< December 19	December 21 >

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snug (Retailer)[edit]

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

Appears a long way from meeting WP:NCORP. Cited sources are mostly advertorials with the odd bit of local press. The article itself is pretty promotional, but short of meeting WP:CSD#G11. – Joe (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some advertorials, interviews, local news piece... this does not pass WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After sources have been found, and the article accordingly edited, there is little or no opposition to keeping the article. Sandstein 21:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Chatterjee[edit]

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

The third woman from India to graduate from the Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania.

The first woman to graduate from medical college would certainly be extremely notable.

The first woman to graduate from a particular medical college might possibly be notable, but not the third;

The first woman from a particularc ountry to graduate from medical school would certainly be notable.

The first woman from a particular country to graduate from a particular medical school might even conceivably be notable --but certainly not the 3rd

"among first women from India to earn a medical degree" is meaningless--. The first would be, but not among the first.

I strongly support the additional of all actually notable women to WP, and there are many thousands still to be done; I am willing to accept "firsts" of this sort despitethe fact that we're NOT GUINNESS--but this is getting absurd.

There does not sem to be any other notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was the third person to earn bla bla bla, what did she do with her career? I don't see notability. She's got one mention in the Jungle Days book in GBooks, nothing in Gscholar or Jstor. Bit of a stretch, but I'm still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, being the 3rd Indian woman to graduate from a specific university is not notable enough. SadAttorney613(talk) 12:03, 14 December 2021
Delete per nom. Even being first would be contexual. There are no de facto rules. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She founded the Denny Hospital for Women and Children,[1] which seems like a potential claim to notability; there's lots of hits in Google Books relating to this but I can't see enough text in snippet view. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting in light of Espresso Addict's comment, an additional week of discussion can't hurt
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Another) comment. There's detailed discussion of Chatterjee and her family in this blog post by medical historian Dr Jaipreet Virdi: [2]. This references two pages in Arley Isabel Munson's Jungle Days: Being the Experiences of an American Woman Doctor in India (D. Appleton; 1913), which comes up in searches but whose text isn't viewable. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
archive.org has it [3] Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one (spelling Chatterji) states that she was the "first woman medical graduate of Punjab"[4] which seems adequate for notability. Together with the many Google Books hits about her hospital work, I think there's enough to meet the GNG and flesh out a decent portrait, so going with formal Keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've updated the article to reflect that she was the first woman from Punjab to receive a medical degree. I agree with Espresso Addict that this makes a case for notability.-Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on an entry in the Women Scientists in India pdf at https://nbtindia.gov.in/writereaddata/freebooks/pdf/Women%20Scientists%20in%20India.pdf (it looks like its published by the Indian government). There were contemporary reports of her graduation in American newspapers, for example https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85034438/1901-06-30/ed-1/seq-19/ Piecesofuk (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fascinating book; it states she was the 6th Indian woman to graduate in medicine at all (and one of these died before she could practice) and only the 3rd recorded with an MD degree. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is what happens when we let politics drive our editing. The subject fails GNG and ANYBIO; that's it. Any other sources likely to be found would likely fall under BIO1E. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:BIO1E applies here: at very least Chatterjee has coverage not only for graduating but also for her association with the Denny Hospital for Women and Children; more broadly I don't think she's notable so much for the one-off event of graduating but for being a pioneering Indian female doctor. Reading the introduction to the book on Indian women in science/medicine found by Piecesofuk it appears a complex topic not encompassed by "one event" type reductionism. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's just enough here to squeak by the notability guideline, for me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This can be expanded even if it's collecting WP:BASIC coverage that I've found on Google Books, the Smithsonian content, other archival materials, the newspaper coverage, etc. Not tolerating the "this is what happens when we let politics drive our editing" comment. Centuries later and Dr. Chatterjee is still causing controversy. Missvain (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, and I attempted [5] to add this recent article to add support for WP:BASIC notability and the objective and ongoing significance of her achievements, which is not only her graduation from an American school and return to India, but also her founding of a hospital. So at minimum per WP:NEXIST, there appears to be ongoing support for her notability, even if it is not currently in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with above. Notability established. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Unanimous consensus that despite the (completely stupid) decision to hide dislikes on videos, this page has historical relevance. (non-admin closure) Unnamed anon (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-disliked YouTube videos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

YouTube has decided to remove the dislike counts on all its videos. As such, it no longer makes sense to keep this list, so it should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page has historical value even if dislikes are currently disabled. Notability is not temporary. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 21:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Snood1205 said exactly what I was going to say. Schazjmd (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you read the previous AFD that happened a year ago? Coverage determined notability, and everything listed has ample coverage. Notability is not temporary. Dream Focus 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical information, WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The counter isn’t even removed, just hidden— you can still dislike a video, but the number of dislikes is not visible to the public. This isn’t documenting a completely dead feature like the old YouTube star ratings. Dronebogus (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For now there are still ways to find the dislike count through their API, despite its removal otherwise. We don't delete articles that are well-sourced just because a feature isn't available any longer and the historical data is still otherwise well available publicly. Nate • (chatter) 23:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I get where the OP is coming from their reasoning would mean that List of works by Leonardo da Vinci should be deleted since there wont be any items added to the list - unless someone finds a hidden treasure in their attic :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey... how did you know I had Mona Lisa II in my attic? snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 13:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the OP's argument at all, but whatever it is, it's not a valid rationale for deletion. Therefore, the article should be kept by default. Mlb96 (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, I don't understand the OPs argument here either, doesn't make sense, and no grounds for removing the page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if YouTube got rid of the public dislike count on videos from everyone else across its platform but they were made private to the creators themselves, the page must be kept on Wikipedia for some kind of historical reasons. Judging my view on users' responses above, I don't think it is necessary to delete this page as other people want to know how many dislikes the videos on the list had with the like-dislike ratio percentage addressing their own feedback. --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 07:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Nigeria and the Cameroons[edit]

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

I doubt this party is notable. First of all, there's no proof this party even existed beyond a random PDF document claiming to be some guy's university thesis that claims a letter was sent from people claiming to be affiliated with that party in the 1950s. Even if we are to believe this PDF document is a university thesis, and we take this thesis as being a reliable source, the letter itself would not satisfy WP:SIRS. The thesis doesn't satisfy SIRS on its own, as it does not provide significant coverage of the party. In fact, the thesis notes that there is pretty much no sourcing on the party, saying that:

"A membership roster is not available, nor is a record of their activities, as is the case with most Nigerian Marxist groups during the period. This group was likely a clique of young people interested in obtaining assistance from the CPGB and the Daily Worker for membership education efforts. The organisation was a Communist Party in name only and had no discernable impact on the contemporary political scene"

It's hard to believe this organization is notable when literally the only source included in the article says that sources actually covering the party don't exist. The only article we could ever write on this organization was that "it might exist". I would suggest redirecting, but the only appropriate target would be "The League" which was allegedly the Nigerian Communist entity that the remnants of this group merged into. However, it does not appear we have an article on a Nigerian communist entity called "The League". The closest I could find was the anarcho-syndicalist organization in Nigeria called the Awareness League. However, it was founded in 1991 and does not appear to be the same entity as "The League" which the thesis said formed and collapsed in the 1950s. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say this doesn't satisfy WP:NORG. There is only one independent reliable source that covers this party with any degree of significance and so the party fails the "multiple sources" requirement of NORG. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find scant evidence of the existence of this party anywhere on the internet. The PDF does not even indicate to me that it necessarily was a Communist Party that existed. From the article, I think it's possible the Communist Parties of Nigeria and Cameroon(s?) possibly sent a letter together to CPGB. Even if it is a real party that existed I think the line The organisation was a Communist Party in name only and had no discernable impact on the contemporary political scene sums up the lack of notability of this party. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 21:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article explicitly says little is known about this party. -- asilvering (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The thesis became a 2012 publication, the relevant material appears on pp.75-76.^[1] A redirect to The League (Nigeria) would seem more appropriate here.

References

^ Tijani, H. (2016). Union education in nigeria : labor, empire, and decolonization since 1945. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-349-43429-9.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't redirect to a nonexistent page. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 03:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like this does not exist, or nominally exists. I feel like that's a strike against it for notability...Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Houghton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has changed since the previous AfD in November 2020 when this was deleted. This is still a vanity article relying almost entirely on non-independent sources and with heavy editing by paid/COI users. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I encourage the nominator to look at the page history since the last AfD. I personally took a major hand in cutting the COI content and non-independent sources; drastic overhaul has occurred since that last AfD, so it is entirely inaccurate to say that nothing has changed. I can't say it's in perfect shape, but there are certainly enough independent sources available to pass WP:MUSIC bullet 1 here, which is why I asked for the article's restoration. The content of the article as it stands has largely been vetted either by me (who am not a paid/COI user) or by User:Carolinewhite2006, who is not tagged as a COI user, so the aspersions in the nomination need to be substantiated. Chubbles (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no opinion on the last AFD, but looking over this one, it seems to be purely sourced from celebrity gossip sites. I don't see any reliable sources giving significant coverage to this person. My WP:BEFORE brought up nothing.-- Mike 🗩 20:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Many of these sources are of very questionable reliability, and so I wouldn't feel comfortable sourcing a BLP to them. On balance, the coverage that is significant (i.e. not trivial mentions) and reliable (i.e. not gossip magazines) and independent (i.e. not interviews) is not in my view sufficient to establish notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my !vote in light of Cunard's sources below. Many of them still appear to be of uncertain reliability or questionable significance, but I can't fairly !vote delete without doing a deeper dive. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Evans, Erica (2021-03-18). "In tune: Why singer Tiffany Houghton left the Los Angeles music scene". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2021-12-20. Retrieved 2021-12-20.
  The article notes: "In 2017, Houghton — a Latter-day Saint singer-songwriter with a bubbly personality and a wardrobe that would make Barbie envious — was seeing more success than ever. She had completed a tour with former pop duo MKTO during the rise of its award-nominated hit song, “Classic,” and opened for One Direction outside the Rose Bowl. She wore designer-everything — from fur coats to red-bottomed stilettos. Her original song, “Catch Me if You Can,” had recently reached the No. 1 spot on Radio Disney. It was the kind of success young musicians dream about. But it wasn’t the fairy tale Houghton, then 24, thought it would be. After she left her childhood home in Texas to move to the big music cities of LA and Nashville, the industry took hold of every part of her."
2. Kress, Bryan (2016-10-13). "Tiffany Houghton Has Something You're 'Gonna Love': Exclusive Song & Video Premiere". Billboard. Archived from the original on 2021-12-20. Retrieved 2021-12-20.
  The article notes: "Love is like a 1960s mod dream in Tiffany Houghton’s video for her latest single “I’m Gonna Love You”; both the song and video are premiering exclusively on Billboard below. ... The same sensibilities that comprised the free love and individual spirit of the bygone decade are just as present in Houghton’s voice as they are onscreen. The lightness that she brings to the song’s lyrics is genuine in a way that proves experience and accessibility. Fittingly, the initial spark arrived in a situation that everyone hopes for, but only some can relate to."
3. Rosenzweig, Mathias (2017-01-04). "Style Record: Tiffany Houghton". Paste. Archived from the original on 2021-12-20. Retrieved 2021-12-20.
  The article has two paragraphs of non-interview coverage. The article notes: "Tiffany Houghton’s voice is simply angelic. There’s something sweet yet powerful about her inflections, adding a unique, honeysweet texture to addictive pop gems. If you haven’t already heard of her (somehow), a quick Google search will show how prominent the emerging artist has become in only a handful of years. The millions upon millions of YouTube plays for hits like “Catch Me If You Can” and “High” deliver a great prognosis for her forthcoming album, due out in March of 2017."
4. Osman, Sarah (2013-12-26). "Q&A: Singer Tiffany Houghton". Young Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2021-12-20. Retrieved 2021-12-20.
  The article notes: "Singer/songwriter Tiffany Houghton recently released her second single and music video, entitled “Phone Call” (below), and is currently working on her EP. Originally from Dallas, TX, Tiffany first got her start on Broadway before going on to study music at the prestigious Booker T. Washington Arts High School. Over the past few years, she has opened for Jake Miller and Joe Nichols and has covered numerous songs, each slightly different from the original, on her website."
5. Oswald, Anjelica (2014-09-18). "Interview with Tiffany Houghton". Cliché Magazine. Archived from the original on 2021-12-20. Retrieved 2021-12-20.
  The article notes: "Pop, country, 60’s doo-wop—you’ll find traces of it all in Tiffany Houghton’s songs and videos. The 20-year-old musician draws her inspiration from favorite movies like Breakfast at Tiffany’s (see the video for “17 Again”) to living her life. Girl anthem “Love Like That” fights back against male entitlement with a catchy beat to jam out to. After wrapping up The American Dream Tour this summer with MKTO, Houghton will be performing with Austin Mahone for the Girls’ Life Back-to-School Fashion Bash on August 19. In the meantime, she’s working on getting her songs out there with more tour opportunities and coming up with a radio plan, so she’s not stopping any time soon."
6. Rubenstein, Jenna Hally (2013-09-04). "Tiffany Houghton's 'High' Video Is The Perfect Beachside Summer Send-Off!". MTV. Archived from the original on 2021-12-20. Retrieved 2021-12-20.
7. Reilly, Kaitlin (2014-08-08). "Tiffany Houghton Should Be On Your Radar". Bustle. Archived from the original on 2021-12-20. Retrieved 2021-12-20.
8. Johnston, Maggie; O'Connell, Mia; Wennerod, Sophia (2017-01-18). "Our interview with singer Tiffany Houghton". Newsday. Archived from the original on 2021-12-20. Retrieved 2021-12-20.
  This is an article by Kidsday reporters.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tiffany Houghton to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above are far and away suitable to pass WP:MUSIC. I encourage previous delete !voters to review and reconsider. Chubbles (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per Cunard that passes WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC based on the sourcing presented by Cunard. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Özlem Tekin[edit]

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

Created X-wiki a while back. No signs of meeting GNG. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lead section is a copyright violation of IMDB. Maybe the rest has copyright problems too? Geschichte (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability under WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR,etc. Ifnord (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's a famous Turkish singer (seriously). There are so many freaking sources I can't even list them all. Passes WP:GNG. Sourcing:

I cannot list all the coverage about her. She was huge in the 1990s and 2000s. There is even a biography about her. Missvain (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Missvani, we can see significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's School, Bhagalpur[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is the intention here to get input from editors who have the time to participate in all of today's ~~40-50~~ 84 AFDs on schools? Geschichte (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NSCHOOL. No need to travel to WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this clearly fails the notability guidelines for schools. There isn't even the usual trivial name drops that a lot of schools get in articles about other stuff. Not that it would be enough though, but either way I'm not seeing any reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Nutritionals International[edit]

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

No independent sources establishing the notoriety of the company. Perfektsionist (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. No significant third-party coverage. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m good with deletion. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many sources not independent and whatever is left is not enough. Jaxarnolds (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete within the article there aren't reliable independent sources. Searching for sources turns up a FDA warning letter from 2017 and lots of promotional materials. I can't see anything to suggest that it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. This is a WP:SNOWball in a winter where there is very little snow. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing the Coronavirus[edit]

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

The notoriety of the work is not established in the sources. Perfektsionist (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK. Could use more work to read like an encyclopedia article. Aasim (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTA: Why does the article meet WP: NBOOK? All its sources are not reliable. Perfektsionist (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News18 is owned by CNN, Fox 10 Phoenix is a local station in Arizona. Both of these are reliable sources. Aasim (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the rest of the sources? Perfektsionist (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the original article was a bit weak on sources, but I found a significant amount of criticism directed at the book which helps it meet WP:NBOOK. The new sources include CBR,[6], Esquire,[7] Daily Dot,[8] Scary Mommy,[9] and a section of this Vice article. I also edited the article to be more encyclopedic and took out all the Amazon and GoodReads links. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ~HEY. ——Serial 11:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HEY per keep. Geschichte (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Digital image. Can be merged from history, but only if sourced in the process (the content is currently unsourced). Sandstein 21:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Color image[edit]

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

Unsourced and ambiguous title. Color image also refers to color photographs. I do not think this title is at all encyclopedic, and since Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for information, I'd suggest this be deleted or redirected to Color photography. Aasim (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Digital image. It is a type of digital image, but the article is old and very outdated. It is only about color images on a computer screen, so wouldn't fit anywhere else. Dream Focus 23:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rename or merge, but not sure to what.
It was orginally meant to be about "digital color image" -- as opposed to, for instance, grayscale images. Namely, an array of small integers or tuples (pixels) that encode color information for a 2D set of points, usually an orthogonal plane grid. So maybe it could be renamed digital color image or color digital image.
I don't think that merging into color photography is a good idea, since that name is even more ambigous (it comprises chemical color photography as well as digital), but also not broad enough (it does not cover digital video, which overlaps a lot with color still images).
There is a lot more that could be said about color digital images specifically, that are not pertinent to other kinds of digital images, such as grayscale images, bitmaps, height maps, heat maps, etc. Such specific topics would include color spaces, bits per pixel needed for visually accurate rendition of color, color gamuts, storage schemes, gamma-law encoding, color image compression and file encodings, colorizing grayscale images, false color images, ... Thus, to be sincere, my vote would be to leave it there. If someone one day cares to add that information, that stub would save them quite a bit of time and work; if not, what harm does it do?
I disagree that it it is only about "color images on a computer screen". Color images are created in many ways, such as in digital cameras, scanners, frame grabbers for analog video; are stored and transmitted in many ways; and are used in many ways besides displaying on a screen, such as printing, computer vision and technical image analysis, image processing, texturing 3D models, ...
By the way, that article was one of my first contributions to Wikipedia, but I totally forgot about it. In its defense, let me note that it has been sitting there for 17 years, and none of the 10-12 editors who edited it seem to have been bothered by its existence...
All the best,--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2,895 views in the past 90 days. 104,010 since 2015, that as far back as can be searched. So someone is using this. Are there any textbooks that list this information? Dream Focus 01:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the lack of sources I don't understand the point of the article and what it adds to the content at Digital image and Image file format. It contains a rather random assortment of facts and is not comprehensive or focused. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Digital image, as per Dream Focus. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Digital image. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 06:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Chumpih. (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German submarine U-2321 and 62 others[edit]

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

Looking at the impressive List of German Type XXIII submarines, each of these 63 submarines has its own page. And while the content on each page is perfectly fine and looks well-written, the pages appear mostly identical. Only a few specific details differ between the pages, with perhaps a few containing a little more detail in the service history. Pretty much all this content is already there over at the list page. Perhaps we should have separate pages just for those submarines which were especially noteworthy, i.e. satisfy WP:GNG Chumpih. (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chumpih. (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chumpih. (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Aren't ships automatically notable? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's WP:SHIPS but a quick look there didn't reveal any particular notability policy, so presumably WP:NOTE applies. From past discussions, large ships are almost certainly notable. However these were small, fast craft, with a crew of about 20. Chumpih. (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: You cannot possibly nominate 63 articles and then say "keep the notable ones". The articles have to be nominated in much much smaller batches so that we can figure out which ones are the notable ones. WP:TRAINWRECK. Curbon7 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very fair point. I've closed this as Quick keep accordingly. Chumpih. (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 FASTILY 04:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steelray[edit]

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

All sources I found are PR, passing mentions, non reliable, blogs, etc. MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could not find evidence of coverage per WP:GNG. Chumpih. (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Arnold (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

WP:SPIP Flagging this page for deletion on the grounds that person is not notable - all citations do not mention person (eg source 8,,9,14,15), most appear to be companies ran by person (e.g. source 1,6,9,11,12,13) or are just deadlinks (source 2). Mushroomroulette (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have made changes to formatting as this was done incorrectly. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sourcing that actually mentions the subject is very unreliable. Possibly a paid article as the only other edits by the creator are to add spam links to another article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 21:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Devraj[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this screenwriter/author. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found only a few reliable sources on this subject and they mainly related to his single book. Not enough to support notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He seems to be a screenwriter for multiple notable projects (if it is the same person). The Fakir of Venice, Quick Gun Murugun. If that's true, he qualifies WP:CREATIVE. But we surely need to expand the page and add more sources. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to generate consensus if the subject meets WP:CREATIVE through work on notable projects
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rafal Rohozinski[edit]

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

Have gone through all the references + have googled him can’t find thing that suggests notability, fails WP:GNG, the article is a CV, it has been mainly edited by numerous WP:SPA. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Devokewater ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The wiki-notability case is not very good. For example, once you dig under the initially-decent-seeming numbers at Google Scholar, there are misclassifications that bring the figures down (e.g., somehow he gets credit for a review that someone else wrote of a book he co-edited). He was involved with multiple books that appear to have attracted moderately substantial numbers of citations, but as a co-editor, not an author. So, it's hard to argue for a pass of WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF on those grounds. The LinkedIn-quality writing is a good reason either to cut nearly all the text or to blow up the whole thing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sallent, Coll de Nargó[edit]

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

Locality fails WP:GEOLAND due to lack of legal recognition or significant coverage. Sourcing consists of maps and tables which are specifically excluded from establishing notability per WP:NGEO. –dlthewave ☎ 17:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Going off of the Spanish National Statistics Institute website ([10]), there seem to be only two legally recognized places called Sallent in Lleida Province; Sallent (Pinell de Solsonès) and one in Montferrer i Castellbò. This one does not seems to be legally recognized. Curbon7 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does seem to be a populate Sallent in Coll de Nargó: [11] passes GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 23:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer How do those tables show that it meets GEOLAND? As I mentioned in the nom, tables do not establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 13:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the census population tables, demonstrating legal recognition; if you'd like something which discusses the place, you may want to check out this beautiful website: [12] SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SportingFlyer and a similar situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otano (Navarra) of a Spanish place created by the same user, where little to no WP:BEFORE work was done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A simple census table cannot indicate notability by itself for every location named in it, because census-tracts are not automatically notable under WP:GEOLAND#1. The table identifies it as a "population unit", i.e., a census-tract. www.selent.cat appears to just be a low-quality personal website run by one or more Catalan nationalists who appear to be ... ummm ... a bit psychologically disturbed based on the long screeds about terrorism and psychopaths in their community. There just isn't an article to be written about this place. FOARP (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I beg to differ... Ingratis (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added content with references and there is more that can be added. There is no way that any real BEFORE can have been carried out here - apparently a POINT-y nomination. Ingratis (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate article improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly was an ancient parish, so satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. (discussion is Leaning keep given the links in the comment). It’d be helpful if someone integrated some of the references into the text of the article. Chaser (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Leadership Foundation[edit]

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

No significant coverage. The article is currently unreferenced and has external links to two interviews and a YouTube video. SL93 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is coverage in South Africa due to De Klerk:[13],[14],[15],[16]. It is also mentioned in news articles[17][18] and press releases[19][20] of foreign heads of state. Joofjoof (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per links from Joofjoof and sources on the page, there's more-than-passing commentary on this foundation in some OK sources from De Klerk. Chumpih. (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Chaser (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TwiGIS[edit]

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

I don't see what makes this software notable, I don't see significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Non notable. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's sufficiently notable to avoid a speedy delete for notability. Not sure about regular AfD yet. PianoDan (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Understand. Should I add more references, scholar citations, etc? VMwiki (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:NSOFT. That's the standard the page would need to hit. PianoDan (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would a redirect to List of geographic information systems software be valid? I was going to look at the number of views this gets and realized the article was created today! – The Grid (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for me. Quite widely used in Central Europe. – CADadm (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but certainly borderline. One suggestion would be to evolve this into an article on both the software and the developing company, Arkance Systems and its CAD Studio predecessor. I find a few more sources for the company, although many tend to be non-English. That would not disqualify, but I am not fluent enough in those languages to judge if they are independent. The current lists of bullets lifted from product ads would need to be improved, at least written into prose. W Nowicki (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable sources, and no one has provided them so far. MarioGom (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Known in Hungary. There are articles on less notable products here... – User:kovacslace 8:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Probably Keep. The "Features" sec needs sources or should be cut, but the rest of the article seems fine. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Outline of Jammu and Kashmir. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jammu and Kashmir–related articles[edit]

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

Redundant list article. It can be redirected to Outline of Jammu and Kashmir. DTM (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/redirect obvious duplicate page shouldn't need discussion. Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as mentioned. Capitals00 (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. What a mess. First off, this AfD is a good indication that when a set of things in a category may reasonably be expected to have differing levels of notability, a mass AfD is a bad idea. Further, there's a lot of poor argument here. WP:GEOLAND exists because legally recognized places will generally have received substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources, but that coverage may often be inaccessible. This is particularly true outside the anglosphere. This doesn't necessarily mean every legally recognized place needs to have an article, but at the least an exhaustive search is needed to determine a lack of notability. Several !votes here obviously were not backed by such a search. Conversely, referring to a previous AfD isn't helpful when the topics are obviously different, and as such I am disregarding entirely any comments that did so. Further, even notable topics do not necessarily required a standalone article, per WP:NOPAGE. As such there's not as much engagement with the substance of this issue as I'd like, but nonetheless there's consensus here that at least Akuşağı, Baskil requires a standalone page; that the other titles meet WP:GEOLAND; and that the other titles require a case-by-case discussion at the very least if mergers are considered. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aladikme, Baskil[edit]

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

I redirected these geostubs sourced to Koyumuz per these discussions [21][22][23], but was reverted because they have a second source which adds the phrase "The village is populated by Kurds." I propose that these articles be redirected to Baskil district as well, since the additional information is extremely trivial and is already found in a table at the target article. As always I have no objection to keeping any of these if reliable sources and non-trivial content are added. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per the outcome of a much more recent AfD on the same subject where the nom had to backtrack and withdraw(!). Pinging those AfD partipants: @Styyx, Necrothesp, Ingratis, SportingFlyer, and Pharaoh of the Wizards:. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, you've only pinged the participants who !voted Keep. This looks a lot like canvassing. –dlthewave ☎ 13:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pinging me and posting on my talkpage. I've never met a more disingenuous user than you. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging additional participants @Darth Mike and FOARP:. I disagree that participants in a different AfD should be notified, but if we're going to do it then we need to notify all of them. –dlthewave ☎ 13:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep per previous outcome" is only valid is these articles are similarly expanded; without such expansion, this !vote has no legs. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Lugnuts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All per the previous, very well-attended AFD and ANI discussions on this exact topic. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay I'm gonna be quite honest about this, it's starting to piss me off. I can already tell this is going to end up as a trainwreck. People here seem to think that all Turkish mahalles/villages get about the same coverage, which is false. If you take a look at the Düzce District template, you can see that while going from top to bottom, I've converted Akyazı into an article, but Altınpınar and Asar are still a redirect, and then Aydınpınar is converted as well. This notability shit differs from village to village (I though people knew this but oh well). So you can't take the consensus of an AfD about Mahalles in Aziziye and apply them to every fucking Turkish geostub in existence and proceed to hope for the best and you can never, ever see an AfD and immediately !vote "Redirect all" without even an hour passing of the nomination. I doubt a WP:BEFORE was done and also doubt anyone else made a search. This is should probably be closed as a procedural keep before we turn this into a clusterfuck of a situation. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all So you're concerned about a quick "redirect all" !vote but not that all of these were made within minutes of each other themselves? Where was the BEFORE when these were created to have better sources than a weather site and a list of names in a footnote? The clusterfuck is that users mass-create thousands of pages at once without prior approval of sources and methods – in violation of Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Mass_page_creation – but then the rest of us are expected to do the work of finding sources or discussing them one at a time. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the parent district (no merge required), per WP:MERGEREASON, where all content can be better presented for our readers. Irrespective of any notability and sourcing issues, there is entirely insufficient content to justify standalone articles here. No prejudice to restoring as standalone articles on a case-by-case basis as and when such content can be created from adequate reliable sources. Perhaps a wider-audience RFC is needed to establish a community consensus solution to dealing with these minimally sourced "this place exists" geo-stubs rather than circling round the redirect-revert-AFD tree for each one (or batch), with almost identical comments being made every time by the same contributors? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from a neutral outsider. There seems to be a huge discrepancy between policy on locations in the US and policy on locations everywhere else at AfD. When yet another railway siding with a grain silo in Illinois gets nominated for deletion, there's a good-natured hunt in ancient newspapers, and if someone finds a reference that a genuine human once called this home, the article is kept, even if the reference is merely a newspaper clipping that a little old lady gave Nowhereville as her address when reporting a lost dog. Nothing needs to have happened there; just it has to have been, once, an inhabited place, even if only inhabited by one person who never did anything notable. Meanwhile whole villages and towns elsewhere are deleted even though it's blatantly obvious they're inhabited places (and it's utterly hopeless trying to retain an article on a very substantial new town in the middle east). I have no idea what our policy on locations actually is, (and nor apparently does anyone else), because it seems to vary with the nationality of the location. It would be great if things were more consistent, and a consistent policy might save a lot of ill-feeling. For my part, I agree with Wjemather Elemimele (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the parent district (no merge required), per WP:MERGEREASON, as Wjemather states. Should anyone care to put the work into turning any of these sub-stubs into actual articles, they can do so. Since neither the article creator nor anyone else seems to be motivated to do so, a district article is a perfectly proper place for these redirects. That being said, the keep argument presented so far is utterly specious: Wikipedia is run by consensus, not by precedent in a single AfD. It remains, per relevant guidelines and policies, not the responsibility of editors to prove that significant coverage does not exist, but the responsibility of editors who seek to keep the articles to prove that it does.
Further, User:Lugnuts would be well advised to tone down the canvassing and the hostility -- far from it being objectionable to write to his talk page, as he seems to feel it is [24], it was the nom's duty to do so. Nor is it objectionable for a nominator to withdraw the nom if during the course of the AfD the articles are improved enough to pass notability standards; wouldn't we all wish that editors were motivated to properly source articles, and for nominators to graciously acknowledge that when it happened? Ravenswing 15:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the nom has been asked multiple times not to post on my talkpage, it's probably wise not to do so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... so if you'd happen to find, down the road, that these articles were deleted and/or redirected without your knowledge or input, you'd be fine with that? Ravenswing 15:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But they wouldn't be without my knowledge. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing Just going to cut you off for "Since neither the article creator nor anyone else seems to be motivated to do". I've done this a week ago for geostubs of Düzce, I'm currently doing this for the above and even have done it for Akuşağı and Aladikme. It doesn't take more than 30 minutes per article, that's why I'm finding these immediate "Redirect all"s unconstructive... ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. Feel free to ping me when you're done, I'll take a look at the articles, and if satisfied that the sources you find contribute significant coverage to the subjects (as opposed to the refbombing that all too often crown such efforts), I'll change my vote. As far as you finding this unconstructive, well: had you done any work improving these articles before this AfD? (That being said, the nomination was scarcely more knee-jerk than the speed with which Lugnuts created these sub-stubs, something for which he's been admonished at ANI already [25]. Ravenswing 15:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously don't know every Turkish village out of the top of my head, so I see this stuff only when they land on WP:DSTURKEY. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - to the parent district. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the parent district, per above. Nigej (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the mass ping: Dlthewave, FOARP, Reywas92, Wjemather, Elemimele, Ravenswing, GoodDay and Nigej! All have been expanded, some obviously less than others (as I expected). Akuşağı, Aladikme, Altunuşağı, Beşbölük, Doğancık, Kadıköy and Karaali have clear legal recognition (expanded with text showing government projects). Bilaluşağı is also reasonably expanded with the university source and 2000 census of the governement (though I was told you can't use a census to establish legal recognition, which I find stupid, but policy is policy). All of the articles now have at least 3 sources. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 08:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I'd still rather see them as redirects to the parent district. Per WP:N, even if a topic passes GNG (which is still not 100% clear to me) "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and I'm of that view, that many of these stub-type articles would be more useful to users if they were covered at Baskil, which is still, itself, very bare, with the villages as redirects there. Not everything needs an article and such articles with little prospect of useful expansion are good examples IMO. Nigej (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I agree with Nigej; the encyclopedic info can be better presented in the district article. In addition, much of the expansion is filler content/trivia which creates some undue recentism issues. As such, there is not enough for me to change my !vote. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nowhere close to agreeing with the above. At least 7 of these meet GEOLAND. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 12:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, passing the ultra low-bar of GEOLAND in and of itself is not sufficient justification for having a standalone article. If the available (non-trivia) information can be better presented in an article on a wider topic or a list article, then we should do that. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, WP:GEOLAND says that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" but one of the purposes of AfDs such as this is to decide whether the "typically presumed" applies and, as I noted above, it's quite clear from WP:N that, even if a "populated, legally recognized place" is notable, then editors can use "their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article", which I'm assuming we're deciding by consensus here. Nigej (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the villages I mention above include pretty reliable sources and have reasonably been expanded. All of them have a population in three digits, and I see no reason for them to not have their own article. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Apart from the fact that I'm not at all convinced that these articles pass GNG, my view is that our readers will find it much more useful to have a good article at Baskil rather than 50 of these stubs with little or no in-depth content. The tribe information is already there, the population can readily be added, and the rest of the content is largely trivia, but some could be added to the Baskil article, with individual villages having a short section. The whole article would still not be overly long. Nigej (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that there's little to no content, and to fix that, more content should be cut and merged, and that would make it have more content? I don't understand your logic. One article being bigger size-wise does not mean there is more content. Dege31 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Styyx: Make that two reliable sources for most of them, since they still cite Koyumuz which is the reason they were redirected in the first place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think the info on Koyumuz is pretty accurate. I've swapped the 2012 population on Koyumuz with the official census of 2000 in many articles since you asked me to on my talk page, and I'm not seeing unbelievable things/changes related. The only time it was off by some margin was here, which still doesn't seem unbelievable to me since I've seen the exact thing happen in my hometown (5000+ to 3000). ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with keeping ones with substantive information and sources addressing the place, but they can also be covered within the main article. Those articles made in bulk should be redirected in bulk – anyone can recreate with further content without an AFD driving it. Reywas92^Talk 19:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gritting my teeth saying it, @Styyx:, because it's plain you put some effort into finding sources and to save the articles. But I'm just not looking at WP:SIGCOV, IMHO; I'm looking at trivia. That a village has a primary school, that snowfalls make winter travel hard, that elliptical eggplants are grown near one, that a building in honor of a local policeman was halted through lack of funds, that there are old graves near one (heck, I live in an area that's been settled a twentieth as long as Turkey has, and you can hardly take a stroll without tripping over an old cemetery) ... these are all bits of trivia that would be deleted out of the average town article. I'd want to see more substantial information before independent articles could be sustained, and at least a redirect preserves the article in the event that happens. Ravenswing 19:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never aimed for SIGCOV, the objective has always been GEOLAND#1. Having a schoo regulated by the ministry is supposed to mean it's legally recognized. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all, then any articles that actually have substantial coverage can be recreated from there. I agree with Ravenswing et al that coverage for some exists, but if it's not encyclopedic then how can it genuinely count towards notability? JoelleJay (talk)
Merge Styyx's information, where encyclopaedic, into the district article, and then redirect to the district. It's not okay simply to redirect without merging. Although I sympathise with Ravenswing's position, I wouldn't go so far. Yup, snow in winter is trivial, but the ancient graves are definitely relevant to readers, who may legitimately be interested in the region's prehistory. Even the primary school counts, if the other villages don't have primary schools. The district has an area of 516 square miles, which means in my country it would expect to have about 170 primary schools. If, in fact, it has only one, this says quite a lot about the distances travelled by kids to get to school, the social challenges of education, and the social situation of the area, and is therefore of encyclopaedic interest. If there are 30 other primary schools in the district, less so... Styyx, what's the situation? Is this school especially unusual? I still believe there's a huge discrepancy between how we're treating settlements in the US, and how we treat them elsewhere, which is extremely unhelpful. Elemimele (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The total number of schools in the whole district according to the ministry is 4 high, 6 middle and 7 primary schools. The school in Aladikme was "Kerik", but now is closed. The current one is "Mustafa Bilbay", but I don't feel the need to specifically mention the name. Also made a mistake as it's both a primary and a middle school. Also Kadıköy appearently has a high school I didn't notice. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly share Styyx’s sentiment about this. We’ve had over a decade of experience working on Turkish geostubs over on Turkish Wikipedia. I’ll be happy to share some of those insights and look at these articles individually if it actually helps, but I find it very telling that people who don’t speak a word of Turkish think it’s a good idea to mass nominate these articles, regardless of how they were created, or make broad comments about content not being encyclopaedic, with the said content including details about the geographical area surrounding the village or the village having a school (which anyone with an inkling of insight on Turkish countryside would agree constitutes encyclopaedic knowledge). This speaks volumes about the level of systemic bias at play here and is frankly very disheartening. —GGT (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, no. That's a card played all too often by people on Wikipedia unhappy at seeing their pet projects disturbed. There are, in fact, no separate set of notability guidelines pertaining to the Turkish countryside (other than what may prevail on the Turkish WP, which has zero bearing on practices and standards on any other national WP, this one included), nor are participants in a particular Wikiproject granted vetoes over their "own" articles. Villages have schools and cemeteries all over the world, and the mere existence of the same does not confer notability. Ravenswing 03:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is so full of straw men. What pet project? Where am I claiming that editors should have a veto over “their own” articles? WP:NOTINHERITED bears literally no relation to what we’re talking about (no one is claiming that notability is inherited by being associated with… what, a non-notable school?), peppering comments with random links does not make them stronger. Part of the crux of the argument to delete rests upon the presumption that even if there is content about these villages, it’s not encyclopaedic (I’ll address the whole GEOLAND/MERGEREASONS issue in another comment). That’s simply untrue. I don’t care that lots of villages around the world have schools, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to delete. The topic here is whether there’s any encyclopaedic value to mentioning the fact that villages in Turkey have schools, and the answer is yes because many villages in Turkey don’t have schools and this is actually a major issue there. The village with the cemetery has one that is dated to the Seljuk times, that means it’s at least from the 13th century. Lots of villages in Turkey have Ottoman cemeteries, such that a national newspaper wouldn’t usually care about reporting on them, yet Seljuk cemeteries are rare (and encyclopaedic) and thus this village made it to national news. People here are making broad statements based on their own experiences (such as the fact that their area has lots of cemeteries!). Well, I’m sorry but the all-seeing eye of the Anglophone editor doesn’t suffice here, context matters and you will miss the nuances unless you have the cultural literacy to comment on this in context or take the time to do the necessary reading around these issues. —GGT (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All we are really interested in is whether there is sufficient significant coverage with which to build a standalone article; if not there is a more than adequate parent article to list basic details. Name-drops of villages in news stories because something happens to occur in, or be located in, the vicinity (and sometimes that could be a dozens of miles/kms away, so not actually anywhere near the place) do nothing more than confirm existence; adding those stories to the articles tells us nothing about the villages themselves and in some cases is undue. Some of this stuff may be encyclopedic, but it's often not actually about the village concerned, so would actually be better covered within the district article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wjemather: That’s a very reasonable concern. I’m planning to choose one of these articles to work on and then address this point in my !vote. Regards. —GGT (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where am you claiming that editors should have a veto over “their own” articles? When you state outright that you think speaking the Turkish language should be a prerequisite for both nominating Turkish-related articles for deletion (which, by the bye, has not actually happened here) or commenting on the same. And never mind the absurdity of your inference that Anatolia lacks cemeteries in profusion -- what, are you alleging that neither Turks nor Greeks bury their dead? Own your own statements. Ravenswing 13:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Lugnuts. --Victor Trevor (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts didn't actually make any argument to keep these articles. He merely referenced an AFD discussion where sufficient sourcing had been found to keep the specific article that was nominated, which is a very common outcome at AFD. Regardless of whether he put an "(!)" into his comment, this means nothing for the present discussion. FOARP (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. All current and historical villages (i.e. all places that are currently or have historically been recognised as a köy) in Turkey should be regarded as notable as per WP:GEOLAND, for reasons I'll explain below. If there is no consensus on this, in the light of my work on Akuşağı, that article should be kept and the rest should be procedurally kept without prejudice to any future nomination. This will be a long post so I apologise, but it is a nuanced subject and we are potentially setting a precedent for thousands of villages.
As far as I can see, the arguments for redirection/merging have two bases in guidelines:
- WP:MERGEREASON per the #3 "shortness" criterion. Note that this isn't actually a guideline and thus holds less weight. Despite what has been argued above, this criterion cannot be applied regardless of notability. As stated right underneath this in WP:NOTMERGE, merging should be avoided for three reasons, and all three are met in this case. These topics can be expanded into longer stand-alone articles, as demonstrated by Akuşağı (#2); the topics may well warrant their own articles per the GNG/SNGs (#3). Concerns have been raised that content about sites that are not located in the village itself but in the area may be undue in village articles and may be better handled in district articles. I disagree with this line of argument on two grounds: 1) Merging all encyclopaedic information from the village articles (irrespective of the subjective, culturally insensitive comments about the material) would render the Baskil district article too clunky (see NOTMERGE #1) and give undue weight to the villages rather than the actual town. 2) Historical sites found within the bounds of a settlement are often handled in that settlement's article regardless of a lack of continuity (see History of Milton Keynes for a good example) and can be well-integrated into these articles with due editorial care, as I have done in the case of Akuşağı.
- Overturning the presumption of notability provided by WP:GEOLAND as these villages are argued to fail WP:GNG. This is a puzzling argument; the language used in GEOLAND#1 ("Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."), which covers these articles, is the same as the language used on GNG (i.e. presumption but no guarantee of notability). There is nothing to indicate that one essentially overrides the other.
- At any rate, the guideline presumes the notability of these places and thus places the burden of proof to presume otherwise on the delete/redirect/merge !voters. I would be inclined to accept this line of argument if all practicable steps to investigate an article's notability were taken and failed. That simply isn't the case here. It's clear that WP:BEFORE hasn't been met for any of these articles, indeed, I doubt any of the merge/redirect !voters have bothered to run a Google search on them. Many of the sources I found for Akuşağı are national Turkish newspapers, I would expect any decent Google News search to identify these sources. This is the bare minimum, but in order to overturn a presumption of notability, I would expect more. Turkish village geostubs are a perennial issue on tr.wiki, and in our experience it is almost always possible for the dedicated editor to find sources on them (I'll refer to this article as an example), but allow me to detail some of the issues:
  - There are few Turkish villages that haven't had changes to their names in the past century, and this has to be accounted for in the search strategy.
  - A lot of Turkish villages are covered in sources that are not written in Turkish but in other languages (I haven't carried out a Kurdish-language seach for Akuşağı, which is a Kurdish village). These languages often use different alphabets, e.g. Armenian, Georgian (see the example I provided), Greek, Russian or Arabic.
  - Even if you are purely looking at Turkish-language sources, Turkey had an alphabet reform in the 1920s so you have to account for that.
  - Turkish newspapers are crap at digitising their historical archives. There are only two national newspapers with fully digitised archives. Local papers? Don't even think about them, some of the currently published ones aren't online anyway, and there are a lot of historical, short-lived ones.
  - There are a lot of offline sources that discuss these villages (e.g. village reports of the Interior Ministry in the 1960s, Ottoman publications, ethnographic works, local history books - see the example article above) that haven't been digitised at all - you wouldn't be able to see even snippets on Google Books.
- So a sufficiently detailed search to establish non-notability would require a detailed search using various names/languages and probably a visit to a Turkish library. You don't have the resources to do that? Then presume that it's notable per GEOLAND#1 and please mind your bias.
If there is no consensus on the points above, it's clear based on my work on Akuşağı that 1) that article meets GNG, 2) WP:BEFORE hasn't been met and 3) all the other articles need to be individually scrutinised as it's clearly impossible to do a proper GNG check on 12 articles at the same time.
--GGT (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I've now nominated Akuşağı, Baskil for DYK. --GGT (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all based on superb work by User:Styx and a definitive analysis by User:GGT. I'm hoping this may see the end of these futile / point-y nominations. Ingratis (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per pretty much all of my above comments and per GGT. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd love to simply close this as "keep all", I'm not going to cause a row. But I will remove the AfD template from Akuşağı, Baskil, which obviously passes the GNG and is on its way to the front page, thanks to GGT. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Drmies. I must note that Cyberbot seems to be very insistent on reinstating that AfD template. :) --GGT (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the work, I'm still of the view that readers would be better served by having a good article at the Baskil level. As I noted above, even if some of the villages might pass GNG we can still decide to have one good article rather than a lot of bad ones. Demirlibahçe, Baskil still says nothing. Even Akuşağı, Baskil is largely full of padding, there's little real content. Sadly the much more important article about Baskil, the town and the district, is still just a list of the villages. Effort has gone into all the wrong articles. Better 1 good article than 50 poor ones. Nigej (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not possible to expand information on the district article without removing additional information? Dege31 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The total useful content in all the village articles would easily fit into the district article. I'm not talking about removing it. I'm talking about consolidating it into one article which would be much more useful for our readers. This obsession with creating large numbers of articles with little or no content is not what an encyclopedia is about. Nigej (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What rationale, guideline or policy are you using to determine what's useful content here? I can't tell why you consider eg. Akuşağı, Baskil "largely full of padding". Dege31 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The very highest, ie WP:N. As I noted above "Per WP:N, even if a topic passes GNG (which is still not 100% clear to me) "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and I'm of that view". Per padding eg "Some inhabitants attempted to sell their apricot orchards to no success" This is simply not encyclopedic content. Read the local paper if you want this sort of stuff. Nigej (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: Per Lugnuts. In addition, I think that Kadıköy, Baskil especially needs to be kept given that it has a substantial amount of sources and citations. All these articles, at least, have a little useful information in them that qualifies them as notable. Sincerely, Dunutubble (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej:: 'Per padding eg "Some inhabitants attempted to sell their apricot orchards to no success" This is simply not encyclopedic content. Read the local paper if you want this sort of stuff.' That's funny. It's actually from a national newspaper... Do you have any policy justification at all for this type of comment? --GGT (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A point of reference for the "ideal" village article might help, and yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a thing, but surely there must be an established way in which articles on villages are written. Navenby is an English village with FA status. The article talks about a local baker with his Lincolnshire plum pudding, a butchers' shop, the local Stagecoach service only running once on a Sunday, the village primary school, a phone box, the local juniors' football team... It also happens to contain fewer references to national press than Akuşağı. Don't get me wrong, I actually quite like that area of England and enjoyed reading that article. The only problem is, equivalent material cannot be FA material in England and "padding" in Turkey. What people here call "padding", "not encyclopaedic" is just how articles on villages are and should be written on Wikipedia. Sorry for badgering on, that's my final comment. --GGT (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many UK inhabited places (and uninhabited ones too) should be consolidated, removing much of the non-encyclopedic content. What some of us find unsavoury is that the only reason there's been any editing of these articles is that they've been nominated for deletion, in some desperate attempt to keep them. The plain truth is that if these articles had been anything like Navenby they'd never have been nominated for deletion. Let's consolidate them into the parent for now and if someone in the future creates so much content on a specific village that the parent article becomes unwealdy then that content can be moved into a separate article. IMO that is a better approach for our readers than creating meaningless stubs for every village in the world. Nigej (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point of AfD isn't to just delete everything nominated. Articles improving instead of being deleted is positive. Dege31 (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. I think it's a good start, I'd like to expansion, but that may not be possible given the size of the place. However, there are enough references now to establish notability and I think that and the first part of the GEOLAND criteria are enough. No opinion on anything below Aladikme, Baskil on that list. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND are settlements with population figures and some have sources beyond that which doesn't seem to be required by GEOLAND if the place is legally recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GEOLAND. Weather they were historical settlements or current, there is an inherent notability to population centers.Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the above 3 keeps We all know that they pass GEOLAND. That is not the issue at hand. Nigej (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have expanded Kadıköy, Baskil a bit, and I think it can be kept as a separate article. No opinion about the others — I couldn't find anything substantial about Alangören or Düğüntepe on Google Scholar, but I didn't check anywhere else, and I didn't try any of the others. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Eisenhower[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Had a few minor roles, was cited in WaPo, but her main claim to fame (and the reason she has multiple puff pieces) is that she's related to two presidents. That does not add up to notability. Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a descendant of US presidents does not make one notable. Her acting career is no where near meeting notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the descendant of two presidents doesn't automatically confer notability, but it does make it more likely. The press seem interested in her, as both the New York Times and Washington Post have provided significant coverage. The nominator may feel that they're covering her for trivial reasons, but that's irrelevant. She passes WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google news shows that she has appeared in dozens of productions, most of which are not mentioned in the article, and has directed quite a few productions. Being a two-time Barrymore Award winner (and 7-time nominee) separates her from the pack of working actors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She won he Barrymore Award twice, and the facts of her parentage has generated significant coverage, meeting GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She passes general notability guidelines. Sourcing includes:

.....and many, many more.

Suffice to say, it's clear she passes WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all these links! I know it's Christmas, but if anyone has time, it would be great to add information from these articles to Eisenhower's entry. Only two of them are already cited. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ssilvers - I'll drop them on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like you already did!

Missvain (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has had some sourcing help since this AFD was opened. It's a work in progress, but Jennie is (sourced) notable enough to have an article. It's nowhere near eligible for deletion, at this point. — Maile (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by a quick Google search, we can find multiple reliable sources, considering significant coverage. Brayan ocaner (talk) 10:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popspoken[edit]

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

Article is unreferenced and shows no evidence of meeting GNG JonnyDKeen (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing to suggest WP:NOTE. Chumpih. (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liberia–Spain relations[edit]

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

These relations don't seem to be notable. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article almost entirely sourced from Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Fails WP:GNG for lack of third party sources. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relations obviously exist, and so do sources: 1991 plea from Spanish refugees of the Liberian civil war (1), 2007 Spanish government pledge to invest in Liberia post-civil war during visit of Liberian President to Spain(2), 2009 Spain Deputy PM visit to Liberia on women's empowerment (3), 2010 visit of Liberian President to Spain (4), Spanish PM pledging aid to Liberia during 2014 Ebola epidemic (5), Spain pledging 160,000€ to Liberia in the wake of the ebola epidemic (6,7), Spain helping to reopen the main hospital of Liberia's capital in 2014 (8), Spain multiplying 10x its aid to Liberia between 2016-2018 (9); Spain is the fourth largest export destination of Liberian goods. (11, p.6). Spain only has 6 extradition treaties with Africa, and it has had one with Liberia for the past 125 years (10). I was also able to locate an agreement between Spain and Liberia dating back to 1914 (11). All of these indicate the enduring ties between the two countries and clear compliance with the GNG. Pilaz (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources of Pilaz. Also found these from when Spain controlled Bioko and was involved with slave trade with Liberia. Definitely a relationship of encyclopedic importance!

^[1] ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seems like a historically significant relationship between the two countries. I can't think of any reason to delete it. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sundiata, I. K. (1974). "Prelude to Scandal: Liberia and Fernando Po, 1880-1930". The Journal of African History. 15 (1): 97–112. ISSN 0021-8537.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 12:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last Run[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is good, this and this less useful. Geschichte (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Radio Times link is a capsule review and capsule reviews are considered “coverage insufficient to fully establish notability” per WP:NFSOURCES. The Film Creator (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just stating what exists, since you almost categorically present the claim that "nothing" can be found in a BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I should be more clear in the future. When I mean "nothing", I mean it as in nothing significant or reliable. If there are reviews from such sources/websites that have Wikipedia articles written about them (e.g. Entertainment Weekly, The A.V. Club, IGN), I would withdraw the nomination. Sorry, but I'm not convinced. The Film Creator (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Geschichte's citations. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I'm not going to say that Geschichte found nothing of use, but I'm not convinced it constitutes a GNG pass. I couldn't find much myself, but "Last Run" isn't an easy one to google, so ping me if more sources are found. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjaysinh Sukhdevsinh Gohil[edit]

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

Local politician and social worker. Does not meet WP:NPOL, and has no significant coverage in independent sources per WP:BASIC. Has been moved from draftspace by new SPA accounts twice; the first time it was re-draftified, but it was not improved before it was moved to mainspace again. bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete Gohil has lots of verified sources that confirms notability of Mr. Gohil also i can see on his social media links found on search engine he has followers in large amount as well Mr Gohil is featured in lotz of news in gujarati ( Native Language ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepanchal (talk • contribs) 12:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First news source is WP:ROTM, is talking about some eye exam clinic. Other two sources are suspiciously positive in tone, seem press release-based/advertorial. Local level politician, so doesn't pass WP:NPOL. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia national under-19 football team former squads[edit]

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

Consensus at this recent AfD was that exhaustive lists of national team squads were unnecessary, even at the senior level. It stands to reason, then, that exhaustive U-19 squads would be even less likely to be required. Squad lists are retained at the tournament pages, such as 2016 AFF U-19 Youth Championship squads and 2018 AFC U-19 Championship squads and I see no reason to keep any of the other information presented in the article. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive stats database, I see no way that this would pass WP:LISTN or any other guideline and it's a WP:NOTSTATS violation as the Sudan one was last month. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NOTSTATS. This is a part of a broader garden of fancruft which includes AFC youth tournament qualifications, and youth team results. Geschichte (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we already have the squad lists on the appropriate articles, no need for a separate article with all of them as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnsley and District Junior Football League[edit]

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

I have run a few searches and I couldn't find any significant news coverage of this league, so it seems unlikely to pass WP:GNG (or WP:NORG if we are treating it as an organisation). Local children's football leagues are almost never notable and Central Warwickshire Youth Football League, Norfolk Combined Youth Football League, Loch Lomond Youth Soccer Festival and Taichung World Youth Football Festival were all deleted recently so there is enough consensus within the community that this isn't notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, it would take something remarkable for a local (town-level) children's league to be notable, and I am not seeing that here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, like all the other ones mentioned by the nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Pilipinas for Favorite Indie Video[edit]

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

Currently unreferenced. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found in my WP:BEFORE. No corresponding article on Tagalog Wiki. Not a surprise because MTV Pilipinas was basically a flop and ended up relaunching as MTV Philippines, which also flopped. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also should consider several other articles which are of similar nature: Category:MTV Pilipinas Music Awards. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' MTV's various attempts to create a domestic Filipino channel have been so ill-received, that these awards have little notice and over the years, been proven to be wholly irrelevant as a whole to Filipino pop culture and its music industry. Nate • (chatter) 23:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insignificant part of an unimportant award show on a failure of a TV channel. Dronebogus (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muamet Asanovski[edit]

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

Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 2 games of 23 and 21 minutes. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pollard, Washington[edit]

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

The topos indicate this is a former rail location about which I can find nothing, as there is just way too much searching noise. In the last forty years or so there has been a lot of development along the lake, including a RV park and a group of vacation cabins about which I can also find nothing out. The oldest aerial I could find shows what looks like some sort of manufacturing facility next to where the tracks used to be, but again, I can't find out more than that. If someone can find something indicating there was a town here, please, tell us, but I find nothing to that effect. Mangoe (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS spam. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Lamefoot Mine Site, Supplement to the Kettle River Key Project Expansion: Environmental Impact Statement" 1992 references a small residential development at Pollard; other books from the 1920s discuss being able to rent a boat for Curlew Lake from Pollard, other descriptions about the location of rock in 1911, and had an operating station with three passengers a day in 1921. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are not qualified to second-guess the Geographic Names Information System. GPS Pilot (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It takes no great expertise to read the maps as the GNIS compilers did and find some egregious errors in labelling spots as "populated places". But beyond that, going from a name on a map to a notable settlement took several acts of interpretation, and the notion that GNIS conveys some sort of legal recognition is belied by its own statement of purpose. You can read all about it at WP:GNIS, including some of the more ridiculous misinterpretations they made. Mangoe (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The GNIS is merely a database of every name that has ever appeared on US maps, with quite a few mistakes to boot, so it's unclear why we would be required to defer to them and can't use our own judgement on what needs a stand-alone article. I don't see what would make this a notable community, but Curlew Lake (Washington) could mention the homes and resorts around it. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We are totally qualified to second-guess the Geographic Names Information System. GNIS is just another source that we have to weigh appropriately, and we have weighed it and found it has problems. GNIS was not created to act as a source for Wikipedia articles and its classifications do not simply translate into our article-types. Saying otherwise is just saying that any official-sounding source (or is just any official-sounding US government source?) is beyond question. FOARP (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. As to the GNIS bit, GNIS is a database, Wikipedia is not a database, so GNIS will have information on subject that are outside of our scope here. As to Pollard itself, searching is harder than anticipated, but finding a few things. It was evidentally some sort of resort by 1937, and there was evidently a fish hatchery here in the mid-1910s. This explains the Pollard connection to the resort a little bit more - apparently Pollard was the name of the beach area where the resort was. Not finding anything really treating this as a notable community, and I'm strongly getting the impression here that "Pollard" was historically used as a vague toponym for a variety of places in the region. I haven't seen anything we can build an article on here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and GEOLAND. Avilich (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NFOOTY only presumes and does not establish notability, which means that if notability is substantially questioned, GNG must be shown to be met - which nobody here argues is the case. The "keep" opinions must therefore be given less weight. Sandstein 21:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Noway[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances in matches that satisfy NFOOTY - Micronesia isn't a FIFA or OFC member, and South Pacific Games aren't FIFA A-level matches. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Igesumai. -- BlameRuiner (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no FIFA internationals and lack of information to back up an article. In a WP:BEFORE there are absolutely no sources outside of Wikipedia and stat databases. Geschichte (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There’s Noway you can delete this article (haha). But in all seriousness, the football tournament at the 2003 Pacific Games was an official OFC tournament.(www.rsssf.com/tabless/southpac03.html) I was under the impression that federation tournaments counted towards WP:NFOOTY. News headlines from Micronesia are hard to come by, but surely this would be enough for presumed notability? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NFOOTBALL is debatable, GNG is clear cut. Fails the latter so not notable. Giant Snowman 19:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per GiantSnowman. Clear consensus that squeaking by on NFOOTY doesn't do it anymore - we need a GNG pass for marginal cases like this one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Kingston[edit]

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

Paid contribution by banned sockpuppet of banned editor. The subject has been engaged in a number of enterprises, none noable, and written a book, published by one of his firms DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Weak keep. Note: Accepted by me during the July backlog drive. Giving it a second quick look leaning towards weak keep as pass of WP:BASIC, quick search found a new coverage (negative press that should probably be integrated in the existing article if kept): https://www.afr.com/rear-window/sargon-founder-phillip-kingston-fights-27m-lawsuit-20210922-p58tw0 nearlyevil 665 06:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Agree with above, should be re-written to include the negative press. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable notability establishing source found by nearlyevil above. Fieari (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is a bit to be found, a bit more than just mentions and routine, and there are multiple events over time, but not really solid. Article does need some balance. Aoziwe (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sania Saleh[edit]

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

Fails a "before" test. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding several substantial reeferences.[26][27][28] Is there a problem? Thincat (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even in English searching under 'Saniyah Saleh' shows plenty of coverage for her despite her having died a decade before the internet. I've also linked to the ar.wiki article which shows that she won prizes for her work. Mccapra (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A decision to rename the article, as suggested below, can take place at the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual Trials of Frankfurt[edit]

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

This article is a machine translation from the German Wikipedia - word for word, down to the wikilinks (which for this reason do not work, even for things that we do already have articles for). Is the topic notable? Sure. But WP:MACHINE holds that machine-translated articles are "worse than nothing".

I put a PROD on this, and it was de-PRODded, on the grounds that it should be sent to draftspace for incubation. There is no purpose in incubating this: anyone can translate this page as it has been done here in a few seconds. Retaining this does not save anyone any work, and draftifying it will just add extra work for the AfC reviewers who will have to check it over again. Moreover, draftifying and fixing this article sends the message that it's perfectly okay to make fully machine-translated articles, because someone else will come along and do the work of properly translating them. I have no objection to a competent translator taking on this page - but please, let that translator be the one to create the article. Let's not encourage this. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Noting that this passed AFC so isn’t irredeemably bad, and the topic is certainly notable. I might have a go at improving it in the next few days. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article doesn't look that bad to me, it's legible at least. I'm going to try editing it a bit to improve the article, since having the machine-translated version is a good place to start. I don't think deleting it just to "send a message" is really helpful either. If someone else decides to machine-translate an article, what are the odds that they'll even see this AfD? BuySomeApples (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've edited the article a lot and I think it's already pretty serviceable. It'll probably need some additional information and historical sources added, but it's a solid jumping off point now. After the AfD is closed, should the page be renamed Frankfurt Homosexual Trials? I think it might be the more common English name. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples What you're doing if you try to "fix up" this translation is telling the original editor that this is fine - they can keep on doing this, just randomly machine-translating articles, and someone will just come along and fix it up for them, no big deal. Are you going to check the references? The original editor didn't. (They couldn't read them!) Checking the references is a vital part of translating articles. At a glance, these look particularly hard to check - German journals, a German edited collection. There are nearly seven thousand articles awaiting translation, or post-translation checking and cleanup, from German alone. I assure you there are many, many more worth your time, created by an editor in good faith who was doing their best, instead of as a ten-second copy-paste dump. -- asilvering (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, when I edit an article to improve it I'm not trying to make a point to whoever created the article. I'm trying to make a more useful article for everyone who reads it in the future. Secondly, there are a lot of articles written by English speakers that use sources in other languages, I WP:AGF on these. Besides I'm already looking for English sources to supplement the article, and I'm sure other editors will do the same. A lot of machine-translated articles will probably have to be deleted because of their poor quality, but this AFD seems to have drawn in a lot of editors who want to fix it up and that's a good thing (in this case). BuySomeApples (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You shouldn't improve this article because I want to make a point to someone who did something maybe inadvisable but not malicious" does not seem to me like the best place to insist on standing on principle. There are usually far more worthy articles to improve than whatever we happen to be have found at the moment, most editors aren't performing triage. If you want to make the point, warn the original author (which I have now done). Rusalkii (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone will just come along and fix it up for them". Yes, it's called collaboration, which is encouraged here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a noteworthy topic that may have had a bumpy genesis onto the English wiki, but that happens from time to time and doesn't impact the notability of an article. No big deal, it just needs work. Other editors have also expressed interest in fixing the article so any messiness will be resolved soon, which is great. I was also going to suggest that if the primary concern is sending the wrong message to an editor by allowing this to stay, then leaving a message on their talk page noting the pitfalls of machine translation is a good solution (seems another editor has beat me to this mid-writing my vote). Usually this is done in good faith and it seems to have been the case here so it's not a problem. It's good to remember that sometimes ignoring the rules is the best path to take, as has been done here. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 06:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys for the support! Especially @BuySomeAppels did a great job! @Asilvering I see your point, the translation was week, but I have no experience of writing in English. No worries, as a native German I checked all the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitumial (talk • contribs) 11:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of this confirmation that the creator has read the sources I think that we need an explanation from asilvering of the sentences, "The original editor didn't. (They couldn't read them!)". What makes you think that? Why should German journals and edited collections be any harder for a native German-speaker to check than any others? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger They wouldn't be. I'm not sure why you are assuming that I knew the original editor was a fluent German speaker?

@Mitumial It's good that you say you've checked the sources. Are you confident that you'll be able to tell if someone has accidentally misrepresented what the sources were saying, when they clean up the machine translation? -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't know whether the original editor could read German (by the way, reading is a different skill from speaking) then why did you claim to know that he hadn't read and couldn't read the sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware reading is different from speaking. You're the one who called the other editor "a native German-speaker" in the first place. Is there some reason you're being so condescending? To answer your question, I would assume in all cases that someone who is machine-translating an article wholesale - making no changes, and submitting that article through AfC as a "finished" piece - is not someone with ability in the article's language of origin. -- asilvering (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is starting to go beyond the scope of the AfD proposal and veering into bickering. It seems like this AfD is resolved, so it might be better if it is taken to usertalk pages if there is more to say on it. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 21:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that calling out a lie in this very discussion is beyond scope. It is perfectly relevant. And to think that the bare-faced liar teaches university students. You should be worrying about that, not so-called "bickering". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the lie you meant is claiming that the original author didn't read German that was almost certainly asilvering making an incorrect and overconfident assumption, but not deliberately lying. Seconding Tautomers, this no longer seems relevant to the question of whether the article should be deleted and is dissolving into personal insults. Rusalkii (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@asilvering Yes I am confident that I will be able to tell if someone has accidently misrepresented what the sources were saying. No problem. I am able to read and understand English so far. I am obviously just not able to write in English properly. mitumial (talk)
@Mitumial: Honestly, I think you're being harsh on yourself. The errors you've made on this page, for example, are pretty standard native-speaker stuff: "week" for "weak", "accidently" for "accidentally". Try translating your next article "by hand", just checking troublesome words with leo.org or whatever, and you might be surprised by how much you can do on your own. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@asilvering Thanks for your advice! I will try my best! mitumial (talk)
Keep coming back to this after a week and not having done any work on it… I can’t see any grounds for deletion. There are a few quirky bits of language and I’m not sure what exactly “illuminating gas” is but that’s minor. I also agree with the change of title suggested by @ BuySomeApples. Mccapra (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Ortiz El Samaritano[edit]

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

In my search online, I mainly found social media sources of information and user-generated sites, not newspaper articles and nothing indepth. We don't have a notability standard for astrologers and psychics but I'm surprised this article has been around for 7 years because there is really nothing here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Scott (author)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, there doesn't appear to be any independent coverage of the subject. Without a named chair position or the equivalent, and a GScholar h-index under 20, I don't see a compelling case for WP:NACADEMIC. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable as an NZ public servant, does not seem notable as an academic.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2014 PhD and associate professor, although the citation record is a reasonable start. Appears to have one forthcoming book, so also too soon for WP:NAUTHOR. No other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. his GS shows a promising start of a career but not yet enough for notability with an h-index of 13. --hroest 15:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Based on a quick look at this, there is a little more, but not enough I think. TOOSOON I think. Aoziwe (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABCDE[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows this software is notable. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' there were only a few short reviews when I tried to find something independent, but seems only from three years ago at most. W Nowicki (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G12 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orbisculate[edit]

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

Non-notable topic/WP:NOTDICT. Would consider a wiktionary redirect, but the wiktionary entry was deleted last year as a "Creative invention or protologism: please see WT:CFI" (CFI refers to Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion). (t · c) buidhe 02:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I declined a speedy on this because (surprisingly enough) a quick Google search revealed multiple press reports, many in reliable sources, about the family's attempts to get this word into dictionaries. I think it's possible that it's notable. There are four pages of hits on Google news search (link in template) and most look credible. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If so (and I'd argue WP:NOTNEWS) the topic of the article needs to be "2021 campaign to coin the word orbisculate" rather than the concept itself. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Depended if the campaign is even notable. This looked like an attempt by few people, delete. – The Grid (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would not object to moving it to refocus on the campaign. This seems like the sort of area that traditional encyclopedias ignore & Wikipedia can be good at; there's a lot of similar material that gets into DYK. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1) we're not a dictionary; 2) deliberate WP:NEOlogism. It was rightly deleted from Wiktionary also, which is a dictionary but at least it has standards. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Kennedy McCray[edit]

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

This biography is for a person that does not have the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The lead claims he is an actor, but provides no role; he is a screenwriter but provides no screenplays; he is a director, but provides no films he has directed; he is a film/stage producer but provides no films or plays he has produced. The article also asserted he was an author, but I removed that as it was a couple of self-publishing a couple of books that attracted no notice. Whpq (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Looks like a pretty obvious vanity page for a non-notable individual. No claim to notability is even made within the article. Probably should have prodded this. Fieari (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete, nothing notable about him. Oaktree b (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this does seem very vanity to me and highly likely to be a COI with the article creator, as looking at their edits, in particular uploading this photo of the subject declaring themselves as being the copyright holder, suggests to me the article creator and the subject are the same person. That aside, I agree with the nomination that this person does not satisfy notability criteria and I can not find anything on them which would help this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Serpent[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFO and WP:SIGCOV; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only found this in a BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:NEXIST, the sources have to be "suitable" and I don't think this is a suitable source to use in order to keep an article in Wikipedia unless anyone begs to differ. And even if it is suitable, it's only one source; needs two or more reviews in order to pass WP:NFO. The Film Creator (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tried but there was not enough. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ed the Sock. Daniel (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liana Kerzner[edit]

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

no notable journalistic interviews or sources. She does not stand on her own without her husband's work to give her "notability". Fails GNG. 1675309stevie (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Nominator is a WP:SPA. Missvain (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ed the Sock While the nomination may have been in bad faith, the sources used in the article are poor. She seems primarily noteworthy in relation to the Ed the Sock character, where she hosted shows, rather than her other activities. I don't really see evidence that her career as a Youtuber would merit her own page, though people are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ed the Sock. Remove the primary and unreliable sources and there's no significant coverage left about Kerzner, the subject. Per the sources, cover in context of their productions, hence the merger. czar 21:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catarina Pereira[edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence that she meets music or entertainment guidelines. She's been in a number of talent shows, but has not won. It's unclear that the awards are notable ones and a BEFORE identifies no GNG level sourcing. Star Mississippi 20:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She'd be notable if she made it on the Voice, not only making to a knockout round. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Walsh[edit]

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

Non-notable music-related bio without much in the way of WP:SIGCOV only links to Google search results which do little to indicate notability. The item appears to have been created in mainspace possibly by an editor with a WP:COI, moved to draftspace and almost immediately re-created in main by way of copy and paste. Eagleash (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only coverage is a community newspaper article about her. -- Whpq (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don’t delete — coverage has been added to include coverage of politicians and work with a prominent news anchor. Additional press articles have been added as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkwal914 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing Admin; above comment added by article creator. Eagleash (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon. The only coverage is local and on her entering the 2021 opening act talent show, which she lost. Lacks significant sustained coverage. Pikavoom (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falls well short of WP:GNG. Possible WP:AUTOBIO as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No where near [WP:GNG]] MaskedSinger (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable for either career choice she's made. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: At this point the article creator attempted to close the discussion as 'keep' and when that was reverted removed 'delete' !votes from the thread. Eagleash (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article creator has consented to deletion and there are no keep !votes or other signficicant contributors to the article. Not calling this a speedy/G7 as the discussion has been open nearly a month but rather a semi PROD/soft deletion due to minimal participation. Star Mississippi 22:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adinath Digambar Jain Temple, Adambakkam[edit]

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

No indication of notability of this temple. Fails WP:GNG. Such temples are in every street in India. Venkat TL (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found sources from regional indian newspapers about this temple. In my opinion, this article has improvement opportunities.

VincentGod11 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VincentGod11, The subject is a temple in Adambakkam neighborhood of Chennai city. All four links are about other cities like Jaipur and Bhopal. None of them are about "Adinath Digambar Jain Temple, Adambakkam" Venkat TL (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Initially thought more could be found from local newspaper articles, but couldn't find such sources so far. Without such sources, this would fail WP:GNG. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Rasnaboy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete Per Rasnaboy. desmay (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Barclay James Harvest. ✗plicit 01:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Lees (musician)[edit]

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

Previously kept but after removing references to progarchives.com, we are left with only one reference. Most of the arguments in the previous deletion discussion seemed to amount to WP:NOTINHERITED. So this article seems to fail WP:N/WP:GNG. Sikonmina (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sikonmina (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barclay James Harvest. His solo album can be mentioned there. His work outside of that band has gained no reliable notice, and this solo article attempts to add non-notable tidbits about his personal life. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with redirection if this helps to preserve the article's history. Sikonmina (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Prior keep needs more input for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That "prior keep" was from 2005, when musical notability guidelines were embryonic and far more lenient than they are now. Also note that two people voted in the 2005 discussion and both said the article needed to be improved, which was not exactly a ringing endorsement even then. Those ancient events should not cause this AfD to fall into "no consensus" purgatory in 2021, for little reason other than WP:BUREAUCRACY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band page. -- Whpq (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Subject passes WP:AUTHOR, per discussion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Pearse[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep: his name pops up here and there in coverage of Australian politics, but I haven't found detailed coverage of him in an independent source; so I do think he fails WP:GNG. He does not hold a significant academic post either, though he has written a couple of books. His Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams and The Greenwash Effect in particular have been cited a few times (he has 585 citations on GS). In the absence of reliable reviews of these books, he think he does not meet the bar for WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now taken a look at the sources by Goldsztajn. The reviews of his two books do appear to be independent and should count towards WP:AUTHOR, which calls for 'multiple independent periodical articles or reviews'. I have no problem changing my original !vote. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking for reviews of his book High and Dry, I found one that looks reliable, Button in The Monthly, and one that might be, in The Socialist. I don't think the Higgs WebDiary review is reliably published. Greenwash also has what looks like a reliably published review, Atkinson in Insights. That's not quite enough yet for WP:AUTHOR for me, and I don't think his essay Quarry Vision in a single-essay-per-issue magazine counts as a book, but it's enough of a start that I'm still leaving my opinion open on this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW two of his books would pass WP:NBOOK; the review mentioned above by John Button is worth noting as it is by a former Australian federal government minister.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Canniford, Robin (June 2013). "Book Review: Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams". Journal of Macromarketing. 33 (2): 172–173. doi:10.1177/0276146713476039.
^ Readfearn, Graham (8 October 2012). "Greenwash: tackling banks, brewers on their clean green spin". Crikey.
^ Charles, Willian (November 2012). "Review: Greenwash". Adelaide Review. Archived from the original on 2013-05-01.
^ Flannery, Tim (11 August 2007). "High and Dry". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 3 March 2021.
^ Brown, Matt (October 2007). "After 11 years, is there anyone who hasn't been a 'senior Liberal advisor'?" (PDF). Institute of Public Affairs Review.
^ Button, John (July 2007). "Guy Pearse's High and Dry [Book Review]". The Monthly. Archived from the original on 15 July 2007.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments, not much consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's books get reviewed, and discussed by major reliable organisations, and are held by major libraries. There are bios by major/reliable organisations with editorial overview, eg [29], and [30]. Aoziwe (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that these two links do not change my judgement of the subject. They are both bios from websites he has contributed to and cannot, therefore, be considered independent. They are not the kind of coverage called for by WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not completely correct. The ABC is a state broadcaster, akin to the CBC or the BBC; its basis of independence is legally constituted. I would agree that in itself, the bio is not an indicator of notability, but the source can be considered reliable and the contents can form *part* of considerations as to whether the subject is notable. The point is, the ABC source itself should not be rejected out of hand, just used appropriately. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I now realise that I may have misunderstood Aoziwe's point. Yes, of course, the content of the sources may point towards the subject meeting some aspect of an SNG. I felt that Aoziwe was arguing that these bios help the subject reach GNG (perhaps this is what they are arguing?). Modussiccandi (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - not by themselves but they do contribute. (I did not claim WP:ANYBIO.) Aoziwe (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subsequent contribution and changed !vote, happy to move off the fence, cough, build consensus. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional reviews found by Goldsztajn are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood International School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Nominators should always do WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references that were added by Eastmain are extremely trivial and run of the mill. A paragraph at best about some students participating an online competition doesn't in any way meet the "directly and depth" part of the notability guidelines. I wasn't able to find anything else either. So as things currently stand there's zero guideline based reason to keep this article. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources added do not establish ORG level notability, and my research doesn't identify any further to add. Star Mississippi 02:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE mainly showed listing and social media, no significant coverage. The recently added trivia only proves that the school exists, it does not show anything towards notability. The Banner talk 11:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Grove Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is unreferenced and what's out there on the school is the epitome of WP:MILL coverage. So there's zero reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is it a village or a school? The article is unclear. But either way, unable to find sourcing to come anywhere near WP:ORG if it's a school. Star Mississippi 22:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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