< December 26 December 28 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Conception Cemetery (Oklahoma City)[edit]

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

I am unable to identify significant, in depth coverage of this cemetery. Results are limited to genealogy sites and burial notices, nothing that covers the cemetery itself. Further unable to identify anything such as architect or planner that might confer notability. Star Mississippi 23:44, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palmetto Citizens Federal Credit Union[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows notability. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:16, 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. ✗plicit 23:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre La Borde[edit]

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

Article has been been tagged for notability since creation. Fails WP:NOTE Google search for subject does not turn up any record of individual notability apart from family. There are few/no links to this page and it lacks inline sources. Orb4peace (talk) 21:59, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of government of monarchies[edit]

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

Another unencyclopedic cross-categorisation listing current heads of government in monarchies. I think there us ample precedent in recent AfDs that this kind of topic isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of heads of government is notable. This is why I created the list. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What indicates to you that the topic of “heads of government of monarchies” specifically is notable? Mccapra (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this topic is part of the topic of heads of government. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the topic “heads of government” is notable, but that’s not the same as every possible sub-categorisation of heads of government also being notable. If that were the case we could fill Wikipedia with articles such as “heads of government of countries beginning with H”, or “HoG who have visited the Ivory Coast”, or “HoG who play the flute.” Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So a merge would be possible then. 07:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes if there is a suitable target. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...or maybe I should add more details for that article it to become encyclopedic as the this kind of topic is part of the heads of government. I am not sure. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Downsize The only part of this list that seems useful is the last section 'Current monarchs that are also heads of government'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orb4peace (talk • contribs) 18:04, 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 delete. The "keep" arguments were largely hollow and, as noted by the "delete" arguments, these individual events specifically do not live up to the requirements laid out by relevant notability guidelines due to the lack of necessary significant third-party coverage to justify separate articles. ✗plicit 01:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine skiing at the 2012 Arctic Winter Games[edit]

Alpine skiing at the 2012 Arctic Winter Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be the necessary notability to have individual articles for specific sports at these small, regional, junior games. I checked alpine skiing, dene, and table tennis, and it looks as if these have not been the subject of the necessary independent coverage, with even many gold medal winners not getting real attention.

Also nominated are

Fram (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That "guideline" you link to has no consensus (it isn't vetted for consensus, and not tagged as a policy or guideline); the guideline for these is WP:GNG (or WP:NEVENT, but in the end those need to meet WP:GNG anyway). The non-guideline you use is failing WP:NOTINHERITED badly: that the overarching event is notable (which I don't dispute) doesn't indicate that all sports within that event are notable as well. Fram (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Fram: while the games overall are most likely notable, the individual events appear to lack sufficient sourcing per WP:GNG to justify their own pages, that is to say significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Chumpih. (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC) + 2022-01-01[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most "keep" opinions above aren't very substantive, as they provide little in the way of arguments or sources. Needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:13, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B Major (record producer)[edit]

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

Non notable musician who fails WP:NMUSIC, the awards themselves aren’t notable either. Furthermore the sources are just mentions and don’t meet GNG. Xclusivzik (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motlatlaneo (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article can still be improved, time is all I'm asking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motlatlaneo (talk • contribs) 07:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I already explained to you on your talk page, a lack of notability is not a problem that can be fixed in an article because its existence or nonexistence is based on factors outside of Wikipedia. See WP:OVERCOME. Largoplazo (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked on the sound of a film isn't a notable accomplishment. It also isn't clear that the use of archive footage that included him in a film in which he didn't perform contributes to notability. Largoplazo (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Motlatlaneo - please only vote once in a discussion. You can write 'comment' instead if you want to comment further. I have struck your 2nd keep vote. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • StephenWilliams021, your report motivated me to take another look, so I tried to track down some of this information, but I'm just not finding what you're finding. The only things in IOL I could find was in a story about the alleged theft, with YoungstaCPT appearing to be the focus and B Major positioned as the person by whom he was being accused; and a review of a double CD on which, it vaguely seems (the review isn't clearly written) that a "Bei Maejor (pronounced B Major)" has a track on it. As for the 021 awards, as I'd written above, Google returns practically nothing for a search of "021 music awards", all of which, aside from a couple of odd Facebook pages of unclear relevance, were about B Major. A search for "021 awards" gave me 37 results, many of them unrelated, two of them being the awards' Twitter and Instagram feeds, and almost all the rest being profiles and bios of people sharing their own receipt of an award. It's hard to conceive of awards like these being well noted offline in this day and age without corresponding independent coverage online, so I'd be hard-pressed to conclude that an award such as he received was significant in establishing his notability. If I'm missing something on any of these fronts, can you steer us to some sources? Largoplazo (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked up "Bei Maejor" and learned that that stage name appears to belong to a different person in the music industry, a Brandon Green from Detroit, Michigan, who later dropped the "Bei" to go by Maejor. So that IOL CD review I mentioned wasn't even about B Major. Largoplazo (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having a street named after you is not evidence of notability, in my view. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spiderone so what you are saying is in your view that article is trivial? Think about it, Not anybody gets a streets named after themselves, you do need a whole community to get the government to allow a petition which they will approve once a certain amount of signatures have been signed and the community said that it will be happening as they have confirmed with the media company.StephenWilliams021 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of actual significant coverage, it isn't notable. If your intention is to use 'has a street named after him' as a substitute for passing GNG, then it won't stick. There are millions and millions of streets across the world and we can't have an article on every single person that has one named after them, that would be absurd. Also your source for this is unreliable. See the disclaimer at the bottom; it is user-submitted. Thank you to Kaapstad4Life for reaching out to us for the story. and Opera News is a free to use platform and the views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not represent, reflect or express the views of Opera News. Any/all written content and images displayed are provided by the blogger/author, appear herein as submitted by the blogger/author and are unedited by Opera News. We cannot accept this on Wikipedia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A man writing about his own life and discussing his children isn't an independent source and confers no notability to the children. Please don't misunderstand me: Your diligence in trying to pull together useful information is commendable. But the bar for inclusion of an article topic is rather high. Largoplazo (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notes at the bottom of the Opera News source that Spiderone pointed out say almost flat out that that article is what doesn't count on Wikipedia as a reliable source. It's basically one person's personal blog post. These do not meet WP:RS. You can laugh all you want, and yet Opera News itself essentially says that that article isn't a reliable source. (There's a difference between material published by a publisher's own organization that is reviewed and vetted (possibly reliable), and material on a section of its site that it makes available to unfettered access by independent writers (not reliable). Their footnote says that this is the latter case.) And now you tell us that the Kaapstad4life that "reached out" to them for the story is B Major's own organization. So the piece was written at his (or a colleague's) behest. Therefore, it contributes nothing to a finding of notability, regardless of the publication it's in or the website it's on, just as being discussed in a book by his father contributes nothing to notability.
If "South Africa's biggest news outlets" are actually just free-to-use websites where people can post what they want, then, yes, they are not reliable sources. However, I just looked at what at the moment is the top story on IOL, and it has no disclaimer anywhere on it like the Opera News article article has that says it's a free-for-all publication service. The same goes for Daily Voice. So your if-this-then-that argument is invalid. Each is its own publication, and that Opera News article is not one we can rely on. Because Opera News itself says it takes no responsibility for it. Largoplazo (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SecDev Group[edit]

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

The references don’t suggest notability, it fails WP:CORP most of the contributors have been WP:SPA. Devokewater (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H Kaufman[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

R McKellar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
G. Redman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. Raymond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaufmann:
As far as I can see totally fails GNG. BTW, subject's first name is Henry.[1] Subject does get a few routine mentions in match reports but nothing anywhere near in-depth.[2] Note that most of these are for another club.
Raymond:
As far as I can see totally fails GNG. BTW, the subject's name is William (Bill), and played for the club in 1916 (not 1915).[1] Subject does get a few routine mentions in match reports but nothing anywhere near in-depth.[3]
Aoziwe (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redman:
I cannot find anything to indicate that anyone with the family name Redman had anything to do with rugby league in 1913. And, the club's website has no one with the name Redman for the period 1908 to 1919.[1]
Aoziwe (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
McKellar:
There is more than some others, but still mostly routine.[4] BTW, the subject's first name is Reginald.[1]
Aoziwe (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d https://www.roosters.com.au/history/timeline/1908-1919/
  2. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=kaufmann&l-state=New%20South%20Wales&date.from=1909-01-01&date.to=1909-12-31&keyword.phrase=eastern%20suburbs
  3. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=raymond&l-state=New%20South%20Wales&date.from=1916-01-01&date.to=1916-12-31&keyword.phrase=eastern%20suburbs
  4. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=mckellar&l-state=New%20South%20Wales&date.from=1915-01-01&date.to=1919-12-31&keyword.phrase=eastern%20suburbs&startPos=60
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. History is available if there is useful content to merge. RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Lil (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Trivial fictional character that fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. No significant real-world coverage found, only plot summaries and passing/trivial mentions. Avilich (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Piotrus: who originally prodded this. The deprodder is currently topic-banned and cannot join in. Avilich (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing really worth merging, it's all just plot information and primary sources, as is usual with these sorts of articles. Avilich (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know for sure that there isn't anything else out there that could expand this article - it seems like there could be. AFD is not for cleanup. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be, and no one in 15 years could find anything anyway. Nobody is suggesting 'cleanup', whatever that even means these days. Avilich (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the Cleanup WikiProject, they have some more information on cleanup best practices. And I am not seeing another AFD on this article in the past 15 years. If someone nominated this again in a month or two and there was no change, I'd probably change my perspective. But right now, I think this article deserves a bit more time. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:42, 28 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scotto[edit]

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

Reason Cambr5 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC) This whole article is very strange, basically this person is known for one thing, what is very dubious, and rest looks like some sort of a CV written by an IP address. Not sure if this doesnt count as spam. Cambr5 (talk) 18:36, 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. North America1000 18:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Anandram Jaipuria School, Kanpur[edit]

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

I am unable to identify coverage in independent, reliable sources that establish notability for this school. Star Mississippi 18:07, 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 Speedy deleted per WP:G5 by Doug Weller (non-admin closure) Link20XX (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Tsukiyo[edit]

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

Disambiguation pages like this go against the purpose of WP:DAB. The first line of that states Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous. This title is clearly not ambiguous, as all the listed items are simply works by the same person. If someone wants to create an article for this person, I would have no objections (they even have an article in Japanese), but this doesn't work as a dab page. Link20XX (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a sock, I’m deleting it. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 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 delete. North America1000 17:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Du Bois III[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can only find a single news article about him. Article fails to establish notability. Sources provided included a couple articles that do not mention him by name and IMDB. Rockchalk717 16:23, 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vocality International[edit]

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

PRODded with the reason enough to avoid an A7, but a BEFORE identifies only churnalism and PR about this company's acquisition, nothing to establish ORG notability but correctly declined (courtesy @Salvidrim!:) as I missed a 2006 prod in the deleted history. My reasons for deletion remain the same, I just don't think this hits the notability bar. Star Mississippi 14:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:58, 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 delete and redirect to 2022 University of Dublin by-election#Candidates. RL0919 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhbh O'Neill[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Previously draftified, but the creator has moved the article back into mainspace for the reasons they've given on the article's talk page - in essence that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got the universities confused: she works at Dublin City University, the source is from University College Dublin, so is independent of her. PamD 19:58, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hands[edit]

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

This player fails GNG and also seems to fail NFOOTBALL. There's no evidence to suggest he played in a fully pro league, only that he appeared briefly in lower divisions in Sweden and England. Can't find any significant coverage to establish notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:53, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Rai[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR because there are no significant roles in multiple notable productions. Barring a source from The Hindu, the subject also lacks significant coverage. Apparently a finalist of Bigg Boss which is alone not sufficient for notability per WP:BIGBROTHER. Ab207 (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carla DiBello[edit]

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

article about a consultant with no specific accomplishments except having "worked with" the Khardisians and having "had a hand" in an important football deal. Also a film-maker with 2 non-notable films. The refs are mostly promotional interviews. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 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]

Missvain (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the references provided above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Boyd Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, particularly the references in the article are 404 links, and even if they weren't would be WP:AUD fails as they are either only local coverage (i.e., they are purely city newspapers like the Trentonian) or apparent PR farms like Forward Florida. Searching news articles brings up a lot of interviews with John Boyd and small-town papers publishing PR-like stories about them, but nothing that is an AUD pass. Searching book sources bring up some hits for other companies called The Boyd Company, including those involved in real-estate, but not the one founded in 1975 FOARP (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 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. ✗plicit 12:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Walde[edit]

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

There's a lot of citations, but not a lot of coverage between them, and I don't think WP:GNG is met. Coverage is limited to promotional and/or routine announcements about the subject's debut film, and softball interviews that all appear to have been given in the context of recent controversies involving the ultra-famous Shah Rukh Khan. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. signed, Rosguill talk 03:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Arab Emirates national under-17 football team results[edit]

United Arab Emirates national under-17 football team results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Results pages exist for senior national teams, but as a rule, not for junior teams. Extending the results service from senior to junior level fails WP:NOTSTATS. Junior teams do not receive the same amount of coverage and their players are not presumed notable. Precedents for deletion include the similar discussions for India, Indonesia and Uzbekistan U19 - in addition, there has been an effort to clean up Asian youth football stats-cruft in the form of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 AFC Youth Championship qualification and several related qualifications. Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India women's national under-17 football team results[edit]

India women's national under-17 football team results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Results pages exist for senior national teams, but as a rule, not for junior teams. Extending the results service from senior to junior level fails WP:NOTSTATS. Junior teams do not receive the same amount of coverage and their players are not presumed notable. Precedents for deletion include the similar discussions for India (men), Indonesia and Uzbekistan - in addition, there has been an effort to clean up Asian youth football stats-cruft in the form of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 AFC Youth Championship qualification and several related qualifications. Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India national under-17 football team results[edit]

India national under-17 football team results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Results pages exist for senior national teams, but as a rule, not for junior teams. Extending the results service from senior to junior level fails WP:NOTSTATS. Junior teams do not receive the same amount of coverage and their players are not presumed notable. Precedents for deletion include the similar discussions for India, Indonesia and Uzbekistan U19 - in addition, there has been an effort to clean up Asian youth football stats-cruft in the form of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 AFC Youth Championship qualification and several related qualifications. Geschichte (talk) 09:39, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo national under-19 football team results (2017–2019)[edit]

Kosovo national under-19 football team results (2017–2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Results pages exist for senior national teams, but as a rule, not for junior teams. Extending the results service from senior to junior level fails WP:NOTSTATS. Junior teams do not receive the same amount of coverage and their players are not presumed notable. Precedents for deletion include the similar discussions for India, Indonesia and Uzbekistan. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 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. There is a consensus that sourcing exists for an article about the general subject of bias/prejudice/discrimination against red-haired persons. The most appropriate title for the article and questions of whether the subject is a real phenomenon are issues that can be addressed outside of AfD. RL0919 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against people with red hair[edit]

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

I could not find any scientific paper that states discrimination against red haired people actually exists. Most of the article is a synthesis of the material that consists of singular instances of offenses against red haired people or content that is referenced to opinion pieces, which are considered to be unreliable by the Wikipedia community. The very few academic sources cited in the article don't relate to the alleged discrimination against red haired people. Some of them are used for non-discrimination related topics as the biological causes of red hair. Another academic study from 1940s in the article states that red haired people are more likely to be criminals, however, this does not necessarily mean there is a discrimination against red haired people; representing this as a discrimination is an original research. Besides, I believe, the article uses a very strong and biased language, and contains factual errors, some of which I have pointed out at the talk page. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I've revised my suggestion to moving the article instead of deleting it for reason stated below in the discussion. Sorry, forgot to update my first post earlier.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S: (important) I kindly ask the closer of this discussion to evaluate the strength of claims based on related Wikipedia policies. Because in some cases, a user referenced opinion pieces by a news organization as a reliable source and the discussion sometimes headed towards off-topic discourses with sarcastic answers involved. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.P.S: I have extended the source analysis to show that why the sources do not support that alleged discrimination exists.--John the Janitor (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first article discusses the social stigma and labeling against red haired people; it does not conclude that red haired people are systematically discriminated based on their hair color. Also, the article does not even use a single instance of the word "discrimination". The study concludes, The redheads we interviewed were aware of their stigmatization in society, were perceptive concerning what they believed to be societal stereotypes, and were quite conversant with the labeling of red hair. However, it does not conclude that they are systematically discriminated, and even adds that blonde people are also stereotyped based on their hair color, For example, how do the stereotypes of blondes-which according to Cooper (1971, pp.75-77) have included innocence, sexiness, and stupidity-affect blonde women? So, should we also conclude that there is a systematic "discrimination" against blonde people? Even so, the researchers state they interviewed only white people; this is not enough to make an assumption for the general population. Other sources you've shared, again, do not directly say that red haired people are discriminated. However, reviewing the sources you've presented, I think, the best thing to do would be having an article like Social stigma against hair color. Concluding that discrimination exists from these sources is an original research, I think. Because none of the sources directly classify their findings as a discrimination.--John the Janitor (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not something does or does not exist is not a question for AfD. We keep articles if the subject of the article is WP:N even if what it is about is false, fabricated, or fictitious. For instance, we have an article on Female hysteria even though it's not a real thing. Based on a preponderance of RS, however, it is notable. Chetsford (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with legitimacy of your view point, however, I had already changed my position from deleting to moving it before you wrote this. I've explained the reasons below. Sorry for not clarifying my position.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I disagree that it's well referenced. The number of sources cited is high but that doesn't mean they are good quality sources. Most of the current references are opinion pieces. There are academic works cited but none of them directly state that the alleged discrimination actually exists. If conclude that "discrimination" exists without a high quality scholarly work directly telling us, I believe, it's an original research. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to attempt to add a grid in due time as you've suggested. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis[edit]

It is still work in process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John the Janitor (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC) User:John the Janitor/Discrimination[reply]

Comment This has been downgraded to a level-4 header, since it is part of the AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 03:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

etc., etc. The third "delete" argument is that terms like "bias" and "prejudice" - as used in the RS - aren't close enough synonyms to "discrimination" to justify the existence of an article named thusly. There is no policy basis for such a ridiculous argument which is inconsistent with our WP:CRITERIA in any case. Chetsford (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding third argument, we usually use the most common name preferred by reliable sources. As only a part of the opinion pieces name it discrimination and none of the high quality academic sources call it discrimination, it is highly questionable that 'discrimination' is the right name.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, welcome to Wikipedia. It's great to see you've delved so fully into AfD 45 days after joining us. Second, you keep referencing opinion pieces of which I can only find four among the dozens of references in this article. All of these are clearly used to support a named claim, and not present something in WP's own voice. Chetsford (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: Can you please describe and show the RS sources that call it discrimination on the grid above. This elaboration would help us to determine how many reliable sources really support the discrimination view. Thank you.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't do that because your premise that the word "discrimination" must be invoked (rather than synonyms like "bias" or "prejudice") is faulty, as has been explained to you. Chetsford (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: However, according to WP:CRITERIA you've shared with me earlier, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." How could we be sure that 'discrimination' is the common name, if you refuse to elaborate it?--John the Janitor (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's indeed a mystery. Chetsford (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really disappointed to hear that I believed that our discussion could bear fruit to a better article. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: @Thincat: @Orb4peace: I believe you've missed it but I had revised changed my suggestion to changing the article's name. Do you you agree on that an article like Social stigma against hair color would be better and more accurate? Nevertheless, I disagree with your point that the claim the WP:RS don't cite scientific studies - this has never been a requirement of WP:N and is not accurate in any case. Notability does require references to be reliable sources; opinion pieces are not reliable sources for an exceptional claim like a systematic discrimination against a group of people. Currently, I believe, this article is a red flag, as it implies that the alleged discrimination exist without enough evidence, and not only in content but also in name.--John the Janitor (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you generally, and think it should be renamed to avoid lending weight to an unsupported hypothesis. Maybe something like Societal views of red hair? Orb4peace (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Orb4peace: Thank you, could you please cross your old view in bold please (or change it to "move"), as it could cause confusion. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the content of the article clearly isn't about the narrow subject of social stigma, but about the broader subject of discrimination, which also encompasses social stigma. Whether or not actual discrimination exists is irrelevant for purposes of WP:N in the same way we don't delete articles like female hysteria or Morgellons merely because they're about non-existent things. It's widely covered in RS and, therefore, crests the threshold of N. Any more nuanced discussion belongs on the Talk page of the article. Chetsford (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: I've explained that opinion pieces are not reliable sources for an exceptional claim. If you think there are in fact reliable sources that call it that way as you claim, you should explain it in the grid above. Besides, there even are a-lot of non-academic sources cited in the article that don't call this discrimination. Current article name gives a false balance to the subject. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I've explained that opinion pieces are not reliable sources for an exceptional claim." You keep talking about opinion pieces being used to support exceptional claims but you have yet to actually point out any instances of that occurring. By my count, there are four opinion pieces among the 54 references in this article and they all seem to be used to cite the opinion of the authors rather than making any factual claims. I haven't looked at it closely, however, so look forward to you correcting me if I have missed something. Chetsford (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that you can share the four opinion pieces that you've determined. This way, I wouldn't accidentally check the references which were already checked by you. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'll let you know if you do. Just go ahead and post all the opinion pieces you think are being used to support exceptional claim
@Chetsford: I am sorry to say this but I think your attitude here is not constructive. I only asked you to share with me the sources you've determined. We are not rivals here who try to prove that each other's opinion is faulty. Instead, we should help each other to critically analyze each other's opinion. If you share the sources you've determined, it will help us to create a better article, and eventually a better encyclopedia. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you're new to WP, but AfD is not a hostage negotiation. You've nominated this article for deletion on the premise that it's extensively sourced to opinion pieces being used to support exceptional claims. I've asked you to provide evidence of this and you've responded demanding various demonstrations from me first. The onus is yours to demonstrate whether this meets the criteria for deletion, not mine. It's a little unconventional to issue ransom demands in an AfD. Chetsford (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only asked you to share the sources you have determined, so, I wouldn't need to check them again. I can't really understand how you can compare it to a "hostage negotiation". Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence to support your statement that opinion pieces are being used to source exceptional claims in this article? Third request. Chetsford (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, you say above that the article is covered by RS, and put a link to this article, which is an opinion piece. Here is another opinion piece cited in the article. Article uses them to give a false balance such as this one According to some observers, red haired people in the United Kingdom face particularly "aggressive" discrimination due to systemic "prejudice ... related to centuries-old matters of imperialism, religious bigotry and war".[21]. Best regards. --John the Janitor (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to emphasize that the opinion piece not only claims that alleged discrimination exists but also determines that its causes are "imperialism, religious bigotry and war".--John the Janitor (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I changed it in the article to read "according to Ally Fogg, writing in The Guardian" which is a normal use of an opinion piece per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Anything else or was that basically it? (P.S. You're welcome to make those changes yourself. See WP:DINC.) Chetsford (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning it in the article as "according to" is not enough to claim that a discrimination against red-haired people exists because of "war", "religious bigotry", and "imperialism". It is still an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources. It is currently a red flag that gives false balance.--John the Janitor (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with the presentation of one of the 54 sources in this article, I'd suggest you open a discussion on the Talk page. Deletion is not for routine article cleanup. Chetsford (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am really disappointed that you regard this instance of false balance as a singular content issue rather than an evidence showing a general trend of false balance towards a particular view point on the subject, which I elaborated on with other evidence in the reference grid above. I have also multiple times stated that I have changed my position from deleting the article to moving it to a more appropriate name, which is a possible AfD outcome. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I think care should be taken to distinguish between "discrimination" and "systemic discrimination" (one kind of discrimination). Much has been argued re systemic discrimination, but that's not in the title of the article, and it only appears once in the article (in the U.K.) section. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Willondon: It is not supported by reliable sources in both cases. Would you consider moving the article instead of keeping it? If you still disagree, can you please elaborate on which reliable sources state that discrimination exists?--John the Janitor (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have also extended the source analysis; you can check it, if you are interested.--John the Janitor (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100 Huntley Street[edit]

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

Deleted via AfD and contested. While I remember it being broadcast as a paid program in Canada in the 80s, I cannot find any independent sources for it. It therefore fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Maniatis[edit]

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

There is a lack of in depth references allowing the subject to pass WP:N. Sikonmina (talk) 06:05, 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 merge to I Wanna Be the Guy. Merge instead of redirect as presently there is no content at the target to be the subject of the redirect. czar 04:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Wanna Be the Boshy[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Only one independent secondary source (Destructoid), with one other potential source from an article by Future Game Releases whose website has only been cited in two other articles. The remaining sources are the game developer's official website, his Twitter, a Metacritic, and a database for looking up VoDs, the latter two being insignificant coverage. 93 (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, I neglected to see merging as an option here. 93 (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No comments about keeping or deleting the article (just meta-comment about how to classify the topic) after multiple relists. RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Temple, Patna[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG WP:NBUILD no independent coverage in reliable media. Only press statement coverage about inauguration that keeps getting postponed. Venkat TL (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain, Nomadicghumakkad, ok. I stand corrected. --Venkat TL (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good. The ISKCON stuff is often troublesome and they're surely fond of promotion on Wikipedia. THanks for updating your nomination! Missvain (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your observation about the cult. Venkat TL (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist, don't want to soft-delete due to other input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:36, 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin (rugby league)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not even his first name is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ roosters.com.au/history/timeline/1908-1919/
  2. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword.phrase=eastern%20suburbs&keyword=league%20martin%20city%20cup&date.from=1914-01-01&date.to=1914-12-31&l-state=New%20South%20Wales
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Furst[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. A google search comes up with a reference to one image of her a contact sheet in the National Portrait Gallery. Not enough to establish notability. I cannot find any references to verify the biographical information. Additionally the article's creator and primary editor appears to be the subject herself, a violation of COI. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, slightly to my surprise. I do agree that it is not great that the subject herself has written most of this article, and a number of points require better sourcing or should be removed. But she has mainly worked as an illustrator, which may go some way to explaining why galleries have overlooked her. and her most notable art is the Lord of the Rings cover and her Virago/Women’s Press book covers, and those are really notable for anyone who has spent any time in British bookshops. (This is one of the problems with the article, which emphasises her more recent work inspired by Haeckel.) Nwhyte (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I am able to find only one reference to her art work for Virago classics. Is this reliable? If I remove all the unsourced information and add the citations y'all have recommend she has prints in the V&A, the Wllcome collection, 1 book cover, 1 illustration for a record cover off Discogs. Pruning unsourced content and COI material will mean no date of birth or education, no genealogical or curatorial info., no exhibits. It still is very weak. I still don't see how to turn this into an article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates that is not a reliable source, it is a book selling site, and Discogs isn't a RS per WP:RSP because it is user generated content. I agree with you that when it's trimmed back there will be very little sourced content (which is why I haven't yet !voted). Netherzone (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: more book covers, from ISFDB; Encyclopedia citation for the one you already had; Wikipedia article for the Bo Hansson cover (or are we allowed to cite Wikipedia?); activism at the Royal College of Art; do we really need specific sourcing for DoB? If so, we'll be trimming that from a lot more articles than this one... Nwhyte (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nwhyte hello! FYI, I can see the encyclopedia of SciFi entry, but two of the links you provided do not mention her at all , in fact they are blank on my screen - and Wikipedia does not use itself as a reliable source. We do need sourcing for biographic info, and we need sources that talk ABOUT the person, for example, art reviews or articles or books about her work. Sources that just mention her name or are an image credit are not considered in-depth significant coverage - see WP:SIGCOV, and WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:GNG for more information. I'm pretty sure the article will be retained, and as stated above, she does meet the WP:SNG for artists, but not WP:GNG which is fine. - I'm saying this not to challenge you but rather to share info on how WP:BLPs are analyzed here (apologies for all the shortcut acronyms!). -- On a related note to all in this discussion, there was a discussion a few years ago about whether there should be a separate SNG for designers/illustrators, since they don't normally have the same sort of exhibition record or public works as "fine" artists (but they do have awards for their work) - the convo did not come to any conclusions at the time, but maybe it's time to pick up that discussion again. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gelson, Hilary. "Design Report." Times, 18 June 1970, p. 13. The Times Digital Archive, link-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/CS218329810/TTDA?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=cd1f89d6. Accessed 28 Dec. 2021.

Vexations (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:46, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sai Vidya Niketan High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found, just listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:46, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aravinda High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to be found. Just listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:46, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnam Concept School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-10 ✗ A1
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found, just listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:45, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Balaji Vidyalayam School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:45, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Nanak Public Senior Secondary School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:44, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pathankot Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found, just listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:43, 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 delete. ✗plicit 01:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scania Torped[edit]

Scania Torped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable design study that never resulted in an actual concept being built. The article states that it exists only as design sketches and a scale model, and chances of production were "slim" in 2006. Today, I can find no substantive sources. The BusinessWeek link in the article is archived here. I don't consider a design sketch that never resulted in an actual concept car to be notable for inclusion.

A malformed PROD request was placed on the page in 2018, making it ineligible for the PROD process. Sable232 (talk) 01:12, 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. Typically articles about villages are kept as long as the requirements of WP:GEOLAND are met, even if the detail provided in the article is minimal. As to the venue question, this is the right place. RfD would be where you go to get a redirect deleted or repointed to a different target, not to decide between a subject being an article or a redirect. RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aşağıdolay, Bismil[edit]

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

This is a proposal to Redirect Aşağıdolay, Bismil to Bismil, as has been done with all other poorly-sourced stubs in the district. I'm bringing it to AfD since my trim and redirect were reverted.

The article consists mainly of generalizations such as "It mostly shares the same cultural views with the rest of Diyarbakir province as it is just a small settlement around the city"; "The history of neighborhood is connected to the history of the city of Diyarbakir"; and "The economy of settlement mainly depends on the production of primary goods that related to agriculture; growing vegetables and fruits that suits well the climate of the region and cattle-breeding (farming)" which I was unable to verify with Yerelnet (which is a questionable source anyway) and probably wouldn't belong in the article even if they were better sourced.

When we cut the cruft, we're left with "Aşağıdolay is suburban area in Bismil district of Diyarbakır Province, Turkey" sourced to www.bismil.gov.tr. I couldn't find the mention of Aşağıdolay on that site but I assume it's there somewhere. There's no point in maintaining this as a stub; in cases like this it makes more sense to redirect to the district until someone decides to expand it into an article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turning to the sourcing presently in the article:
As it stands this article is basically unsourced. My WP:BEFORE picked up only an apparently algorithm-generated story about a power-outage in a list of places in which Aşağıdolay was included, a bare gazetteer listing from a precursor to the unreliable (for whether a place was populated or not) GEONet Names Server database, and sources showing the same. There is no coverage of any other kind that I could find. FOARP (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVASS. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TAGTEAM. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CANVASS is a behavioral guideline that you're not only required to follow, you've been up at ANI more than once for not doing so. TAGTEAM is an essay that furthermore doesn't apply here. Ravenswing 15:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some confusion/disagreement on this, since the Yenitaşköprü, Düzce and Paşakonağı, Düzce redirects which I listed on 12 December were procedurally closed and referred to AfD. Pinging Thryduulf who was the closer. At this point I'm in agreement with Thryduulf's reasoning that the question of whether an article should exist is better suited for AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 01:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, same thing here; I recently took three redirects of mine that had been challenged to RfD, and the somewhat sniffy consensus was that I had no business taking challenged redirects to Redirects for Discussion, and that they needed to go to AfD instead. Ravenswing 02:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The longstanding consensus at WP:RfD is that questions about whether a page should be an article or redirect belong at WP:AFD and the WP:BLAR guideline is explicit about this. RfD absolutely will not delete article content except under two circumstances:
  1. The content would be speedily deleteable as an article
  2. There has been a consensus at AfD or similar suitable location that the content should not be an article.
Neither applies in this case so AfD is the correct venue. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make sense to have a standalone article, though? Even with Styyx's sourcing it's pretty much just name, location and population which could easily be covered in a table at the district article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See User:GGT's definitive analysis of the Turkish geostubs at the AfD for Wikipedia:Akuşağı, Baskil. As far as I am concerned this blows all these nominations out of the water.Ingratis (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bells E.M High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 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.
More