to meet WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of them. Needless to say there isn’t any WP:ORGDEPTH. A google search predominantly links me to user generated sources which of course we do not consider reliable. Celestina007 ( talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nommed. Search finds plenty of hits, but mostly routine mentions, press release regurgitations, etc.; nothing that obviously meets notability requirements. (And it's not like the article makes any great effort of claiming importance, either, and for that reason this could have even been speedied.) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:04, 22 July 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 Ambergate, Nottingham and Boston and Eastern Junction Railway#Woolsthorpe branch. Daniel ( talk) 04:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Denton railway station (Lincolnshire)

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

This article is not notable nor verifiable and it has no reliable sources. The article has an un-referenced claim to be a goods only terminus station of a small railway branch in Denton, Lincolnshire. Nempnet ( talk) 13:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The branch in question was the former GNR Woolsthorpe branch from Belvoir Junction, near Muston on the GNR Nottingham Branch (according to the OS 25 inch map Leicestershire III.5 published in 1904, [5], map 70 in Jowett [6]) The branch appears to have been constructed to serve the the Woolsthorpe quarries at Denton and Harston.
There is reference to Denton Agricultural siding in Jowett (ref p3) and Denton siding in BR pre-grouping atlas (p16) and the 1904 Handbook of stations (p160) but no reference to a station of any kind, I've also checked the 1894, 1938 & 1956 Handbooks, the 1956 Handbook has reference to a private siding at Denton for Stewarts & Lloyds Minerals Ltd and a public siding also at Denton. [6] [7] [8] [9]
There is no sign, that I can detect, of a station on any of the mapping available at National Library of Scotland. [5] There is no mention of a GNR Denton station in Quick or Butt. [10] [11] There are fifty links to the station all generated from Template:Closed stations Lincolnshire
More information about the branch, quarries and area can be found at the links provided by Djm-leighpark on the articles talk page, reproduced here for convenience:
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference buzz20180529 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference AutoMS-68 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference AutoMS-69 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference AutoMS-70 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b "OS 25 inch map Leicestershire III.5". 1904.
  6. ^ a b Jowett, Alan (March 1989). Jowett's Railway Atlas of Great Britain and Ireland: From Pre-Grouping to the Present Day (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. p. 70. ISBN  978-1-85260-086-0. OCLC  22311137.
  7. ^ Conolly, W.Philip (1963). British Railways Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer (3rd ed.). Hampton Court: Railway Publications (Ian Allan). p. 16.
  8. ^ The Railway Clearing House (1970) [1904]. The Railway Clearing House Handbook of Railway Stations 1904 (1970 D&C Reprint ed.). Newton Abbot: David & Charles Reprints. p. 160. ISBN  0-7153-5120-6.
  9. ^ The Railway Clearing House (1956). The Railway Clearing House Handbook of Railway Stations 1956. London: British Transport Commision (Railway Clearing House). pp. 126 & 422.
  10. ^ Quick, Michael (2022) [2001]. Railway passenger stations in Great Britain: a chronology (PDF). version 5.04. Railway & Canal Historical Society. p. 144. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 November 2022.
  11. ^ Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. p. 78. ISBN  978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC  60251199. OL  11956311M.

Nempnet ( talk) 13:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, but change emphasis and rename to Woolsthorpe branch or similar, to include information from the above links. There is a lot of information there which could be used to create a reasonable article. (I'll be happy to have a bash at it myself). — O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    Changing !vote to Redirect, per Nthep below. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Ambergate, Nottingham and Boston and Eastern Junction Railway#Woolsthorpe branch. Nthep ( talk) 18:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    Agreed GRALISTAIR ( talk) 19:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • comment in the "part 2" reference about these is the statement: "This map of 1902 shows that Denton Manor Farm was provided with a short siding, which had a platform alongside it.". It is possible this platform was considered to be a station; though it could have simply been a goods/cattle loading platform. I had wondered if a "platform" had been erected for benefit of the <W>loadLord of the manor but that is speculation and way not match the build of the section of the railway. Another option was a halt specially create for World War II ... again speculation. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC) I'd be relunctant to retain the article as unless the nature of the station (if any) can be verified. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    I've checked Clinker's Register of Closed Passenger Stations and Goods Depots and that has the only GN entry under Denton as Denton Siding. So I'd agree with your assessment that all that existed, was a goods siding with an adjacent loading platform. Nthep ( talk) 14:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • comment there are certainly grounds, and likely enough information in the above references to produce an article on the branch, or as part of a different article, but even if the article was renamed and reworded there is nothing that could be kept, the coordinates do not make sense for a branch, there are no references to keep, it would no longer be a station so all the categories would no longer apply, nor the closed stations in Lincolnshire template, that would leave the sentence Denton railway station was the terminus of a small railway branch in Denton, Lincolnshire. It was used only for goods. of which the first half is unverifiable, the second half may be accurate but would need re-working, leaving nothing of the original article to be kept or redirected. Nempnet ( talk) 14:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Railway Clearing House Handbook for 1904 lists 'Denton Siding' GNR at Bottesford. It doesn't even rate it as a 'goods station', let alone one for passengers or parcels. The Bottesford entry lists it as being "Position: Branch - Bottesford & Sedgebrook" along with Welby's Siding and Woolsthorpe Siding. Geof Sheppard ( talk) 16:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Nthep and GRALISTAIR. The article can always be recreated if more information becomes available but right now there doesn't appear to be enough information available to verify whether or not this station existed. The article itself contains next to no information. NemesisAT ( talk) 23:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of bus routes in London. Consensus is that this topic does not have adequate sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

London Buses route 278

AfDs for this article:
London Buses route 278 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 14. I am neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • 6 of the 11 are published by Transport for London and therefore aren't independent. (It isn't a good idea for an article to be mainly based on non-independent sources - WP:V.)
  • References 4 and 5 only seem to confirm the company operating the route and therefore aren't significant coverage.
  • [20] only mentions it in passing as one of many bus routes covered by a fare change, and therefore isn't significant coverage.
  • [21] is a self-published website of someone who's very interested in public transport - not a reliable source.
  • [22] is the best source cited by far. However it's a trivia book, and I suspect therefore not hugely reliable, and it only gives the subject a paragraph.
Other sources cited at DRV:
  • [23] is the website of a local residents' association, which isn't particularly reliable and is mostly just repeating what they were told by some public body. It also doesn't devote very much coverage to the subject.
  • [24] mentions it in passing as part of a long list of other bus services - not significant coverage.
  • [25] is behind a paywall but if you can get round that all it says is that the capacity of a certain garage will increase when route 278 starts operating - not significant coverage.
The fact that coverage of the route generally involves it being mentioned briefly as part of a list of other bus routes also suggests we should cover it as part of a list rather than as a standalone article. Hut 8.5 07:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I can't say I'm very impressed with [26] (linked below) either - it looks like a rewrite of a TfL announcement and therefore isn't really independent of TfL. Hut 8.5 11:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of bus routes in London per the many other AfDs for London bus routes. Absent significant coverage outside of the run-of-the-mill stuff that every bus route in London gets, I think (a) they don't qualify for articles, and (b) we can't write a decent article about them. firefly ( t · c ) 07:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    Suggesting all London bus routes don't qualify for articles feels like a rather sweeping statement. We have routes like London Buses route 167 which survived deletion, and I have created and expanded others. NemesisAT ( talk) 07:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The page already has plenty of sources and it is easy to find more such as this. The topic therefore passes WP:GNG and our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉( talk) 08:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of bus routes in London as per the previous AfD outcome. Even with the moderate number of sources it is still not a notable route. As explained by Hut 8.5 the level of coverage is almost bare and most of the other sources are routine coverage. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect - This is a restatement of my comments at Deletion Review. The proponent of keeping the article says that they have substantially improved the article by adding sources. I disagree. The adding of sources is not a substantial improvement, because the original problem was not the lack of sourcing, but that the route is run-of-the-mill, and it is still not notable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    WP:MILL is an essay, not policy. So your reply has not given a policy-based reason for deleting this page. We have many other bus route articles on Wikipedia, do you feel we should delete them all? NemesisAT ( talk) 16:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    User:NemesisAT - WP:MILL is a notability essay. The route is not notable for the reasons explained in the essay, and an essay sometimes contains explanatory text with which an editor concurs. Yes, there are some other bus routes that should be deleted.
  • Comment to User:King of Hearts as relisting admin: Should the editors who !voted in the previous AFD be notified that they may want either to make their statements again or to change their statements? Also, will the closing admin consider the previous opinions? (Sometimes, when an AFD is relisted after DRV, the original AFD is reopened. You started a new one, which is a reasonable alternate approach, but we need to include the previous editors and opinions.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Robert McClenon: I think the closing admin here ought to reread Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 278 and the DRV before closing this AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Between a book source, a newspaper article dedicated to the route, and another newspaper article which discusses the route, I feel WP:GNG has been met for the subject of bus routes in London using number 278. While redirection is a reasonable WP:ATD, I feel this would not improve Wikipedia as List of bus routes in London does not contain any details. This page has ample content, which would be lost were it redirected. This goes against WP:PRESERVE, which states "as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research." NemesisAT ( talk) 19:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Subject appears to pass the WP:GNG and page does not appear to be promotional in nature or to pose any WP:BLP concerns. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 03:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, covered in multiple third party sources, while 6 of 12 cites are from Transport for London, they are stating basic facts rather than being promotional, so fine to use per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Toviemaix ( talk) 23:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • You could have 50 sources in an article and that may still not be enough to prove notability. London Buses routes are essentially a product of Transport for London and even if some of those references aren't explicitly promotional, they aren't independent and certainly not considered significant coverage. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
    Transport for London is a government body. Many services in London are council supported for the benefit of non-drivers, these services are not "products". NemesisAT ( talk) 15:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Posting for the record, I maintain my position of leaning redirect from the previous AfD. The notability is mainly tied to the old 278 which has no relation to the current one (it ran in a completely different region of London) and the current version's coverage doesn't really impress me (mostly routine coverage). Jumpytoo Talk 17:36, 28 July 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. Daniel ( talk) 04:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Jay Torres

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

Self-promotional and does not meet criteria of WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NACTOR. Citations provided are all of the press release type and I can't find a reliable source that discusses him significantly. ... discospinster talk 02:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 02:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 02:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 02:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As per nom, this is promotional and does not gather any notability. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ENT -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Comment: Agree to draftify per Deb and Richard3120. Psycharpax ( talk) 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Psycharpax ( talk) 13:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Psycharpax ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I can see an argument for keeping it but it is certainly promotional and definitely needs work. How about draftifying? Deb ( talk) 14:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The sources are terrible. #2 and #10 are stating explicitly that they are paid for promoting artists. Too many typos and too much spam. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 01:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: the subject may be notable one day but right now this is definitely WP:TOOSOON. I can't speak for the sources from Puerto Rico, but Que Tal is a lightweight celebrity gossip magazine, and the text is the same as that in both the Noticieros 90 Minutos and La KW articles, so clearly these are not from independent sources but a press release. In fact, all the Colombian sources are just introductions to "watch his latest video below" stories, so they are all promotional. The greatest claim is that he has broken into the Colombian market, but as someone who lives there, he's far from a household name at the moment, and I can't find any evidence that he has ever charted in Colombia, or that any serious Colombian newspaper or magazine has ever mentioned him. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:19, 23 July 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 03:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Yvette Bova

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

Basic criteria for inclusion not satisfied; no in-depth coverage in secondary sources found. Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:02, 22 July 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. Only the delete arguments cited relevant policies and guidelines. ✗ plicit 03:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Stevie White (content creator)

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

Podcast host and Twitch streamer that doesn't appear to have any reliable independent sources to meet standards of verification or notability. Citing ( talk) 02:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Citing ( talk) 02:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Citing ( talk) 02:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing but some YouTube etc. spam, without even a huge following, and nothing but primary sourcing. Drmies ( talk) 02:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete zero evidence of notability Dexxtrall ( talk) 13:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Stevie has a large following (53.8k on Twitter), his podcast (Happy Hour Podcast) often tops Spotify comedy charts, he is notable enough for a page. RockingSummer ( talk) 17:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel ( talk) 04:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Diagrams.net

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. I have found no reliable, significant coverage of this tool. pinktoebeans (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm impressed by how small the article is. Based on how often I've seen it used, I'd have guessed it was quite popular. I agree with the proposer that apparently it's not easy to find coverage of this tool. BernardoSulzbach ( talk) 18:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I needed basic info on draw.io and the search revealed this page which I found useful. draw.io is many years old and I also am surprised how small it is and wasn't linked from lists of drawing software. The current project is active and impressive, uses the cloud. I'm surprised it's not notable. Petermr ( talk) 11:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree, I've heard a lot of good things about the application and I'm sure it's very useful! I just can't find anything to back it up that satisfies WP:GNG. pinktoebeans (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 12:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Coming across this, I am in fact surprised at how little secondary information on this tool there is out there. A quick Internet search came up mostly with information from the project itself and app stores. The only secondary information I could find was https://www.redhat.com/architect/diagramming-tools-cloud-infrastructure and https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/sysadmin-tools-diagrams; I would say these are two articles from a reputable vendor not affiliated with the project.

Apart from coverage, the project has been around for a few years (the Github repo had its first commit in October 2016; and some unverified sources mention the project has been around as early as 2013). It appears mature and well-maintained, and offers integration with a wide range of widespread (and certainly notable) platforms – Confluence/ Jira, GitHub, GitLab, Notion, VS Code, Google Workspace, SharePoint/ OneDrive/ Office 365, Mediawiki, Nextcloud/ ownCloud, as well as a desktop version for Windows, Linux and MacOS and a Google Chrome app. (Sources: https://www.diagrams.net/blog/integrations, https://www.diagrams.net/integrations).

In conclusion, I would say the product has been around for some time and appears to be used widely, which would make it notable in itself even if there is little independent literature on it (though the low number of people writing about it does puzzle me). Let us bear in mind that, as per WP:GNG “significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article”, and a deeper discussion might come to a different conclusion. The opposite case is not specifically mentioned, but I would stick with the same principle here: absence of coverage creates an assumption of insufficient notability, but an deeper discussion might come to a different conclusion.

The scarcity of independent and verifiable information does pose some challenges, though on the other hand Wikipedia’s guidelines do allow taking information from primary sources if that information is not contested or likely to be biased. That would apply to a release/version history (if taken from a public Git repo, that would even add a certain amount of verifiability), license terms, a list of features or a list of supported platforms.

Therefore, although independent information is scarce, I would consider the project sufficiently notable to be included, and believe we can get a usable article with the information available.-- Michael-stanton ( talk) 16:20, 15 July 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: 2021-06 ✍️ create
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist looking for more contributions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 01:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I am really surprised, that Draw.io = Diagrams.net has no Wikipedia page and is marked for deletion. Diagrams.net is really THE BEST drawing tool compared to YED, InkScape, LucidChart, SmartDraw, Visio and a lot of other free and pay tools. I used and tested all of them intensely for various applications in engineering, block diagrams, flow charts, electrical circuits … -> I am motivated and willing to contribute for the German and English wikipedia page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwipedes ( 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— 06:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Frank Cogliano

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

An autobiography that does not meet WP:BASIC as sources do not show significant coverage of him and does not meet any of the three criteria listed at WP:ANYBIO. Also does not meet any aspect of WP:COMPOSER as has never written for a notable composition nor written for one that has won in a major competition. His work is not cited as influential anywhere nor does he appear at reasonable length in any standard reference books. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://ventsmagazine.com/2020/02/12/interview-soulful-rocker-lisa-ramey/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once in passing ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7217498/ Yes No User-generated No No significant coverage ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5699822/ Yes No User-generated No No significant coverage ✘ No
https://filmscoremonthly.com/fsmonline/login.cfm ? ? ? Unable to access ? Unknown
https://wfmu.org/playlists/shows/71942 Yes Yes No One interview on a local radio station doesn't constitute significant coverage ✘ No
https://www.villagevoice.com/2017/04/04/the-wordless-orchestra-brings-barry-lyndon-back-to-majestic-life/ Yes Yes No Contains 3 very brief quotes ✘ No
https://www.indiewire.com/2017/03/barry-lyndon-live-score-worldless-music-orchestra-brooklyn-1201792969/ Yes Yes No One mention ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5069113/ Yes No User-generated No ✘ No
https://www.soundtrack.net/movie/almost-friends/ Yes ? No Just a database mention ✘ No
https://www.discogs.com/Lisa-Ramey-Surrender/release/19444288 Yes No No Just a Discogs listing ✘ No
https://americansongwriter.com/premiere-the-voices-lisa-ramey-travels-to-magical-places-with-open-wide/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20210714220918/https://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/music/kevin-johnson/the-voice-behind-her-lisa-ramey-is-ready-to-be-heard-on-her-own-terms/article_80ee0ed1-7d34-540f-a329-00348e54680f.html Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ 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}}.


A subscription is needed to access the Film Score Monthly reference and that should not disqualify it as a source according to Wikipedia policy. It includes an extended profile on Frank Cogliano and his work in orchestration.

IMDB is not user generated, the official credits need to be verified. Frank Cogliano is listed on the IMDB page for Black Love as the composer, because he composed the score for four seasons of the television series. This is not user generated information. If you watch any episode of Black Love his name is listed in the end credits as "Music By Frank Cogliano". This is verifiable information and should be included.

The Village Voice article includes multiple quotes which qualifies for GNG. Considering his integral role in the performance the article would not have been written at all without his contribution.

I haven't disqualified the FSM source, however, if it does contain significant coverage then please could you share some of this with us for the benefit of those that are unable to access it? Per WP:IMDB, the Wikipedia community generally agrees that IMDb is an unreliable source and should be avoided where possible. In the case where it's impossible to avoid using IMDb because there are no suitable sources available, you really need to question whether that person is notable, as is the case with you. The Village Voice contains three quotes from you none of which addresses you but no actual third party coverage, which is a requirement. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hello Spiderone and thank you for your contribution. You are adressing me as "you" as if I am the author of the article. I am not. I also believe that you asking for a copy of a subscription only article is a copyright violation according to the policy of Film Score Monthly, so I cannot do that. You are welcome to subscribe, or maybe another user can verify. IMDB is used as a source in several other film and TV composer's Wikipedia page. As you said, IMDB is user generated just like Wikipedia is, and there is a rigorous review process for submissions, just like Wikipedia. For the example of Black Love, the on screen credits are verification of Frank Cogliano's work. This can be accessed through the OWN website by logging in to a US Television service provider. This seems unnecessary to add as a citation though, because for every other film and TV composer, IMDB is an adequate source for their work. The STL today article is another example that must be verified by another user before this is taken down, as you marked it as grounds for removal even though you can't access it.

As far as the Village Voice article, it seems that you misrepresented the content. First, you said it was three quotes. I've copied and pasted here the content of the article: 

“The music in Barry Lyndon does a great job of reflecting the film’s sense of space,” says composer Frank Cogliano, who has been painstakingly transcribing the score for the past few months. “Look at the repetition. For the big duel scene at the end, you have this timpani part that’s playing these sixteen measures of Handel. It’s so little material, but it’s played in this way that goes on — I think one of the cues is eleven minutes. It’s always underlying, it’s always there. If you were to detach it from the movie, it would be monotonous.” In the context of the film, it’s relentless.

From that perspective, Barry Lyndon is a bit of an outlier for the group — it’s older and relies on well-known classical pieces. But Kubrick didn’t port those tracks over indiscriminately: He worked with composer Leonard Rosenman to rearrange the pieces to fit the story. (Rosenman and Kubrick butted heads mightily, but the composer did walk away with an Oscar for his efforts.) In its original incarnation, the Sarabande from Handel’s Keyboard Suite in D Minor, the film’s signature theme, sounds nothing like the way it does in Barry Lyndon; Rosenman rearranged it completely to sound like contemporary soundtrack music. (Kubrick once recalled that he had the idea of using the piece after hearing it played on a guitar and realizing it sounded like Ennio Morricone.) There are subtler changes as well. Cogliano notes the final appearance of another of the best known pieces, Schubert’s Piano Trio in E-Flat Major. “With the Schubert, right at the end of the film, there’s a whole middle section that was more active and in the Romantic style that’s been cut out. And one of the major chords in the end was turned into a minor chord. It’s fascinating to zero in on those changes and then figure out why they were made and how they serve the film.” Barry Lyndon will be one of Wordless’s most ambitious undertakings. “It’s probably our longest performance,” says Pauline Kim Harris, first violin/concertmaster for the group. “It’s definitely the first one with an intermission.” The project originated with producers Joseph Berger and Michael Sayers, who came to Givony early last year with the idea of performing Kubrick’s film. It has taken the better part of a year to put all this together. Much of that involved giving Cogliano time to transcribe the score; unlike with other projects Wordless has done, an isolated music track was hard to come by. “I actually at this point have still not heard a completely music-only version of the film,” says the composer, who had to pinpoint each music cue, time it out, transcribe it, and arrange it. Once Cogliano delivers a score, Kim Harris and Givony create a rehearsal breakdown and go through the instrumentation to see the best way to cover the material. “We really don’t get to rehearse as much as one would like to think,” says Kim Harris. “Part of the benefit of Wordless is that these people are like a family. They’ve played a lot together, and they’ve been seasoned over the years.”

It is clear from this excerpt that Frank Cogliano's "Painstaking" work was integral to the performance, and the entire reason for the article, in the notable and reliable source the Village Voice. These are not three short insignificant quotes, they are demonstrating Frank Cogliano's expertise and knowledge in the field of music composition and orchestration.

I would also like to please request that before this article is deleted, that someone else besides myself can subscribe to Film Score Monthly and review the Frank Cogliano interview, which further details his indispensable work on the Barry Lyndon project.If you are unwilling to do that I've copied and pasted the 10 references in the article here : "composer and musical guru Frank Cogliano, whose many hats on this project start with “re,” as in researcher, restorer, rescuer, re-scorer, re-thinker, re-creator, re- arranger, and likely a few others. "

"My first shock regarding the music for a live-to-film Barry Lyndon was Cogliano informing me, “I’ve worked with Wordless several times, mostly with composers of the films to produce a live score and make it all go smoothly. This was different because there was no composer, and the arrangements were not available. I’ve researched music for many years, but never for a project on this scale.” I had naively presumed that as soon as Warner Bros. granted the rights, the conductor’s score and orchestral parts would arrive by FedEx. "

"The next shock was thinking Cogliano had made a mistake in identifying a Vivaldi E minor cello concerto movement as a sonata, only to realize the mistake was made in the film’s end titles and repeated on the OST LP, incorrectly identifying a sonata arrangement for full orchestra as a cello concerto. "

"Only Cogliano’s inclusion of the Peter Ryom Vivaldi complete works catalogue number saved me from hours, even days, of listening to Vivaldi’s massive number of cello works in order to find the correct piece. Then came the startling realization that Kubrick’s composer Leonard Rosenman had made arrangements of both an obscure Handel harpsichord suite Sarabande in D minor, and a famous Schubert piano Trio andante movement in E flat major, but had used pre-existing recorded versions of both the aforementioned Vivaldi and Mozart’s Idomeneo March."

"Here is Cogliano’s answer to my question about changes that Rosenman may have made to the Schubert Trio movement, the anachronistic but dramatically apt music that introduces Barry, and us, to Lady Lyndon: “The full second movement from the trio has a large section that was cut out. It goes through a series of modulations, and the restrained figure that introduces the moment is finally released and expanded upon. But that would have been inappropriate in the film, not only fully revealing the anachronism of the piece and its romantic style, but also because the trio is used as a sort of theme for Lady Lyndon, the epitome of suppressed emotions. The exuberance of the section that was cut out would be jarring against the placid imagery and restrained desperation of the film. There were also a few minor changes to notes, and shuffling of some measures, but I think that was to make it work as an abridged piece of music. The resulting cue, used twice, is made up largely of the C minor section, and the section in E flat major, first heard when Lady Lyndon and Barry kiss on the balcony. That subtle shift scores the moment perfectly. The fact that the piece is shortened to those two sections makes for much repetition, which is a device used throughout the score to create a sense of space. In contrast to dense musical material, repetitive figures cause cinematic time to expand, and this enhances the distances between objects and events, adding to typical Kubrick emotional detachment.” "

"The now famous Handel Sarabande, the third movement from a harpsichord suite in D minor, #437 in the Bernd Baselt Handel complete works catalogue, which would undoubtedly never occur to anyone as possessing the dramatic possibilities Kubrick declares lacking in 18th century music, becomes the first musical cue, the end titles, Barry’s two duels, and the emotionally devastating sequence wherein the narrator informs us that, although Barry was a “good and tender father,” he would end his life “poor, lonely, and childless.” The duels are achingly protracted by arrangements for tuned timpani, cello and bass pizzicato, a duet for viola and cello in close counterpoint, and abrasive triplet grunts in low cellos and basses—serving to create not only a sense of space referred to above by Cogliano, but also once again addressing the passage of time. I have seen different Warner Bros. logos at the film’s beginning, the one at Kings Theatre in black and white, the other in red and black on the DVD, in which the Handel cue comes right at the audience along with the Warner Bros. logo. Kubrick simply uses Rosenman’s arrangement as if it is the most dramatic piece of music ever composed, and it becomes exactly that."

"Cogliano wrote: “I could not find the score, so this one I had to transcribe by ear. This version is haunting and delicate. It suits the melancholy of the film perfectly, particularly the first scene in which it is heard, with Lady Lyndon in the bath. Lady Lyndon is being read ‘La Jouissance’ (1767) by (Barnabé) Durosoy, a florid poem comparing love to two mirrors reflecting light until it bursts into flames. The juxtaposition of the somber cello sonata with romantic poetry highlights Lady Lyndon’s despondence.” The Vivaldi arrangement is dramatically essential for audience identification with and sympathy for both Lady Lyndon and Lord Bullingdon."

"Another significant pre-existing recording is the March from Mozart’s opera Idomeneo (1781), edited to remove a vocal section and thereby allow the cadence to coincide precisely with Barry’s respectful heel clicks as he meets the Minister of Police. The Mozart March is first heard following extensive use of Frederick the Great’s “Der Hohenfriedberger Marsch.” Cogliano writes, commenting on Electra’s situation in Idomeneo: “You can see a connection with Barry here: His father was also killed, he was cast out of his home, and he seeks to attain higher social status. The piece to me is very similar to ‘Der Hohenfriedberger March’ but in a more refined style. This is reflected in how it is used in the film, with (Frederick the Great) heard when Barry is a soldier at the lowest point of his ascent, and then later Mozart is heard when he has achieved higher social status with the Chevalier.”"

"Barry’s collusion with the Chevalier to cheat at cards, and thereby acquire wealth and status, is beautifully scored by Rosenman with an arrangement of a cavatina from Giovanni Paisiello’s opera The Barber of Seville (1782). This is of particular musical interest, as I learned from Cogliano in an email: “I was unable to find a score for the full orchestra arrangement, but I found a piano vocal score which I used, along with transcribing by ear to produce the film version. It is very similar to other recordings I found, but in some of Kubrick’s notes he was particular about having the orchestra do additional takes because of particularities in the mandolin and viola solos. Since it is an aria sung by the Count to Rosina while he is in disguise, there is an obvious parallel here, as Barry is in disguise and cheating at cards with the Chevalier.” One may wonder whether those notes came from Kubrick or Rosenman, but the sonic vividness of the mandolin and viola respectively speak volumes about the comforts of the class system in Kubrick’s 18th century. "Since a substantial amount of music in the film’s first half is Irish and traditional, I wondered if that presented Cogliano with a different set of challenges. “The Irish music was not improvised, other than embellishments by performers, although I couldn’t find scores anywhere for those cues that matched exactly what was played. For example, there were a few like ‘The Sea-Maiden’ and ‘Piper’s Maggot Jig’ that are traditional, but the film versions differ from any score I could find. So it was much easier to just transcribe by ear. The most challenging thing was to copy exact timings on ‘Women of Ireland’ so that it could be matched up to a click track and sync with the film—only because that one in particular is played with a very loose rubato. It’s one of the most beautiful pieces in the film, though, and in Kubrick’s notes, there were references to an alternate ‘love theme’ to be used instead. I would like to hear what else was considered, but I think ‘Women of Ireland’ works as well as it does because it cannot be described as a simple love theme. The rising melody has a rich complexity of emotion, and it never resolves for long, leaving a constant state of suspension.” "


I would like to dispute your claim "He has never written for a notable composition". According to IMDB he has composed the score and or theme song for the following film and television works, deemed notable as being major releases in theaters by a major studio and/or broadcast on cable and or network television: TV Series Black Love, which is the most widely viewed scripted debut on the Oprah Winfrey network according to Wikipedia . He composed the theme song and score for Single By 30, also a notable work according to wikipedia: /info/en/?search=Single_by_30. he composed the score and theme for the following television films, all considered notable as they are all currently being rebroadcast on cable television in the US and internationally: Calling For Love, Love at Sunset Terrace, Tempted by Danger, Sincerely, Yours, Truly.
I would like to add that the Village Voice source qualifies as Significant coverage according to the wikipedia definition in GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The quotes are obviously more than a trivial mention. Even though Frank Cogliano is not the main topic of the source, which is not required anyway, the subject of the article is a live performance that he was an indispensable and integral part in creating, so much so that the performance could not have happened without him and his work.

You responded in place of Cogliano at User talk:Frankcogliano which made me think that you are Cogliano himself. All of the above, without exception, is either a direct quote from Cogliano himself or Cogliano talking about himself, none of which shows significant coverage about him. Where are the examples of other people discussing Cogliano at length? This is fast becoming a vanity shrine to Frank Cogliano and is wholly inappropriate. Wikiepdia is not a platform for promotion. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Spiderone, I ppreciate your hard work on this! I'd like to add that this is not a "vanity shrine" at all because it is an objective collection of sources referencing the body of work of a notable film and tv composer. The STL Today article mentions Frank Cogliano, as does the Village Voice article. The Film Score Monthly is a detailed profile about his work. The FSM monthly article alone is grounds for his inclusion in Wikipedia as it is a detailed profile of his work. It includes quotes from him, as it is indeed an interview, but also the author's assessment of his work and contributions.
Hello Spiderone. According to the Wikipedia page on notability of musicians ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles) It requires that the subject "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. "

Frank Cogliano has performed and composed the theme for Black Love, Single by Thirty, and also performed as guitarist in the Mortal Kombat film series. There are hundreds of such examples on his IMDB page. Further evidence can be found in his on-screen credits in the selected works, which verifies notability due to their public nature and individual notability, considering several of these works have their own Wikipedia page, confirming this. Thanks again!

Got any non-user-generated websites that confirm this? If he has been involved in so many notable productions, why is there practically zero in-depth coverage of him in national or international news sources or magazines or websites with a reputation for fact-checking? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Spiderone. I've noticed you don't have access to the last source, but I have access to see the source when I've archived it. Maybe try it out, if you could. Here's the link [27]. MoviesandTelevisionFan ( talk) 22:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you! Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi Spiderone, thanks for your contribution to this page. It seems like you have a bias here and I think someone neutral needs to be involved. It sounds as if you are familiar with the subject and therefore would be disqualified from deleting the article based on the conflict of interest policy. Your last statement acknowledged his work in many notable productions, which was discussed earlier in the conversation regarding IMDB. I’m not sure what you are asking, could you please clarify? Are you implying the work is fabricated? I’m not sure what the process would be aside from sending you videos of all the works to show the on-screen credits. IMDB reviews are user generated but film and tv credits are fact checked as per the link previously given in this conversation. There are many articles on living composers in Wikipedia that have far fewer if any news sources cited, relying on IMDB credits. I don’t think all of these other Wikipedia pages should be deleted as well, do you? Thank you for your time and effort but I believe the conversation has been exhausted and the banner should be removed.
You have been asked at User talk:Frankcogliano to declare your COI but have failed to do so thus far. Your defence of having the exact same name as Frank Cogliano but not being Cogliano himself seems pretty hard to believe to say the least. As per WP:IMDB, which is reflective of current Wikipedia consensus, all content on IMDb is user-generated, not just the user reviews. IMDb has played host to several long-lasting hoaxes in the past and several of them go through AfD every year. Many of the actors deleted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers/archive 3 have IMDb pages, it doesn't mean anything. Mortal Kombat + Frank Cogliano fails verification. As does Black Love + Frank Cogliano. No reliable sources. Above all else, there is still no argument of passing WP:BASIC, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Please present WP:THREE sources showing significant in-depth coverage from a reliable source and coming from someone other than Cogliano himself. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Hello Spiderone. You have been asked to disclose your COI and have not yet done so. All cliams you have maid thus far are invalid until you disclose your relationship with the subject of the article. Your tone is not neutral and your claims have been nullified numerous times. You are accusing the subject of the article of a "hoax" which is grounds for legal action. The three sources (and many more) have already been given multiple times in this discussion. 74.101.56.203 ( talk) 18:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I have been editing Wikipedia regularly for 12 years. I'm not a paid editor. I don't have any connection with Cogliano, in fact, I've never even heard of him. I've done a comprehensive source analysis at the top of this discussion, where I clearly explain why the mentions are trivial and do not count towards GNG. This has not been countered effectively. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs further input from editors other than the IP address & the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 01:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources; I've tried looking and come up with nothing more than what's here. I agree that the crucial missing element is enough of other people talking about Frank Cogliano at any particular length. Maybe that will happen in the future. The IP should note that the issue with IMDb is not that all entries are hoaxes, but that the existence of hoaxes establishes IMDb as not a reliable source. Wikipedia is also not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. I would also ask the IP to read WP:THREAT. (That said, their dedication to defending someone with whom they have no connection at all is to be admired.) OsFish ( talk) 06:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not up to snuff, so snuff it. Hyperbolick ( talk) 08:25, 22 July 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_July_22&oldid=1036338018"