< December 05	December 07 >

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siphesihle Ndaba[edit]

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

Nothing more than a PR. Fails WP:NACTOR. Not having multiple lead roles in notable films. Behind the moors (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she doesn’t meet WP:ACTOR yet.-Xclusivzik (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has been supported by a good number of citations. Itcouldbepossible ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)} ^(Log) 06:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator as a WP:PROMOTIONAL article. Fails WP:NACTOR, majority of references used are non-reliable and looks sponsored/paid content. 2402:3A80:6E0:C49A:E0A6:F47B:6B53:4A8 (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald W. Brown[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of RemotelyInterested. Concern is: Non-notable biography. No reliable published references. The existing references are to internal governmental memos. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – searching is tricky given his rather common name, but as far as I can tell Brown hasn't received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I'm always glad to reëvaluate if additional sourcing comes along, but until then I don't think he meets the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A huge amount of external refences, and also not covered well in the sources provided. Itcouldbepossible ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)} ^(Log) 06:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG Juggyevil (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of exoplanets discovered in 2021. Daniel (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TIC 172900988 b[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: the information worth listing is already available on List of exoplanets discovered in 2021. Praemonitus (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of exoplanets discovered in 2021. Redirect as well. I feel this is one of those incubator articles - doesn't meet notability standards now, but could eventually and it fits well into a more broad story about the subject. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:12, 12 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 05:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Katz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability under WP:NJOURNALIST. Cites are to works by Katz, not independent third-party RS coverage of Katz, as required for a WP:BLP to exist at all. A WP:BEFORE shows works by Katz, but most works about people called "Tony Katz" are about other people of the same name. Is there any third-party coverage of Katz? David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly primary sources. Article don't seem to pass WP:GNG. It shuld be deleted or moved to draft. Notadogbutafish (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have had a quick look online for secondary sources. I have added the one I found, but this is likely not enough. Those more in the know may be able to find some other relevant content as he seems to have a reasonably high profile. JonnyDKeen (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG Juggyevil (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosette Chantal Rugamba[edit]

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

Apart from the fixable issue of this reading like a CV, I do not think that the sourcesa re strong or independant enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puffery, good to know she's passionate about the sector she works in, nothing of note. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novemthree Siahaan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The one reference does not appear to be a reliable source, and the entire "background" section has had a citations needed tag on it for over a decade. I didn't find anything that looked reliable on a google search, either. This survived two AfDs in the 00s, but none of the "keep" reasons look particularly compelling by current standards.

If anyone does turn up a reliable source, I propose adding the information to Gigantiform cementoma instead of retaining this as a stand-alone page, unless sources can be found for the whole thing. (Gigantiform cementoma is a stub, and moving this entire article there would overpower it.) asilvering (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Support the merge to the article about the disease itself. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a reliable source, I'm happy to take the time to write a brief summary of it into the Gigantiform cementoma article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. French, Karl (2006-04-10). "Critics Choice Television Karl French". Financial Times. p. 14. ProQuest 249893990.
  The article notes: "If you saw the original Extraordinary People: The Boy with a Tumour for a Face (Five 9.00pm) you won't have forgotten the story of Novemthree Siahaan. When representatives of a Taiwanese medical charity happened on Novemthree's family in 2004 they found them shunned by their own community, who considered the boy's disfigured face a sign of some divine curse. Novemthree was actually suffering from a genetic disorder in which dental tissue forms tumours that distort the bones in the face. He had what turned out to be the largest recorded facial tumour and the first film traced his progress through four groundbreaking operations undertaken in a Buddhist hospital in Taiwan in which surgeons removed a kilogramme of the tumour, reshaped his face and gave him the chance to live a relatively normal life for a while at least. This heartbreaking follow-up film catches up with the family a year on from these operations and shows the parents having to decide whether or not to subject Novemthree to still more procedures that could just as easily end as prolong his life."
2. 林碧玉 (2020). 人醫仁醫：打造醫療桃花源. Taiwan: 如是文化. ISBN 978-986-550-642-1. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  The book notes: "愛在異鄉的記憶近日,從歐美各國紛紛傳來關懷印尼巴淡島諾文狄的訊息,原來是BBC電視台,播出花蓮慈濟醫院團隊們為諾文狄變臉,成功地挽回諾文狄生命的專輯。BBC電視台記者針對病況尋求專家的佐證,專程前往美國明尼蘇達州的梅約醫學中心,訪問該院知名的整型"
  From Google Translate: "Recently, the memory of love in a foreign land has sent messages of caring for Novemthree in Batam, Indonesia, from European and American countries. It turned out to be the BBC TV station that aired the Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital team’s face change for Novemthree. The album that successfully saved Novemthree's life. A reporter from BBC television sought expert evidence for his condition and made a special trip to the Mayo Medical Center in Minnesota, USA, to visit the well-known plastic surgery of the hospital."
3. "河馬男孩諾文狄" [Hippo Boy Novemthree Siahaan]. nio (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  The article notes: "令人悲傷的是，《河馬男孩狄文諾》拍攝完成後，諾文狄於2005年9月14日去世。腫瘤再度開始增生，醫生認為進一步手術的風險過高。他的呼吸出現困難，最後終於導致死亡。" From Google Translate: "Sadly, Novemthree died on September 14, 2005 after the filming of "The Hippo Boy Di Vinno" was completed. The tumor has started to proliferate again, and the doctor believes that the risk of further surgery is too high. He had difficulty breathing, which eventually led to death."
4. 黎世萍 (2004-06-23). "印尼河馬寶寶變臉成功: 五歲諾文狄罹巨大型齒堊質瘤慈濟手術四次吃蛋糕慶新生" [Indonesian baby hippopotamus successfully changed face: Five-year-old Novemthree suffered from giant chalk tumor and Tzu Chi operated four times. Ate cake to celebrate his new life]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. A6.
  The article notes:
  
  罹患巨大型齒堊質瘤的印尼五歲男童諾文狄，經過慈濟醫學中心醫療團隊四次手術後，變臉成功，昨天出院。諾文狄的父親夏漢昨天含淚向慈濟表達感恩，感謝慈濟讓愛子獲得重生。
  來自印尼巴淡島的諾文狄，是罹患巨大型齒堊質瘤全球年紀最小、腫瘤最大的病患，看起來像「河馬寶寶」。三月八日來到花蓮慈濟醫學中心，前後接受三次腫瘤切除手術及一次縮口手術。
  From Google Translate:
  The five-year-old Indonesian boy Novemthree, who suffered from a huge chalky tooth tumor, changed his face successfully after four operations by the medical team of the Tzu Chi Medical Center and was discharged from the hospital yesterday. Novemthree’s father Xia Han expressed gratitude to Tzu Chi in tears yesterday, thanking Tzu Chi for rebirth of his beloved son.
  Novemthree, from Batam Island, Indonesia, is the world's youngest patient with the largest tumor and the largest tumor in the world. He looks like a "hippo baby". Came to Hualien Tzu Chi Medical Center on March 8 and underwent three tumor resection operations and one necking operation before and after.
5. 王燕華 (2004-04-17). "凌鋒訪證嚴談醫療團隊精神" [Ling Feng's visit is strict. Talk about the spirit of medical team]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B2.
  The article notes: "談到醫療團隊的合作時，證嚴法師說，慈濟醫院最近正為罹患罕見「巨大型齒堊質瘤」來台求醫的印尼兒童諾文狄動刀，諾文狄因為臉上長了四顆大腫瘤前來求醫，昨天剛動完第二個階段的腫瘤切除手術，預計一個月後作最後一次的右上顎腫瘤切除。" From Google Translate: "Speaking of the cooperation of the medical team, Master Cheng Yan said that Tzu Chi Hospital is currently operating a knife for Indonesian child Novemthree who has come to Taiwan to seek medical treatment with a rare "giant odontoma". Novemthree has a long face. Four large tumors came to seek medical attention. The second stage of tumor resection was just completed yesterday. It is expected that the last right upper jaw tumor will be removed one month later."
6. 王燕華 (2004-04-16). "七小時割腫瘤印童喜獲小下巴" [Tumor cut in seven hours, Indonesian child gets a small chin]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B2.
  The article notes:
  
  遠從印尼來台求醫的頭顱變形兒童諾文狄，昨天由花蓮慈濟醫院團隊動刀，執行高難度的下巴腫瘤切除手術，共切下約四百五十公克的腫瘤。醫療團隊觀察他術後狀況穩定，預定在一個月後作最後一次的右上顎腫瘤切除。
  五歲的諾文狄因頭顱嚴重變形，嘴部和舌頭腫大，臉部長出四個大腫瘤，因腫瘤壓迫呼吸道，喘得很厲害。上個月由爸爸布萊精陪同，從印尼巴淡島來花蓮求醫，慈濟醫師診斷他罹患國際罕見的「巨大型齒堊質瘤」，必須切除臉部腫瘤，開刀過程將面臨失血過多、感染的危險。
  From Google Translate:
  Novemthree, a child with a deformed skull who came to Taiwan for medical treatment from Indonesia, was operated by a team from Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital yesterday to perform a highly difficult chin tumor resection, and a total of about 450 grams of tumor was removed. The medical team observed that he was in a stable condition after the operation, and he was scheduled to undergo the last resection of the right upper jaw tumor in one month.
  Five-year-old Novemthree suffered from severe head deformity, swelling of his mouth and tongue, and four large tumors on his face. The tumors compressed the respiratory tract and caused severe panting. Accompanied by his father Blei Jing last month, he came to Hualien from Batam Island, Indonesia for medical treatment. Tzu Chi doctors diagnosed him as suffering from the internationally rare "giant chalk tumor." Risk of infection.
7. 范振和 (2004-04-06). "印尼男童諾文狄手術後良好" [Indonesian boy Novemthree well after surgery]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B4.
  The article notes: "來自印尼巴淡島的男童諾文狄已度過手術後組織腫脹階段，傷口癒合狀況良好，昨天開始從胃造廔灌食，預計一星期內拆線，再擇期進行第二階段下顎手術。"
  From Google Translate: "The boy Novemthree from Batam Island, Indonesia, has passed the post-operative tissue swelling stage and his wound is healing well. He started feeding from his stomach yesterday. The sutures are expected to be removed within one week, and then the second stage of jaw surgery will be performed as an option."
8. 范振和 (2004-04-02). "切除腫瘤印尼男童安度危機艱鉅挑戰國際媒體關注慈濟醫療團隊開刀七小時未出現大量失血" [Removal of tumor, Indonesian boy is in crisis. Difficult challenge, international media attention, Tzu Chi medical team operated for seven hours without massive blood loss]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B4.
  The article notes: "花蓮慈濟醫學中心醫療團隊昨天上午為來自印尼巴淡島、臉部長出四個大腫瘤的五歲男童諾文狄手術，未出現大出血情況，第一階段的手術成功，讓醫療團隊信心倍增。諾文狄的父親布萊精紅著眼眶感謝醫療團隊以及證嚴法師、志工們的關懷。" From Google Translate: "The medical team of Hualien Tzu Chi Medical Center yesterday morning performed the operation on Novemthree, a five-year-old boy from Batam, Indonesia, who had four large tumors on his face. There was no major bleeding. The first stage of the operation was successful, which boosted the confidence of the medical team. . Novemthree's father, Bly Jing, has red eyes and thanked the medical team, Master Cheng Yen, and volunteers for their care."
9. 范振和 (2004-04-01). "與腫瘤拔河印童刀下生死戰手術高難度醫療團隊決採分次分段慈濟設專屬網頁盼你起來打氣" [Tug-of-war with tumor. Life and death battle for the Indonesian youth under the knife. Surgery is difficult. The medical team decides to adopt subsections. Tzu Chi has set up a dedicated website.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B2.
  The article notes: "醫療團隊眼科主任蔡榮坤表示，諾文狄的右眼球已因腫瘤壓迫，失去視覺能力，左眼視神經還算正常，但「會長大的腫瘤」讓醫療團隊不得不和時間賽跑，因此將先切除左上顎腫瘤，以保全左眼視力。"
  From Google Translate: "Cai Rongkun, director of the ophthalmology department of the medical team, said that Novemthree’s right eyeball has been compressed by the tumor and lost his vision. The optic nerve of the left eye is still normal. Tumor of the upper jaw to preserve the vision of the left eye."
10. 范振和 (2004-03-23). "祝福諾文狄慈濟附小送暖頭顱腫瘤印尼小弟弟來台就醫師生寫卡片打氣希望他早日康復" [Bless Novemthree.Tzu Chi's small school sends warmth. Head tumor. Indonesian little brother came to Taiwan for medical treatment. Teachers and students write cards to cheer up. Hope he recovers soon]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B4.
  The article notes: "諾文狄知道自己和他人長得不一樣，防衛心很重，不喜歡身體被觸碰，每次護士抽痰或清理氣切處時，諾文狄都會生氣踢腳，經過連日來照顧，諾文狄逐漸習慣，較少哭鬧。"
  From Google Translate: "Novemthree knows that he looks different from others. He is very defensive and does not like being touched. Every time the nurse sucks sputum or cleans the tracheostomy, Novemthree will get angry and kick his feet. After days of care, Novemthree Wen Di gradually got used to it and cried less."
11. 范振和 (2004-03-10). "氣切順利印童今動頭顱手術" [The tracheotomy went smoothly. Indonesian youth's head surgery]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B2.
  The article notes: "印尼五歲男童諾文狄昨天上午在慈濟醫學中心進行氣切手術，由於腫瘤過大，手術過程中，護理人員必須扶著頭部進行，手術頗為順利，今天將進行頭顱部位腫瘤切除。"
  From Google Translate: "The five-year-old Indonesian boy Novemthree performed a tracheostomy at the Tzu Chi Medical Center yesterday morning. Because the tumor was too large, the nurse had to hold his head during the operation. The operation went smoothly. Today, the tumor on the head will be removed."
12. 范振和 (2004-03-09). "印童求助慈濟頭顱手術高難度數十位各科醫護投入院方強調有信心" [Indonesian youth asks Tzu Chi for help. Cranial surgery is difficult. Dozens of doctors and nurses in various disciplines. The hospital emphasizes confidence]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B2.
  The article notes: "諾文狄的家人曾在二○○二年九月帶到新加坡人醫會接受義診，當時醫生提醒「明天再來！」諾文狄的家人卻誤以為「明天不用來了」，使得諾文狄錯失早就診的機會，一直到上月十五日，新加坡人醫會前往印尼巴淡島義診時，才成就了遠來花蓮醫治的因緣。"
  From Google Translate: "Novemthree’s family was brought to the Singapore Medical Association for a free consultation in September 2002. At that time, the doctor reminded him that "come back tomorrow!" Di missed the opportunity to see the doctor early, and it was not until the 15th of last month when the Singaporean Medical Association went to Batam Island, Indonesia for a free clinic, and he achieved the cause and fate of his treatment in Hualien."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Novemthree Siahaan (simplified Chinese: 诺文狄; traditional Chinese: 諾文狄) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Cunard's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Cunard has provided a large number of foreign-language sources. While I cannot speak for their reliability I am willing to assume good faith until someone familiar with the sources can provide a better assessment. Dronebogus (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). I'm not familiar with this newspaper and don't read Chinese, so I can't vouch for these clips myself. Either way, I don't think this is grounds for a keep unless a fluent Chinese+English editor agrees that they constitute a WP:GNG pass and is willing to rewrite the article from the ground up using these sources; if machine-translated articles are "worse than nothing", articles written by someone without dual fluency entirely based on machine translations don't have a very strong claim to being any better than nothing. But I don't see any reason not to write a short section using the facts from these into Gigantiform cementoma, even if it's done from machine translation; I doubt that the machine translation of even a middling suspect source is likely to be wrong about the base facts of the matter in this case. Really though, it doesn't look like there is actually a lot of fact here to make an article out of. "After days of care ... he cried less", for eg, is not going to be all that encyclopedic no matter how reliable the source is. So I think a redirect is still the best option. Thanks to Cunard finding Siahaan's name in Chinese, the bit in Gigantiform cementoma can at least be ref'd now. -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any Chinese-speaking editors familiar with this that could be brought in from relevant projects? Dronebogus (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Cunard - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:36, 13 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 undeletion of these articles. Except Weightlifting at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional, which I've speedily deleted as WP:CSD#G4. ✗plicit 05:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karate at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional[edit]

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

Following the recent deletion of Archery at the 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional after a test nomination which resulted in DELETE, I’m now nominating other sport articles by the same creator in a bundle. All lack in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 05:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council[edit]

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

Very far from meeting our WP:NCORP standard - this company does not seem to have received any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hard Keep~~ Hard Keep and Move - this is the government-sanctioned regulatory authority for the profession of immigration consulting in Canada. The article has ample sources, and this would seem to be unquestionably notable. Update: Move to new name per Mdieke. PianoDan (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk)This page should not be deleted, however it should be moved to a new page titled College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants. It is Canada's only regulatory body for immigration consultants as of November 23 2021. Refer to the following sources:

Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdieke (talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is flawed as it seems to misunderstand what this government body is - it's not a company! I'm also having no problem finding it in both very recent English or French media, easily meeting GNG, as noted above. See also fr:Collège des consultants en immigration et en citoyenneté. Can User:Salimfadhley remove this nomination and allow the appropriate moves to take place, given it was renamed and reorganized last week. Nfitz (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi Salimfadhley can you remove the deletion nomination so it can be moved and the title updated to the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants? Thanks. Mdieke (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Salimfadhley (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - I think a strong case has been made that this subject is notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locke, Washington[edit]

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

Going back through the topos shows that this was a railroad station/post office and not a settlement. It's telling that the Arcadia book on the region has nothing more to show for the name than a couple of fellows from the area. Mangoe (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this was indeed a community, it was neither legally recognized nor significantly covered. –dlthewave ☎ 05:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How would one go about checking if a historic community was ever legally recognized? When did the state of Washington first required cities do file incorporation paper work. If say pre 1931 didn't require filed paper work and the city vote said they we are a town then that poses issues in the !vote because it didn't have to meet those requirements. By this rational here if a google search doesn't produce results clearly saying its a town then its not a town. I'm not saying thats exactly whats the case here but it seems dozens of articles are being purged with very little effort going into improvements into the articles. Why not tag them for improvements and allow the community to attempt to make it better rather than just nominate article after article? There are sources out there that show it had a school and is important enough an historical society meet there at the school.[1]. So now we know it had a school as well as a post office and rail stop. I just submitted a request to the society I linked to for more information as well. So, as all of these article get purged for not being incorporated currently and not having sources you can google in two seconds, remember there was no internet on most of America just 20 years ago and one must perhaps look deeper than google.

Super (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Super - If this was ever legally recognised then this could be shown by e.g., an act of incorporation. This would have to be filed with the county in which the city/town being incorporated was located (see here at p.29). There is no evidence of this, nor the multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. Instead we have GNIS (unreliable), a bare mention in a newspaper story, and evidence that there was a post office (not necessarily a community) at the site for some years. There's just no "there" there. FOARP (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- That link was to a different state. Also, there were not laws regarding what is called self forming pre-1960's a lot of places. So there is no way this town could legally been officially incorporated by the guidelines here that are often used. So this would result in many many cities that formally exaisted not meeting the incorporated standards. Also I linked to proof it had a town school . Incorporation is a modern standard that many of these old towns can never met even if they were in fact towns because all they had to do was say they were a town.Super (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a summary of city/town incorporation procedures for ALL US states (see p.29 which covers Washington state). That it’s hosted on the website of the Georgia state government is immaterial - it tells us that incorporation in Washington state would have to be recorded. A check on the city/town records of existing cities in Washington state that were founded in the 19th century (eg Walla Walla) shows they filed articles of incorporation too. No documentation, or evidence for it in another source, means no proof of legal recognition. Just having a school proves nothing about legal recognition - schools could be located anywhere. FOARP (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eder Sarabia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played or managed in a WP:FPL. Barely passed a previous AFD due to multiple sockpuppet voters (since blocked). Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably passes GNG due to sources included since last AFD. Giant Snowman 22:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the first nomination (which had a very poor storyline and far less sources) was closed on keep, I don't see any reason to make this one a delete. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets GNG with coverage just looking at recent as coach for FC Andorra. Including international coverage in The Guardian. Nfitz (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems well sourced --dashiellx (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat weak as the sources seem WP:ROUTINE I feel there is enough there to warrant an article. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced and meets GNG ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG due to avialbility of good sources. Juggyevil (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure if I'm seeing an edited/newer version of the page for the subject, but easily passes WP:SIGCOV. GauchoDude (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article does its best to get as much out of the coverage available, nevertheless there is enough there to count as multiple sources showing more than trivial coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems we are nearing consenus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:40, 13 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 Procedural close as wrong venue. Drafts to be nominated for deletion go to WP:MFD, not AfD. Draft has already been rightly rejected for acceptance in mainspace. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 20:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Queenly[edit]

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

seems like promotional content, especially considering the creator of the article being "Queenlyapp" DirkJandeGeer (щи) 19:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nein Records[edit]

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

I do not consider this label notable. Apparently it wasn't updated to say it shut down, which it likely did, because even Internet Archive says Error 404. RemoteMyBeloved (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of notability at all. Might even qualifies for WP:CSD A7. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominator and TheImaCow are correct. All sources on this I could find are Wikipedia mirrors and a blogspot casual mention. I checked their roster of artists on discogs, none of them are notable. My search attempts indicate that this label isn't close to notability, not by GNG, not by NMUSIC#5 (implied). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: indications are that the label only ever released eight albums and a promotional CD, none of them by notable artists. Richard3120 (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something for Nothing (2020 film)[edit]

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

The article contains only short news about the progress of crowdfunding for filming, after the release of the film was written only in the review of the best films of the festival of short films, released by the same kinopoisk, where you could watch the films of the festival.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed GNG/NFILM. There is a RU WP discussion to delete RU-page. They have mentioned there a few awards that the film received, but surely no major awards. Kolma8 (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 02:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macan Band[edit]

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

Non Notable Band with zero significant coverage in a reliable source. Also Fails WP:DIRECTOR for not having multiple lead roles in films. Behind the moors (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logs: 2021-11 ✍️ create ← 2020-07 ✗ G5

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Bains line[edit]

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

This appears to be something between a hoax and an inside joke. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I don't think it's a hoax as such, I don't think it's a notable topic or even a particularly credible one. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As the author, I now see it's a very specific term. However, I found more software the term is used in. Also, I asked Ali Rahimi for a further explanation IIVQ (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now I'm REALLY curious as to who the heck Marcus Bains was. I just found a NASA powerpoint using the term, which I don't think works as a reference, but is definitely not something I was expecting: [2] PianoDan (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, this is the best rabbit hole ever. This page in German [3] documents an attempt by someone else to answer this question. The linked pages are both dead, but wayback machine has this: [4] If true, Marcus Bains was literally someone the author of a patch to Korganizer met in a pub while drunk, who explained his theory on displaying dates to the author. NONE of this makes the topic notable, but it sure does make it funny. PianoDan (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And with that, my vote is Delete for lack of notability. PianoDan (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found another reference, which more clearly supports "hoax" for the origin of the term, although it really does seem to have been adopted in a few places. [5]. PianoDan (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to think maybe this could be kept in project space as an example of ... something, I'm not sure what. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I (original author or the article) reached out to Ali Rahimi on LinkedIn and he came with this response:

«hi. the line is quite real. it was invented by me and by tom minka, and then adopted by lots of different calendars. the second link says the line is a hoax, but i'm not quite getting the angle. every calendar has it now!»

I asked him about the year they invented the line, why they called it Marcus Bains line and whether he was a real or fictious person. IIVQ (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IIVQ, while it's interesting to learn this stuff, none of the inquiries you are making are germane to whether this article belongs in Wikipedia. Rather, they constitute original research, which is expressly NOT a criterion for notability. Unless the line is documented in reliable secondary sources, it still doesn't belong here. PianoDan (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this. I am just doing an ultimate attempt to make this article more relevant for wikipedia. However, Ali Rahmini can't provide me with more details as to how they came up with the name, as his implementation was over 20 years ago.IIVQ (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mold, Washington[edit]

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

A crossroads in a farming area where there used to be a 4th class post office in a farmhouse. There's a good-sized cemetery off to the east but no indication of any larger settlement. Mangoe (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we basically have to assume whatever was created by User:Vanished user 7b1215e7ef746ac20682e3dbe03f5b84 is likely NN unless it an be proven otherwise. Hog Farm _Talk 17:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS spam. Second Hog Farm, and in general agree that anything sourced ONLY to GNIS should be prodded en masse. FOARP (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isearch (malware)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot find any vaguely reliable or useful sources that cover this. Furthermore, roughly half the article consists of rather unlikely-sounding claims, and it can't really afford to lose any more weight:
Even most firewalls and other computer protection programs are ineffective to stop this program from being downloaded and removed
Not informative in the slightest. Akakievich (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Ditchoff[edit]

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

Not clear how they pass WP:NAUTHOR has been tagged for notability for 9 years, bring here to decide. Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reviews for multiple books, which I've added. Plus an entry in Contemporary Authors, which is not a guarantee of notability but is usually a good sign. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article's subject has requested deletion here [6]. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an interesting one, as while the author is mentioned in multiple sources over a wide time span, they have seemingly requested removal of the article (I don't think it's that simple though). I suspect this stems from the quality of the article's since recently and suspect it wouldn't have come about if some effort had been taken to develop it. From what I see on the article right now, and a search of historic newspapers, this author does not necessarily fail WP:NAUTHOR. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Requests for deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE traditionally go through Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team to be authenticated. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings: Indeed, and as I noted, I don't think it's quite so simple as the author just putting a tag on the page to request it. With that said, their rationale was based on the fact that the state of the article may not have been up to their desired standard, so perhaps with some development work, the stance may be different. Perhaps see where the afd goes first. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can be that simple, it depends on the situation. Nothing forbids afd participants to take PJD1290 at their word. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: My point is that the editor who asserts themself as the author in question has made previous attempts to improve the article, but seemingly has not known the best way to do this or not done so in a manner that other editors agree with. This suggests, supported by the deletion tag rationale, that their request was maybe a result of exasperation and the afd process has actually meant the article got some attention and improvement. The editor's first edits were not to express delete, but to improve. I hope if they read the comments here they may feel heartened by some attempt to improve their article, though of course if they still wish to have it deleted and can prove their identity, then that is a separate matter. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a quick search and found a number of reviews of her work in Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, New York Times Book Review, and Booklist. Notability is proved by those. As for the author's request to delete, that's outside the realm of an AfD discussion. But I agree that if the article was improved that might help change the author's mind (if, that is, the author did indeed request the article's deletion). --SouthernNights (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE it's not outside the realm of an AfD discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources/reviews over the years, notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~If the woman does not want to be on here then the article should be deleted according to the policy 05:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Frankiethesexaddict (talk)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user above has been blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. Not striking the !vote because that's typically a sock-only privilege, but I figured others should be aware. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now tagged as a sock also. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette Rugera[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Three of the sources are about the Rotary Club, and the other simply contains a quote from her. TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notablilty. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the president of the Rotary Club (even at a national level) doesn't meet any SNG, and the pro forma coverage isn't good enough to meet GNG. The only other reference is trivial coverage. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wondernet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Reference are routine annoucements. scope_creep^Talk 14:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP, my own search didn't turn up anything other than product pages/announcements. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.-Xclusivzik (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nominate the last ISP of the 7, SuperSonic (ISP) if anybody is interested. scope_creep^Talk 17:39, 12 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 05:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Bastidas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG - I can't find anything to indicate that they are notable. The creator and most recent new editor I suspect have a COI as they have only edited this. KylieTastic (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete no independent sources. notability isn't proved. --IgorTurzh (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several mentions in news: NBC Long Island, Newsday, ABC 7, ABC 7 (2nd Mention), Inside Edition.Jfp316 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jfp316 unfortunately you are correct it is mentions (and quotes) rather than significant coverage. They rightly get a name check for their good work, but it's not enough for encyclopedic notability (as currently defined). KylieTastic (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. As side note, question whether User:Jfp316 has COI, looking at their edit history. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 05:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I could find were passing mentions and no SIGCOV, which therefore means it fails our notability guidelines. Pilaz (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – bradv^🍁 04:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interlake Maritime Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a relatively new entity which is the parent to four other entities, two of which have their own articles. If those subsidiaries are notable, then this is also, and the relative lack of sources may be due to the fact it is only a year old. Kablammo (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interlake Steamship Company appears to easily be notable. The Lake Michigan Carferry Service page was merged into S.S. Badger. Also under this company and their Interlake Logistics Solutions name is SS City of Midland 41 and this division also chartered another ship at least from 2018 to 2019 (source). I can't find much information on the Port Services division.

I do feel this article is beneficial as a navigational aid if nothing else, to collect together the operations for this company. NemesisAT (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish that WP:NCORP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are cited. If subsidiaries and ship assets are notable enough for articles then the parent company should have a place. Perhaps those subsidiary company pages should be merged into the new parent company page. Palmeira (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lets look at the sources:

[7] Interlake buys a ship. That is a routine annoucement of buying a ship. It doesn't indicate notability. Any ship organisation is going to buy ships. Fails WP:ROUTINE.
[[8]]. The company has been bought. Fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:SIRS. The whole story is primary.
[9] Interlake Holding purchases two Great Lakes vessels. Another routine annoucement of operations. Fails WP:ROUTINE. A shipping company is going to buy two ships.
This is a company itself and is primary.

So there is 3 references, 3 are routine coverage of company operations, that every shipping company makes and 1 is a reference that is primary. No secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the level of sourcing on Interlake Maritime Services specifically, the company has been active for a while as Interlake Steamship Company [10] and appears to have recently restructured after taking over the operation of the Lake Michigan Carferry Service. Thus as this is the current name of the overall company I feel this article should be kept. Perhaps Interlake Steamship Company could be merged into this article? Either way, I object to the deletion of the content here because it serves a navigational aid, bringing together the operations of the company. I don't see a suitable place to merge the verifiable content on this article. NemesisAT (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational aids and whether they recently restructured has nought to do with Wikipedia or whether the article is notable. The work will get done. You seem to be talking like a paid editor. scope_creep^Talk 12:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More accusations, as if those you made yesterday weren't enough. No, I'm not a paid editor. If you include the actions of its subsidiaries then yes, the company and article is notable. As I said before, a merge of Interlake Steamship Company to here may be appropriate. NemesisAT (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. scope_creep^Talk 12:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you are deleting cited information during a deletion discussion. The MarineLink works fine for me so I'm also confused as to why you said it was a "dead link" on my talk page. NemesisAT (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scope creep has removed content for the third time with another rationale that doesn't make sense. I don't think I can revert it as I'd be in breach of the WP:TRR. NemesisAT (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are not linked. Their are pieces of text only. There were articles there at some point in the past but removed. You don't leave a name of something if it has no context in Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What policy says that a bullet point must be linked for inclusion in Wikipedia? You removed cited content. NemesisAT (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion about the Subsidiaries section seems unrelated to the AfD, therefore I suggest it is relocated to the article's Talk Page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As per the analysis of sources above by scope_creep, none of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. Also, NesesisAT's admission above regarding the paucity of sourcing can be interpreted to mean that their Keep !vote is *despite* NCORP requirements for appropriate sourcing to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NemesisAT. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, just noting for the closer, NemesisAT hasn't pointed to a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability and instead provides nothing more than an opinion that "regardless of the level of sourcing" (which is non-existant) the article should be kept. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Note my argument was also that other articles should perhaps be merged into this one, like Interlake Steamship Company which is notable. For that to happen, this particular discussion should be closed as keep and then merge discussions could take place. NemesisAT (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Sure, but I'm just highlighting the fact that it makes zero sense to merge other articles into this topic which clearly fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Response Makes no sense right enought, but I knew that anyway. scope_creep^Talk 18:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have notable operations by the same company, but if this page was deleted, there would be nothing to link them together on Wikipedia. That to me makes no sense and IMO would not benefit our readers. There is also the question of where the small amount of verifiable information on the Logistics Services division would go, I don't think it would belong on Interlake Steamship Company or at SS Badger. NemesisAT (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - There's nothing in Wikipedia guidelines or policies to suggest that there should be a "link topic/article" between related entities and we already have articles (as you've acknowledged) on the notable parts of the operation and they already mention this topic company. Your suggestion flies in the fact of our policies on notability as this topic fails the criteria for notability as per NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or merge. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article definitely fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and normally I would argue for a merge or redirect in this situation. However, in this case there are multiple articles pertinent to this article and there is no easily identified merge target in this case because there are multiple subsidiaries with articles of there own currently within the encyclopedia. As such, there is a reasonable claim for maintaining some sort of page per Wikipedia:Navigational page. Readers searching for this company can find content on the notable subsidiaries through such a page.4meter4 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:COMMONSENSE retention. If the subsidiaries were merged into this page there would be no argument that the page met GNG. It does not suddenly lose its notability because material has been split out into separate articles. SpinningSpark 18:45, 17 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 05:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Security[edit]

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

Promoting the organization through trivial mentions, self-published sources and user-generated sources. Basically it is an WP:ADMASQ. RPSkokie (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Although there are many passing mentions from the page sources, I was able find sources that do pass WP:SIGCOV: [11], [12], [13], [14]. Also, the platform was integral in Bharat Interface for Money (BHIM)'s cybersecurity framework ([15], [16], [17]). Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Delete per comments below. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source Analysis - 1; a press release, 2; a WP:ADMASQ article, 3; a WP:ADMASQ article, 4; a WP:ADMASQ article, 5; a WP:ADMASQ article, 6; a WP:ADMASQ article, 7; a press release. RPSkokie (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On what evidence are they ADMASQ? Looks like mostly standard business journalism. They write news articles when there is news, shocking behavior for a journalist. -- GreenC 17:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Looks like mostly standard business journalism" doesn't help your argument because, sadly, most of what passes for "standard business journalism" these days fails WP:ORGIND. You've listed 7 references.

This from Deccan Chronicle is based entirely on an announcement by the company. Here's the Press Release. Both have the same dates, same text, same quotes. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This from the Economic Times is also based entirely on the same press release and announcement. Same facts, same date, same promotion and does not contain any "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
This from IndianExpress is based on this Press Release from the company. Same date. Note the use of the word "we" throughout. Fails WP:ORGIND
This from Economic Times is also the next day from the announcement and press release above, but covering the same announcement, relying entirely on information and quotes provided by the company and its execs with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
This from Business Standard is a puff piece, relying entirely on background information provided by the company and quotes from the CEO. It has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
This from The Hindu relies entirely on an interview/quotations from the CEO with no "Independent Content" (fails WP:ORGIND) and no in-depth information on *the company* (the topic of this article) failing WP:CORPDEPTH.
This from firstpost.com also relies entirely on information and quotations from the company and connected individuals, has no "Independent Content", has no in-depth information on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH

As per WP:SIRS, individual sources must meet all the criteria. None of the references provided meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company or interviews provided by execs - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Obvious consensus that it doesn't warrant an article. As it's not ultra-clear whether it's a hoax or an attempt at a redirect to an obscure brand name or similar, I leave it to others to decide if they want to add to HOAXLIST Nosebagbear (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabounee[edit]

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

I can find scant to no evidence this is a real type of pasta. Doing WP:BEFORE I could find essentially no references to this as pasta anywhere. The companies that supposedly sell this, also I cannot find making mention of this or the products for sale anywhere. If this exists as a type of pasta it is not notable, but I'm not entirely convinced this actually exists as a type of pasta. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 13:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 13:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 13:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly a hoax article. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The description is just like Tortellini, but the name is different. Maybe made up hoax, or maybe obscure brand name. Free1Soul (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They only seem like Tortellini in that they are stuffed. The shape described is very different. The name is certainly not Italian, but could be a French singular if an acute accent is added to the first "e". The complete lack of sources findable by web search engines would make this seem at the very least extremely unnotable, but more likely a hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Phil Bridger, this page as created in 2010 is almost a copy of tortellini in 2010. Copied with name replaced. Free1Soul (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tortellini are not ring-shaped, as was pointed out at Talk:Tortellini over 13 years ago. I agree with you about this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to WP:HOAXLIST as this article has existed since 21 March 2010 wizzito | say hello! 01:45, 11 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. Daniel (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsen versus Nepomniachtchi, World Chess Championship 2021, Game 6[edit]

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

It is unusual for articles to be created for individual chess games. This is reserved for the most famous games such as the Game of the Century and the Evergreen Game. There is no evidence yet that this game is independently notable. The content should be merged into World Chess Championship 2021. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as nominator. Clearly it is notable. The longest individual game in a World Chess Championship match, since it began. Not sure why people are lobbying so hard for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:502A:C500:65E2:7D65:F3EA:3E5F (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Merge as nominator. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. I've already stated on the article's talk page and will repeat it here that this is the longest chess game in a World Chess Championship ever and the first decisive classical game in more than five years, which is the longest winless period in the history of FIDE World Chess Championships. After all classical games in the previous World Chess Championship match were drawn, FIDE increased the number of games from 12 to 14 and changed the time control for this match in order to prevent similar outcome. The fact that we don't have more articles on chess games shouldn't be an argument not to write such articles in the same why we do for matches/games in other sports.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is already being discussed as one of the greatest chess games less than a few hours after it ended, along with the historical significance of the game I think this means it can have its own article. Hochithecreator (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is saying that? Adpete (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Simply being the longest doesn't confer notability for a standalone article and nothing beyond that is shown in the article. Brandmeister^talk 23:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Merge. Searching for this game has very minimal news coverage. Most of it recent. COULD become notable later, but we’ll see. Keep. As per the extensive arguments below. Game has become notable since the day I cast my Merge vote. Jobie James (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge It is FAR too early to tell how this game will be regarded in future years. In any case, all the article is at the moment is the description of the match situation (which is already in the main article, or should be) plus the unannotated moves of the game. So it would sit perfectly in the main article at the moment. A better approach would be to leave it in the main article, and create a separate article if and when it gets too big for the main article. Adpete (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge I redirected this page back to the WCC 2021 page, but was reverted. I was then considering nominating this for deletion, but wanted to wait a week or two. This game may be "notable" for the longest chess game in a World Chess Championship, but any content can be merged into its parent match page World Chess Championship 2021. "First decisive chess game in 5 years" is not significant and is a quirk because of the way chess is being played nowadays. I don't believe this game is being discussed as an all time great game. Natg 19 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve expanded the article with a prose summary about the game.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge based on WP:RECENT and WP:CRYSTAL. We can determine later if this is notable enough for its own page. For now this should be merged. AlexKitfox (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Keep. Seeing the articles/commentary released following this game has convinced me that there is enough consensus over relevance for this game to have its own page. AlexKitfox (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the longest game in the history of the World Chess Championship and the game that ended the longest ever streak of 19 draws in consecutive World Chess Championship seems notable enough to me to have its own article. I haven't checked English sources but there certainly is good coverage of the match on non-chess specific German sources like Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Kicker. I believe it meets WP:GNG through Significant coverage. Calistemon (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that there are sources, as the World Chess Championship 2021 match is being covered by a wide variety of media outlets. However, I don't believe that those 2 "historical" facts are enough for this game to have its own article Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Calistemon. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 00:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no desire to obliterate User:Kiril Simeonovski's excellent content, I just don't think this game needs a separate article. It would not be inappropriate to expand the coverage of this game within the World Chess Championship 2021 article, as it is obviously signficant in the context of the match. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Calistemon. -- Ace*YYC 02:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Calistemon. 9ninety (talk)

Merge. If this becomes the only decisive game of the match or there is otherwise sustained interest in the game over time a stand-alone article could be desirable, but for now nothing that can be said here can't be said in the article for the match. It is true that this is the longest World Chess Championship game, but the previous longest game (World Chess Championship 1978 game 5) did not generate enough interest in virtue of its length to warrant a stand-alone article either. Plainsoup (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Calistemon. The analysis in this article should be kept, and it is too long to merge into the World Chess Championship 2021 article. The record for longest world championship game gives this game sufficient notability, especially considering that the previous recordholder was not particularly interesting (Karpov and Korchnoi played a dead drawn position for many moves without offering a draw). Davey2116 (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still don't think this deserves an article - how can WP editors possibly improve on the excellent commentary on the web by super-GMs like Anish Giri - but it's pretty obvious by now that this is a WP:SNOWBALL keep. Adpete (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this a SNOW keep when the tally at the time of your post was 7 in favor of keeping, 7 in favor of merging? Mlb96 (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ha ha fair point. I just figure that if enough people care enough to want it, let them have it. Adpete (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Too early to say it's historically significant on the level of the other games with articles. That bar is so high that even Steinitz vs. von Bardeleben 1895 doesn't have its own article. Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And, thinking of notable WCC games, neither does the Pearl of Zandvoort (Euwe-Alekhine 1935, game 26). Or more recently, Karpov-Kasparov 1985 game 16 or Anand-Carlsen 2013 game 9. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage now that the match is over, referring to this game not only in the context of the match but also that of Carlsen as a player, I've reconsidered. I still think it is a bit early to make the call, but I now think it's more likely that this'll be notable, so consider this a Weak Keep from me. Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree in general that WP:GNG is too weak a hurdle for an individual game since WP:NOTNEWS applies unless a game gets wide and lasting attention beyond the news. However, setting a new record for the longest World Championship game ever makes the game considerably more notable than most others and justifies an individual article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World Chess Championship 2021. The reception can be merged, the play turn by turn trivia is fit for chess fan wiki, not Wikipedia. I don't see this passes WP:GNG for stand-alone article. Sorry, chess-fans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To those referring to WP:GNG, please note that it's only a guideline, not a rule, which means that we should look at additional criteria such as article's quality. As for its importance and impact, the game has already been described as 'epic'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As was 2018 Game 6 https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/nov/16/world-chess-championship-game-6-carlsen-caruana Adpete (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That game was also great but it didn't break any chess record and the stereotype that "classical chess is dead". This game is important because its decisive result ends a five-year period of 19 consecutive drawn games spanning three different championships, and it comes after the format of the World Chess Championship was changed and a new time control was introduced. That's a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Not only was this the longest game in a World Chess Championship — a record which was broken after 43 years, it was also the longest win — a win that came after nearly five years and 19 straight draws. In addition to Calistemon's sources, I found — The Guardian, The Washington Times, ABC (newspaper), and News.com.au — neither of which are chess-centric. The case for meeting GNG is somewhat weak (not too weak though) because of NOTNEWS, and we don't know how historically significant this would be considered later on. But the fact that it broke those notable records, in addition to the press coverage it has received, should be enough to establish notability. The point that Wikipedia does not usually have articles dedicated to individual chess games should not be used as a precedent in deciding whether or not it is appropriate to write them. — The Most Comfortable Chair 10:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- most of those sites are covering most games of the match anyway: Washington Times, The Guardian, ABC Newspaper. Not news.com.au, admittedly. But news coverage of a game does not make it WP-article-worthy. Adpete (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I mentioned that the argument is somewhat weak. It is primarily the record in context of what chess has now become (in terms of accuracy as well as popularity) that it becomes notable. Note how sources that I cited discuss the record. It was not just an average 60-move win, and that is reflected in the sources. Quite heavily so in chess-centric media actually (more so than it would be if it was just another World Championship win). All things considered, I do find the topic to be notable enough to have a stand-alone article, but I do see why others may not see it that way, and they have good points too. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it can boil down to how notable you consider this record to be. You would generally expect a chess game to end sooner rather than later after the 40th move and it is incredibly rare to see games that go over the 100 move mark in World Championships. Not only did this go above and beyond the time you would expect a championship game to last (136 moves over 7 hours and 45 minutes), it broke a 43-year old record and brought an end to a 5-year streak of draws across 3 championship matches. In my understanding, that is notable enough considering how crucial just your average World Championship wins are. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As much as those records may be historical, bear in mind that this is just one game out of 14 (at least) and, most likely, non-deciding. If Ian wins this Championship, this game will be pretty much overshadowed. I would have supported a standalone article, had it been the deciding game, in addition to being the longest, but it's not the case, failing WP:EVENTCRITERIA so far. Brandmeister^talk 22:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being the only decisive game in a single championship match is far less significant an event than being the longest chess game (and win) in the history of the World Chess Championship, spanning 150 years and breaking a record which stood for 43 of them. Nepomniachtchi could very well win all the remaining games but it would not change the independent significance of this record. Notability is not conditional to how other games in one series pan out, but it could be derived from how all World Chess Championship games have panned out — which is that very rarely do we see games that last this long, let alone wins. Going by your suggestion that you would be likely to support an article if this were to become the deciding game in the match, shouldn't RAPID apply here and we could perhaps wait and see? — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:DELAY applies here instead of RAPID. The assessment of impact and notability requires some time (although we have both DELAY and RAPID contradicting each other). Brandmeister^talk 08:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it is my understanding that neither of them apply because the topic already seems notable enough to me. I was simply using RAPID as an alternative to your suggestion of merging since you mention that you would support this as a stand-alone article if this was the tipping point game, and we will know if that is the case or not in about 10 days. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kiril Simeonovski's argument. A lack of articles on past notable chess games should not set a precedent for a lack of articles on current and future notable chess games. It is the longest (and arguably most complex/highest level) game in World Championship history, which in itself merits an article. A lack of news coverage by non-chess sites within a day of the game's finish is not a strong argument to merge the game; chess games gain notability through the publication of literature analyzing them, not because a mainstream site decided to make a short, one paragraph article on them. If in the future there is a complete lack of overall coverage on the game (and it seems it has just blended into the rest of the games of this year's Championship), then it would merit merging, but as of right now, there seems to be enough distinction between it and the other games that would warrant it its own article. Haydenaa (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Most Comfortable Chair. — Ddxfx 16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kiril. Been the longest chess game in a World Chess Championship ever it's enough to deserve its own article. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd read the 538 article on this game before I saw this AfD. "Instant Classic". The article needs a lot of work, but the sourcing is clearly there. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I wouldn't have believed that someone would create an encyclopedia article on this topic, if it hadn't been done. Obviously the chess press is excited about this game right now, but the novelty will wear off soon enough. The game isn't even all that good. It's hard enough, day to day, to convince editors who aren't familiar with chess that this or that grandmaster or tournament is notable; it doesn't make it any easier, when chess editors fall all over each other gushing about some stupid 136-move game, which was a tablebase draw until move 130. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the quality of the game matters at all here, but even if it does, a quote by Savielly Tartakower says "Chess is a fairy tale of 1,001 blunders." and another one by Emanuel Lasker says "Without error there can be no brilliancy." Technically speaking, all chess games with separate articles were not that good. If chess were a game in which all humans played like machines, it surely wouldn't be as exciting and popular as it really is. And the fact a game in a World Chess Championship match, which was a tablebase draw until move 130, was won only adds significance and proves that even the best chess players are only humans who can't play optimally as calculated by machines. I don't remember that there has been a chess game in a World Chess Championship before, which was a tablebase draw but ended decisively.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point, but in WP:EVENT terms this was created prematurely. We need to establish a significant post-event coverage and lasting impact which requires some time. With that in mind, draftifying could be an alternative so far. Brandmeister^talk 22:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you don't think that the quality matters, then we aren't on the same page, and I don't know how we can get there. In the whole encyclopedia, quality matters, from the writing, to the illustrations, to the editorial selection. Do our readers want to slog through 136 moves of a game that varies from tedious to poor? Do people come to an encyclopedia looking for games in which otherwise strong players ground away for hours, making crucial mistakes now and then? The games in the "notable games" sections of our chess biographies are always of high quality. It is a disservice to both Carlsen and Nepo to show off this game.
    - We have an article, List of world records in chess, and I note with pleasure that it has been updated to reflect this game. That is about as much coverage as the record deserves. The players weren't striving for this record; they backed into it, in spite of their best efforts. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:AVOIDSPLIT, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SPORTSEVENT. While this has clearly received coverage from reliable sources, it's of the level of routine coverage that can be expected at major sporting events. While it's certainly possible that this might end up having lasting significance that warrants an article, we aren't there yet. Merely holding a record is not enough for notability (the Karpov-Korchnoi game that previously held the record does not -- and should not -- have an article). Lowercaserho (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We keep articles on notable individual sports matches as they are encyclopedic, see Kick Six and Mile High Miracle. Many of the votes here stink with WP:IDONTLIKEIT as this article clearly passes WP:GNG. In addition, the level of coverage is well above what a normal chess game gets. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course this game (and match) is getting coverage. This is akin to Game 6 (of 14) of the NBA Finals or MLB World Series. We already have an article on the championship "series" (match), World Chess Championship 2021. The question that we need to address is whether this individual game is historic enough to rise to the level to have a separate article (a la Steve Bartman incident) or if it should be merged back into the parent article. Natg 19 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Game 6 of the Nba finals deserved it's own article since it had one of the greatest individual performances in a Finals game. The end of Game 5 also had a lot of coverage. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 23:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game is not only the longest world championship match of all time (by quite a margin), but also broke the longest ever streak of draws in games for the world champion title, being the first decicive victory in 5 years. It is notable not just for this, but also for having required an absolutely herculean effort by both players, and for the insane precision with which every single move had to be played. It is incredible how the slightest of innacuracies was enough for Magnus to grasp on to and see the path to turn into a win. It is hard to explain to someone who doesn't watch chess, but there has never been a game quite like it in recent memory, at least not such a high profile one. At the highest level chess is not really a game of flashy attacks and sacrifices anymore, it is one of extreme subtelty and precision, and the inhuman level of precision that had to be maintained throughout such an extended period is one of the most brilliant displays of chess imaginable in modern chess. Therefore, notable modern games will not have the same flair as other games that might have their own WP entry, but that does not make them lesser, it is simply a consequence of the evolution of chess and it's players. Anyway the coverage and attention it has recieved dwarfs any other chess game in recent times and that by itself combined with the fact it broke records should be a convincing argument. paulibobo (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.49.160.191 (talk) [reply]

Keep The criteria for when a specific thing (game, event, whatever) merits its own separate article are set out in WP:GNG which this clearly meets. We really should stop trying to invent additional hurdles over and above this - it isn't necessary and does nothing to improve the quality of Wikipedia (which ultimately is what this is all about). 109.153.222.124 (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The game is significant only because of its move count and recent historical significance. There is nothing special about the game itself nor its influence on the chess world. Breaking a five-year streak of draws in the WCC does not seem notable enough to warrant an article. Most of the article's significance can be summarized in a few sentences.
- This game further loses its notability after the result of Game 8. There has now been two wins in the past five years, which suggests that the streak of draws is more remarkable than Game 6's result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arbitrary criteria don't cut it, see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sources are covering this game, and its our job to determine whether that coverage is acceptable and likely to be exist beyond the normal timeframe (meets GNG) or whether it is unlikely to gain any further attention (fails NOTNEWS). Another consideration is whether the coverage this game (as opposed to others in this match, which are not quite so significant) can adequately be summarised on the main article, or not. If you don't address that argument, then the next closer is going to ignore your comment, just like I did. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not a personal opinion. To address your concerns, the other wins in the match also obtain significant coverage, so if this game meets the guidelines, I don't see why the other wins shouldn't also get their own articles. Furthermore, most of the information in the main article succinctly summarizes this game; the notability, opening choice, moves, and computer analysis are all provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous non-admin closure undone and discussion relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 December 6.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Procedural keep/discuss this later in a few months time per my close (which very few people argued as being wrong, the only objection being that it was untimely) as explained at the DRV Because many of the merge comments are unconvincing, and because talking about "long-term significance" a few days after something is an effort which is very much doomed to fail to yield an objective result except in very clear and obvious cases (and this, despite the strong consensus to keep at this time, is not one where the long-term significance of the thing is beyond reasonable doubt). The NOTNEWS/TOOSOON argument should be revisited at some point, when this is neither A) receiving widespread [one could even say "GNG"] coverage in the news nor B) too soon after the event [both the article being so quickly created; and this AfD so excessively rapidly started...]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your early close was arrogant, as is your dismissal of the significant (if currently minority) view that this game does not merit its own article. No "procedural" anything, just let the process run normally. I have no problem with whatever the final result is, so long as the process is conducted fairly. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not dismiss anything, I correctly noted that there was a clear outcome and that this AFD was ill-timed. As for arrogance, that's a discussion best had at another place and which should come only after a humbling look at the mirror... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very important game because of its move count and historical significance. It is a clear pass of WP:GNG as the game received significant, non-routine coverage. Frank Anchor 16:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage in reliable sources, much in excess of earlier games in the match (or game 8). Following live, it really did feel "epic" watching Carlsen slowly grind out a win. As for any comparison with Game 8, Carlsen has said that he would not have won 8 if he had not already won 6. Nepo would very likely not have made that b6 blunder, but for the loss two days earlier. Edwardx (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extensive coverage, clearly passes GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing GNG. I also want to emphasize that "It is unusual for articles to be created for individual chess games" is a very poor rationale for deletion with no basis in policy. The WP:NOTNEWS angle that others have mentioned is more worthy of consideration, but ultimately I don't think it's accurate to say that the coverage of this game is merely "routine". Colin M (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I was saying, despite the (previously) apparently not overwhelming count, there's no realistic chance this closes as anything but keep (which is why, I guess, SNOW does not give a precise percentage). Somebody should reclose this promptly and get this done with. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "somebody" should do is pipe down, let the process take its course, and stop attempting to WP:BLUDGEON it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be sensible to ask why, indeed, it is unusual for articles to be created for individual chess games. In my lifetime, by far the most notable individual games were several played during the Fischer-Spassky match, and some of the games of the Kasparov-Deep Blue matches. I would venture to say that the coverage of the Fischer-Spassky games by reliable sources, especially by sources that did not specialize in chess, was much greater than anything we have seen since, until and including Carlsen's world championship matches. Yet, no one has written a Wikipedia article about any of those games. I have not even seen any discussion of the possibility of creating such an article, by Wikipedia editors.

I can't speak for other Wikipedia editors interested in chess, but I myself would not expect success for any such article, because I would not expect non-chess players to use Wikipedia to look it up. The natural way for a person to look up Fischer's first match game with Spassky, the one in which he made an elementary blunder, would be to look up the article about the match, in which the score of the game is presented, with light commentary.

In addition, I would have to admit, reluctantly as an editor interested in chess, that WP:DELAY and WP:SUSTAINED apply with great force to chess games. For example, there was much gushing at the time about the 13th game of the Fischer-Spassky match. Botvinnik, a past world champion, called it "the highest creative achievement of Fischer ... Nothing similar had been seen before in chess." (You can see these quotations in the article about the match.) But now, it has largely been forgotten, except among chess players.

This brings me to a general remark about gushing. Chess commentators, like sports commentators, tend to go overboard with praise and criticism of a game. For them, there's no downside to going overboard. It's even good for them to the extent that it gets people interested in the subject. But we are not chessbase; we are Wikipedia, and we have an obligation to try to keep a sense of perspective.

One more thing. Several editors suggested that the topic was notable because the game set some records (longest game in a world championship, etc.). I don't know how seriously I should take this. WP:N doesn't say a thing about breaking records. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your argument is personal opinion about the significance/lack-thereof of individual chess games, which is not relevant in this deletion discussion (see WP:OSE and false equivalence for why those comparisons are probably inaccurate). The relevant part of your argument is, however, circular. "It is unusual for articles to be created for individual chess games" is not a valid argument to support "this article about a chess game should not have been created" (you're using it as a self-fulfilling prophecy); as it does not address either the reasons why this game might be unusual enough for it to warrant an article, nor, and more importantly, the coverage of this game in reliable sources, which many others describe as more than what one would expect for a routine chess match, even given this is a WC match. It does not even seem to be aware of the WP:SPLIT issue. If you fail to address these, then your argument is not much more than a prolonged "I don't think this game is significant enough". Without further subtantiation, that is not a valid reason to merge, because on Wikipedia, to determine if a topic is significant enough, we follow (after critically assessing them) sources, not editor opinions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) — Bruce leverett, your comment was insightful and it made me dig in a bit. Ian Nepomniachtchi's article for instance is noticeably lacking in content, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov's article is even shorter and he is a former world champion (whether or not we consider the 2004 championship to be as serious as other championships). We can probably find dozens of chess-related articles that we would consider to be "important" in the chess world, but that is not reflected in the quality or quantity of coverage in their respective Wikipedia entries. You will find players who are yet to make their NBA debuts to have significantly more detail and in-depth coverage than high-importance chess players in their Wikipedia articles — Vasily Smyslov stands out to me.

This speaks to a general deficit in editors interested in working on chess-related articles and a lack of popular and sustained interest in the sport. Not that we don't have editors who write high-quality chess articles, just that there aren't enough of them. And I see this article as an example of one of those editors who produce high-quality chess content working on a topic that, to me at least, rightly deserves to have an article to its own. If not for its significance (and I believe that it does), than at least for SPLIT.

From what I have noticed, when you say "Yet, no one has written a Wikipedia article about any of those games. I have not even seen any discussion of the possibility of creating such an article, by Wikipedia editors" — and I agree with your statement — I believe that it comes from a general lack of editors willing to work on chess-related articles, and not necessarily from those topics lacking in significance. I understand you were not claiming that those games are not important, and it is my understanding that they are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles of their own. The fact that we don't have articles on games with much more coverage should not discredit the coverage this game has received (even if it pales in comparison to games of the past). If anything, this tells us that there are many more chess games that we could be writing about. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I myself would not expect success for any such article, because I would not expect non-chess players to use Wikipedia to look it up I don't think this is a valid argument. I would not expect non-computer scientists to use Wikipedia to look up Pebble game, but that doesn't mean the article shouldn't exist. It's okay for an article to have a relatively narrow audience. Colin M (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered the arguments around WP:SPLIT. For each world championship article, we are giving all the games, sometimes with commentary. This article is just breaking out one of the games, and expanding on it, just as one sees with subtopics of larger, more heavyweight articles. While I do not think this was warranted, there is room for disagreement, and anyway Wikipedia is full of splits that were not warranted, and not much harm done. I am not changing my !vote, but I won't lose any sleep over this, and I should thank the editor for the effort he has put into it.

I'll make a few more comments, while I am here:

The commentary on the moves should, perhaps must, be sourced. I know that there are examples of unsourced commentary in various articles, but for articles that really matter, you can't even put an exclam or a question mark on a move, without citing a source.
The match has turned into a dud, with Nepo losing two games due to elementary blunders. When the match is over, the chess world is going to be eager to forget about it. This will probably accelerate the process by which the chess world forgets how notable this game was. Sigh.
I've said it before but I'll say it again: content does not determine notability (WP:CONTN). Notability is determined solely by coverage in reliable sources. Why do I even have to say this? How can it be that umpteen editors, most of them presumably not complete novices, are saying "notable because the game set a record for longest world championship game"? That's crazy! What happens when the record is broken? Does the game become non-notable then? Are we the Guinness Book of Records, or are we Wikipedia? Bruce leverett (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact correction: the commentary is sourced (source provided at the end, to avoid WP:CITEBOMB - chessbase.com, with annotations by Anish Giri). Your next point is personal opinion and needs no further answer than the comments you are objecting to in your final point. As for that one, you make a valid claim about WP:NTEMPORARY, but A) sources are reporting on this, and sources take precedence over your personal misgivings about the relevance of the record B) this isn't the kind of record that gets beaten every second day, is it? In any case, I find it ill-judged to be making pronouncements about the long-term significance of this so early after it (there's not a snowball's chance in hell such a judgement is correct in a case like this one). There's a credible claim for it to have such significance. Whether it turns out to or not is something that only time will tell, and keeping it in a separate article, where a more in-depth analysis than what is possible on the main page can be given, and where the coverage of the game beyond the mere chess element is detailed in the additional sections which would clearly be hard to include on the main page, does no harm, at least for the time being. If it encourages the creation of articles on other significant-but-not-so-far-covered games, it is actually positively improving the encyclopedia.RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, TOOSOON/NOTNEWS apply. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only have you not presented any argument why to delete and not merge; you haven't presented any at all. Your comment is the textbook WP:VAGUEWAVE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several supporters of merging the article mention WP:NOTNEWS, but without explaining exactly how this article is in violation. Wikipedia's home page has a section at the upper right corner called "In the news" and we can learn about a volcano erupting, farmer protests succeeding and two women being elected to lead their countries. In the the last two decades, acceptable articles about hundreds of thousands of recent events have been created. NOTNEWS has four sections: Original reporting, News reports, Who's who and Celebrity gossip and diary. The only one thar can possibly apply is News reports, which says For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The key word is "routine". It should be clear to anyone that this record setting game was the complete opposite of routine. It was highly unusual and therefore notable in several different ways. Therefore, NOTNEWS simply does not apply to this article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This game is already being described as an "all time classic" in later mainstream (non-chess-specific) coverage of the championship [18]. I think it is not too early to call it independently notable, in a way that none of the other games so far in this championship can meet. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be exaggeration from the media rather than an informed opinion from chess-related sources. Also, I would argue that Carlsen's streak of undefeated classical games is more notable than the streak of draws in the WCC, yet there's no article for Carlsen's streak-breaking game. If an article was to be created to remark the streak of draws, it should be listed as a record rather than an article of the game itself. The same point can be made for having the most number of moves played in a WCC game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001 (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The basic notability guidelines of Wikipedia would make ANY World Championship Chess match taking place eligible for their own articles under GNG. They clearly get significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. So then it comes down to "It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy". The only thing remotely applicable would be WP:NOTNEWS, section 2, News reports. Of which the key section is "routine news reporting of sports is not a sufficient basis for inclusion". This game is not a "routine" game (the record breaking, being a win in a world championship match, and being a game in a world championship match, any of those 3 are non-routine) and neither is the coverage of it. The game itself is an event of enduring notability taking place within a Championship of enduring notability. As an aside, I would apply the idea of enduring notability to all decisive matches in a World Chess Championship match due to the inevitable enduring notability of a non-routine won/lost game in the world title match, and consider any won game (and any significant drawn games) to be worthy of their own articles as they will cover GNG and nothing in the "Not" guidelines can exclude them. I see a lot of "well XYZ sport" didn't have an article for "Game Whatever". So what, those special games probably deserve their own articles as well. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with nominator that articles for individual chess games are unusual, but this game Actually Qualifies - setting a new length record in a championship match will do that. First round matches at tennis tournaments don't usually get separate articles, either, but Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships does for the exact same reason as this game. Sufficient sources exist to pass WP:GNG. SnowFire (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Most Comfortable Chair. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Longest world championship game in history makes it undoubtedly notable. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet the previous record-holder didn't have an article? Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That game ended in a draw and wasn't influential in deciding the winner of the '78 series. The 2021 game was both long and influential. SnowFire (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've noticed an argument being made that this chess game should be deleted because there are other, more notable chess games that do not have articles. That is not a criteria for deletion in Wikipedia. There are lots of notable things that don't have articles in Wikipedia. Lots of towns in Africa don't have articles. I regularly come across national level non-western politicians who don't have their own articles. Wikipedia is not complete! If this is a problem, please go ahead and create a whole series of articles describing some more notable games! 109.153.222.124 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Cullen328 argued above, invoking WP:NOTNEWS is misplaced here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though a merge would also be fine. It's too soon to say this is the defining match of Carlsen's career, but it could well be. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no chance this will be considered the defining game of Carlson's career (which also includes defeating World Champion Vishy Anand, and presumably losing to the next World Champion), but it may become one of the defining games of Melo's career 156.111.111.73 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strong indications of notability developing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The game is great but we don't have articles on other games simply based on if they broke records, such as the previous record holder Karpov-Korchnoi game 5 1978, or even if they were extremely beautiful games in WC match, as is the case with numerous WC games. Additionally while the game is being covered in several press/news reports so is every other game in the world championship match. If the game retains significant notability after the match maybe a separate article would be warranted but for now I don't see why the information couldn't be contained in the original match article. CeviLevita (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only is it significant because of the length in time and moves, and a decisive result, the game is an example of a very significant imbalance (Queen vs. two rooks) maintained for a very long time. With this distinction, the precise play of both players, and the other notable characteristics above, I think it is worthy of its own article already and the notability of the game may further increase over time. Sunstar13 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge. The two notable things about it is that it is the longest World Championship game and one that ended a long string of draws. I don't think that these alone are sufficient to have the game merit its own article. Those are facts that are incidental to the game. Otherwise, it is not nearly as notable as, say, the sixth Fisher-Spasky game in 1972. None of the 1972 World Championship games have their own articles - not even game 6. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1972 games not having a Wiki page is not a valid reason for this page to be merged. If anything, pages should be created on those games (a Google search shows significant non-routine coverage on 1972’s game 6, though that is not the subject of this AFD) Frank Anchor 04:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The point is that I think at least several other games are more deserving of an article than this one. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per WP:NOPAGE, it isn't always necessary for a notable topic to have a standalone article. In this case I think the reader would be better served by having the information presented in the context of the match. There is room in the match article for the moves, analysis and reaction to the game. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for record move count, breaking WC draw streak, and now the pivotal and psychological turning point of the match. BBQboffin (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, maybe with redirect. Yes, this game is unusual for this WCC, but I think really this game isn't so famous like Game of the Century, Evergreen Game, Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1997, Game 6 and others. No edition of Wikipedia except English, don't have separate article for this game. In Russian Wikipedia (the main edition of Wikipedia in Russia) I and other users interesting in chess won't plan to create a separate article about this party. -Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 08:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What other Wikipedias do is exactly none of our concern. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for record move count and coverage of the event is more than routine. --Enos733 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Trout nominator - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid deletion rationale, nor is a lack of previous articles. This is far more notable than the hundreds of articles we have on random second-division NASCAR races. It is a large enough article now that WP:NOTMERGE point 1 applies. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable chess game. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's notable for its move count, then Korchnoi vs. Karpov should have already had an article. Thus, it is notable through the help of the recent coverage. To be frank, the other games in the match also garnered significant coverage, so this situation is akin to a game in a world championship series for sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOPAGE. Has a clear parent topic where this material can go. A niche statistic like "longest game played by number of moves in a world chess championship match" doesn't make something automatically notable. The test will be whether it continues to get a disproportionately high degree of coverage apart from routine coverage of the championship match after it's over. The present article relies on routine coverage that would exist for basically any first-decisive-game-of-a-championship, and it's part of what makes the championship so notable. It might wind up showing WP:LASTING significance, but there's no point having a separate article until that's demonstrated, and no reason the reliably sourced part of this article can't be mostly preserved in the main article. The unreliable sourced part (a bunch of "reactions" sourced just to tweets? come on) should be removed regardless. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why does the Evergreen Game have an article? Obviously wikipedia considers it notable for some reason. Is it because it's important? Not really, it was just a casual game between friends, later recalled and published by the winner. Was it a fantastic game? Not really. Anderssen probably wouldn't have played the vastly inferior 17.Nf6+?! in a serious game when a simple win of material was available, but he probably wanted to have a little fun. Was it because the final combination is so brilliant? It's certainly spectacular, contributing to the game's fame, but it wasn't totally sound - at least 3 good alternatives to 19...Qxf3? have been found that lead to a probable draw. In the end, the game is notable simply because it is famous, having been published and analyzed in (probably) thousands of books and magazines. This is why wikipedia considers the game worthy of an article.

Articles are rarely created for individual chess games, because very few chess games are sufficiently notable, and fewer still are notable outside of the context of the event at which they took place. WP:NOPAGE is very clear on this point - the game is not significant independently of the match in which it was played. As pointed out by Rododendrites, the article also has sourcing and original research issues (I don't see a single citation in the annotations, for example).

I reject the use of the WP:OSE essay (yes, essay) to lazily dismiss arguments based on WP:PRECEDENT. Precedent does matter on wikipedia, as it is indicative of consensus. If 10 different articles about movies use a similar layout, that's because the evolved consensus at wikipedia is that this is the preferred layout for articles on movies. And if articles are rarely created for individual chess games, that's because very chess games are notable outside of the context of the event in which they occurred. To say already that this game is independently notable has an air of WP:CRYSTALBALL about it - has it appeared in any anthologies of classic chess games? Has it been voted game of the year by some famous publication? GMs tweeting the annoyingly oversued word "epic" is not indicative of long term notability, it just means the game was very very long.

134 moves is a long game indeed, but it's not such a big deal - games of 200+ moves are not unknown. This one just happened to take place in a World Championship. This record is likely to get broken again, and that game is unlikely to be independently notable either. Neither was the 5th game of the Karpov-Korchnoi match isn't (it was a truly awful game where Korchnoi missed a simple mate). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree about the crystal ball aspect, but I believe it cuts the other way. See WP:RAPID. A very common pattern on Wikipedia is some event happens, an article is spun off, someone immediately nominates it for deletion, but the notability only continues to increase and the AFD was essentially a waste. If this game really was No Big Deal, I think you'd have a better case for a merge in 6 months if there's complete radio silence after the initial burst of activity. Right now it looks very notable based on the coverage it got, and the crystal ball is saying it wasn't. SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really that much more coverage of game 6 compared to the other games in this match? Double sharp (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Keep's strongest arguments are that the game broke notable records and that the game received significant attention. From the perspective of the chess world, the records are footnote-worthy and can be summarized in a few sentences. It is clear that the coverage has already moved on to the future games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:8EF4:EAD:65FE:D001 (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Max. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MaxBrowne2, I would agree that PRECEDENT (an essay, not policy) could indeed be an indicator of consensus, but when it comes to areas that are heavily visited by readers and editors alike. I would not consider precedent to be a determinant of consensus in any case, and more often than not, precedent is merely an indicator of a pattern rather than broad agreement over minor details. Case in point would be the infobox issue where even after months of deliberations, editors were unsure as to how to go about it in select cases — despite the fact that there was a clear "pattern" or "precedent" that was previously employed through most articles. Which emphasizes my point that we need to look each game individually.

I concede that a game's association with some factor will obviously influence its coverage — I will even argue that sometimes it could also be the only defining aspect which confers the coverage that game would end up receiving. The Evergreen Game could potentially be notable only and only because it was played by Adolf Anderssen, one of the most important chess players in the game's early history. We cannot argue that this was the only "analyzable" game from that time, but it did end up being analyzed much more than any other game from that time. On a fundamental level, one can attribute the game's coverage to it being played by one of the leading players in the sport's history of that time. It was not a game between two casual and unknown players. In a similar way, this game's notability can be derived from it being played and breaking records in a world championship match. Clearly there are games that are more analyzable than this game, just as there could be more games that are analyzable from the 19th century. But the games that do end up being analyzed will have some association with a factor that was more inherently notable to begin with. This game has been analyzed in news sources in context of breaking significant world championship records, which is non-routine coverage according to me and others in this discussion. A 236-move game, played outside of a world championship, will not be important enough to be analyzed — just as a "brilliancy" from the 19th-century will not be important enough to be analyzed if it was played by two insignificant chess players.

From how I see this, the "precedent" — more accurately, the "pattern" — that we have about not creating individual articles on chess games stems from a relative lack of interest in the area (as I have noted above). So far as I know, we have not even had an RfC on this topic, let alone a well-participated discussion on how to evaluate notability when it comes to individual chess games. The one "well-participated" discussion on this topic that I can point to would be this AfD itself, which to me dispels the argument that precedent was even an indicator of consensus about notability of individual chess games. That is why we need to look at games individually and decide what can and cannot be considered notable, in absence of a community-based agreement on specific guidelines or policy. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the records broken are the only sign of this game's importance any more as it becomes clear that it has critically impacted the continuation of the match. Chess commentators hold the opinion that it psychologically affected Nepomniactchi's play afterwards and even Carlsen himself said after Game 8 that his win didn't happen without the first one. The game's importance would've faded away had Nepomniactchi bounced back and kept the match alive; instead, he made blunders which are rarely seen in World Chess Championship matches and were attributed to his loss in Game 6. This is a clear indication of impact, which adds to its overall importance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A best-of-x series favors the leader since they only have to play for draws; Fischer knew this and took advantage in his match in 1972. When Carlsen said that his win couldn't have come without the first one, it was because Nepomniachtchi was inherently forced to take risks thanks to the format. Was there a psychological factor? Yes, but probably much after Game 6. His first unacceptable blunder occurred in Game 8. GMs attribute his poor second-half performance to his lack of experience with longer tournaments.

Well, we have a recent precedent too: Anand-Gelfand game 8 in 2012. It was the shortest decisive game in the history of the World Chess Championship and got significant coverage at the time. It was also important for wiping out Gelfand's lead in the match, and brought it to tiebreaks where Anand got the victory. And yet now it doesn't seem important enough for a separate article. Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Kramnik-Leko 2004 game 14? That was a really rare occurrence, only the third time the defending champion saved his title by winning the last game on demand (other times were Lasker-Schlechter 1910 and Kasparov-Karpov 1987). In fact, due to the changed format, this can't happen again unless it gets all the way to Armageddon! But does it seem important enough for an article now? Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you confuse 'notable' and 'important'. 'Notable', as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is usually employed as a verification if there are sufficient goods sources to write an acceptable article (as opposed to a chess database entry) (WP:GNG), and if this article will actually contain information of encyclopedic interest and not mundane and boring trivia (WP:NOT). The article at this time does not seem to clearly fail either of these criteria (although in in few months time, once the WC match is over, that this gets forgotten in the footnotes of history - although with so many commentating on how this game appears to have had a decisive influence on the [now almost certain] outcome of the match, the converse is obviously also possible. Hence why I again suggest that people stop making bold and inaccurate predictions as to the long-term significance of this now: it is impossible to tell, and there's no harm done in having this discussion in a few months time when everything is clearer). Additionally, as far as I see, neither of these requires that the subject of the article be "important" to the subjective mind of editors. As for other chess games, if some of them deserve articles and they don't have one, and you have sufficient sources to write articles which are more than pure analysis, then you should go and do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed my point, though I suppose I did indeed mean "notable" when I said "important". :) I don't think those games deserve articles. Their significance appears to exist as part of the match and nothing else, and about all else you'd find is pure analysis. (Feel free to prove me wrong; that would make me willing to reconsider.) What I don't see is how that's any different from the current case. We have much coverage, but only as part of coverage of the entire match. Okay, it's too early to be able to tell, but judging from the 2012 and 2004 precedents we have no reason to think that the game will turn out notable outside the context of the match. Is this on the level of something like the Immortal Draw that lent its players' names to an opening variation and is still being imitated today to prearrange draws? I have my doubts.

That being said, there's probably a good case indeed for creating an article on Karpov-Kasparov 1985 game 16. Maybe I'll do that when I have time, so thanks for the inspiration. :) Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't source my WP:CHESSENGINE research, but the annotations to that game look seriously flawed to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – notable game as noted extensively above. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I do think it's notable, and I also think it's notable enough for a stand-alone article. I merely preface my !vote with a "weak" keep since there seems to be a level of disagreement about what is and what is not a notable chess match. We do have a premise that once something is notable, it's permanently notable, but this is an exceptionally rare edge case which I could see going back to AfD in ten years if nothing more comes of it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep If this game is not noteworthy than someone better inform The New York Times and The Guardian about that. Hochithecreator (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm impressed the coverage is so good we have articles on individual games, but I would avoid commentary like "Carlsen was probably trying to survive the time trouble and get a promising position", "probably" and "perhaps" are not based on fact and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. Going back in time I'd love to see lots of articles like this. I can't believe Karpov-Kasparov 1985 Game 16 is missing, astonishing brilliance!₪ Encyclopædius 16:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notability is subjective, I will admit, but based on the amount of coverage this game has, I'd say it's totally worth having a separate article. It's not like there is insufficient information or anything. "Unusual" is not a strong argument to determine if something should be kept. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 20:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 538, NYT (Paywall warning), The Guardian, all of which are reliable sources which have non-trivial coverage of this game. That’s WP:THREE. Samboy (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As a caution, THREE is not a valid means to judge notability, we're looking for significant coverage in multiple sources. But that said, any one of these clearly shows wholly devoted coverage to this one game, so the sources from high-quality and non-routine outlets for chess are valid for notability purposes. --Masem (t) 01:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:THREE is an essay, yes, but it’s also pretty good rule of thumb I have seen used in multiple AfD discussions. In the deletion discussion for my own little contribution to the Internet, one voter felt two sources was enough: “I have not checked the other sources mentioned, but the first two I mentioned are enough for the article to pass general notability guidelines” Samboy (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "keep" voters have not addressed the WP:NOPAGE concern. There is no reason the content can't be accommodated within the World Chess Championship 2021 article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s established that single chess games can have Wikipedia articles: Immortal Game, Evergreen Game, Opera Game, Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1996, Game 1, Botvinnik versus Capablanca, AVRO 1938, etc. Looking at the argument those are long standing famous games, Kasparov vs. World had a Wikipedia page just a few years after the game. Samboy (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that none of those were match games (with the exception of Deep Blue which had the unique "computer defeats World Champion" angle). This game has a natural parent article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Botvinnik versus Capablanca, AVRO 1938 has a natural parent: AVRO 1938 chess tournament — Samboy (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that WP:NOPAGE is canceled out by WP:NOTMERGE point 1. Merging at this time would make the article unbalanced and clunky. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of content in the article is of encyclopaedic interest but cannot be merged into the main World Chess Championship 2021 article as that would create WP:UNDUE concerns on that article. WP:NOPAGE is thereby addressed. There's no question to the notability of this individual game given the sources available. As to whether it will still be considered relevant 10 years down the line, it's hard to tell at this point, but it seems more likely than not. – SD0001 (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is undue here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.125.0 (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since it is a record setting game. lkitross (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable game in many ways. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most individual games of any sport are not given articles as their coverage falls in WP:NOT#ROUTINE.I would expect that if you looked for source for Game 5 of this series, you'd find it limited to the chess-based sources, and mostly a summary, which would be routine and not eligible for an article. This game clearly has coverage above and beyond the routine sourcing (in many mainstream outlets) and give give reason for why it is not just a routine game, and eligible for a standalone article. --Masem (t) 01:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPINOFF: I agree with SD0001 that a merge would lead to WP:UNDUE issues. One does not need the context of the entire World Chess Championship to understand the game annotations, so I do not see any "specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable" (per WP:NOPAGE) that could only be addressed through a merge. Neither NOPAGE nor any other policy requires that article topics be "independently" notable. Any topic will have a "natural parent article", but that alone is not a WP:MERGEREASON. Cobblet (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The newspaper Aftenposten posted three articles about this game, stating that a whole book could be written about it. Hogne (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SD0001 and the fact that coverage in mainstream news is very much not routine for chess games, especially so if what Hogne said above is true, though I couldn't verify it in a quick search (to be fair, I don't know Norwegian). eviolite (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Mordec[edit]

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

Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 15 minutes. Geschichte (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage. Has one fifteen minute appearance five years ago. Since then has moved on to the lower non-professional rungs of Polish football.--Mvqr (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL as there isn't enough significant coverage present as well.Juggyevil (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks to have had some WP:ROUTINE coverage/passing mentions regarding his career here and here, with a primary source mention here, but nothing that would warrant a stand-alone article. GauchoDude (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manor rama pictures[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Rejected draft, the company lacks in depth sources Pikavoom (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not appear to provide the reliable in-depth independent coverage of the subject that would be needed for notability through WP:GNG. Also a piece of advertisement. DMySon (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; references lack depth. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and above delete voters. lacks in-depth coverage. Chelokabob (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical production house problem. Producing notable work doesn't make production houses notable de facto. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Reid (Canadian songwriter)[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician and comedy video creator, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The primary notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of reliably sourced evidence of its significance (third party coverage, noteworthy awards, etc.) -- but after I stripped a whole bunch of "YouTube video cited as circular verification of its own existence" footnotes, the only sources left are his IMDb profile, his own self-published website about himself, a deadlinked newspaper article which I searched for in ProQuest and found that it's just a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article which isn't about him in any non-trivial sense, and a short blurb in a blog which tangentially verifies the existence of a piece of content while completely failing to mention Billy Reid as having had anything to do with it. And even in that ProQuest search, I mostly get irrelevant hits for different Billy Reids, and what little I do get for this one isn't enough to get him over WP:GNG: apart from two wire service articles released within two days of each other in 2013, I just get more glancing namechecks of his existence and a couple of pieces in smalltown community hyperlocals in Vancouver Island, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - The sourcing in the article is simply atrocious, and not useable for establishing notability. My own search turns up this Times Colonist article also published in the Vancouver Sun. It is substantial and certainly contributes towards notability. But in my search for other coverage, the best I could do was a community paper article, and a guest post in Canadian Living magazine. The article has a link to a Globe and Mail article which is not online any more but I was able to pull up an archive which turns out to be primarily about the show Exposure which Reid is mentioned as the host. If there were one more good source, I'd be convinced to switch to a keep, but this falls just below the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:Whpq, that someone fixed the link, and that Globe article is still online. The other Globe article someone added is better though. Also see the Edmonton Journal I mention below. Nfitz (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Edmonton Journal article is substantial and pushes this over the notability bar for me. Thanks for digging up the sources. -- Whpq (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the previous articles, I believe the recently added archived video and newspaper news coverage, as well as his work as a celebrity spokesperson for a nation-wideDoritos campaign should be sufficient for notability. -- FanOfPuppets (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube video of interviews in which Billy Reid was answering questions about himself in the first person aren't support for notability — notability is supported by sources in which the subject's significance is being discussed and analyzed in the third person by people other than himself, not by sources in which he's talking about himself in the first person. Being a spokesperson for an online viral video contest is not "inherently" notable, and your source for that is a short blurb that just soundbites a quote from Billy Reid rather than coverage about Billy Reid. And as for the Vancouver Sun hit, well, that was already both addressed in my nomination statement ("apart from two wire service articles released within two days of each other in 2013") and considered and assessed by Whpq in their delete vote. It isn't enough coverage to turn the tide all by itself if it's the only source that's actually getting him off the starting blocks. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there is a second Times Colonist article added which is substantial, but that's really just two articles from the same newspaper. It really needs a substantial article from a different source. The other sourcing doesn't really cut it as explained above. An appearance on a morning show doesn't establish notability. I've been on CITY's Breakfast Television, and I can guarantee you that I do not meet the notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found an interesting article from the Globe and Mail that discusses how YouTube invited him to edit the video choices on homepage(back when there was a currated homepage.) -- FanOfPuppets (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving it one more round for the sake of being included in a couple of lists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With what's been added to the article since the AFD, it does, get past GNG - the Vancouver Sun as noted above is good. Looking in Google and ProQuest, there are more in-depth articles, such as in the Edmonton Journal (also available as ProQuest 1468761825). Nfitz (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Markdavin Obenza[edit]

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

Notability is debatable. Little to no third party coverage, doesn't rise to the standard of WP:NMUSIC/COMPOSER. KH-1 (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any independent coverage about him, the references are largely mentions in the context of the groups he conducts (or are by those groups). Neither of those groups appear to have an article, so a redirect is not possible. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harold George Jerrard[edit]

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

seems to be not notable, google scholar gives several publications but it's not enough. other than that, I didn't find anything significant, besides obituary that is cited as source. Artem.G (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at present, since the article does not make any claim to notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics). A couple of published books is not sufficient to make an academic notable. I'm open to changing my !vote if evidence of notability is presented. --Srleffler (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think he has the citation counts for WP:PROF#C1, but I added enough published book reviews to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I take that back. With two papers with over 200 citations each in Google Scholar despite their early date (one from 1948 and the other from 1954) he does have a weak case for WP:PROF#C1 as well, especially as I found other sources from much later specifically describing his contributions in one of these papers as being important. I missed the 1954 one in my earlier searches because the publisher spells his name wrong (something something irony of OCR going wrong for the OSA) so it wasn't showing up in the searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 08:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per others above. I also note the publication A Dictionary of Scientific Units, Including Dimensionless Numbers and Scales did 6 editions over 30 years, and I think it did a seventh, and is used on WP to cite stuff as its in OL! I believe FinstP may also satisfy Wikipedia:NACADEMICS#3. An image should be available at some point due to his Fareham Mayoral duties. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR. I think the WP:PROF#C1 case is also pretty good, considering the time period. I don't know if we've ever decided whether or not Fellow of the Institute of Physics counts for WP:PROF#C3, but it doesn't hurt. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for deletion, but I agree with the facts above and so I change my vote for keep too. Artem.G (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Danny Vaughn#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers and Sailors on Riverside[edit]

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

not notable, no reviews from reliable sources can be found, no reviews on allmusic that is mentioned as reference on the page Artem.G (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vaughn (band) ~ GB fan 12:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm wondering whether a redirect to Danny Vaughn#with Vaughn might be a better target, because his self-titled band doesn't appear to be notable either, and to redirect Vaughn (band) at the same time. The current state of the article for Danny Vaughn is appalling, being nothing more than a load of unsourced cut-and-paste copyvio from press releases. But he probably passes criterion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO, as a member of Waysted and Tyketto – Waysted were certainly notable, having charted in both the UK and US and having their albums reviewed in music magazines, and I think Tyketto just about pass notability as two of their songs charted on the Billboard Album Rock Tracks chart, now known as the Mainstream Rock chart. It certainly seems to make more sense than having separate articles for both Vaughn the musician and Vaughn the band, which only released two non-notable albums before reverting back to the Danny Vaughn name anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danny Vaughn#Discography - I like the suggestion by Richard3120 above. This particular album is definitely non-notable and needs to be redirected somewhere. Send it to Danny Vaughn's article because he has some basic notability. The following is not relevant for this album-specific AfD, but Vaughn (band) is also non-notable in its own right and can be redirected to Danny's article too, while his solo article needs to be cleaned up TNT-style. I can work on those matters after this album AfD runs its course. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danny Vaughn#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Danny Vaughn#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Live[edit]

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

not notable, no reviews from reliable sources can be found, no reviews on allmusic that is mentioned as reference on the page Artem.G (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vaughn (band). ~ GB fan 12:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: possibly add album to the list at Danny Vaughn#with Vaughn and then redirect both this article and Vaughn (band) per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soldiers and Sailors on Riverside. Richard3120 (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danny Vaughn#Discography - See the reasoning by Richard3120 and myself at the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soldiers and Sailors on Riverside. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danny Vaughn#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: T. Can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 16:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannus (comics)[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: T per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Boz. I don’t mind a merge if not notable. Though please do an info merge not just a redirect please. I think a recurring Stan Lee and Jack Kirby supervillain would be worth that much. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, since notability is not shown. SOFTDELETE please, no need to remove the history from public view after redirecting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPLOT. Avilich (talk) 02:54, 13 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 13:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asia 2001[edit]

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

Not notable. Tagged for more sources since 2017. Sourced solely to the site of the record label and discogs. Sourcing is difficult due to the simple name so I searched with some of their album titles, and I couldn't find anything reliable. The project does not have an article on the French wiki either. Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this seems to be something of an alias of Gilbert Thévenet and I see no good coverage of him either. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 13:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalbe Rushaid[edit]

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

Listed as CSD, no number given. There is enough page histoary here that the article could have notability, however in its current form it lacks any inline citations which is a red flag (though not a disqualifer, as it were). Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article doesn't make any real claim of notability, and the references don't show independent coverage. Apparently he was a political candidate, but I'm not sure for what, and WP:NPOL never applies for candidates. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Geschichte (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heteropsis (butterfly)[edit]

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

Nothing more than a list of species. Philosophy2 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Technically "weak keep" is the consensus. The deletion reasoning is, in a sense, WP:CRYSTAL. Those arguing indicated that sourcing supported an article because of coverage that existed distinctly from the yet to occur race. That position represented a rough consensus Nosebagbear (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta ePrix[edit]

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

Way too early. Recreate this page after the race is first held. --RemoteMyBeloved (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is written about, and there is tangible information about it, it does not fail WP:CRYSTAL. Geschichte (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crystal? What is that? --RemoteMyBeloved (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RemoteMyBeloved: Per WP:CRYSTAL (1): "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Geschichte is expressing that this article does not fail that policy. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – The nominator's rationale is very vague and does not make mention of policy. The relevant guideline here is the WP:GNG, since the subject is not an individual event but the article for a recurring competition (that is yet to have its first occurrence). I am not familiar with Formula E, but the subject does appear to be getting coverage, particularly in relation to the construction of the track. It is quite normal amongst motorsports projects to create articles like this well in advance (for example, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar in Formula One) since they receive coverage independently of the individual occurrences (i.e. the Jakarta ePrix receives coverage independently of the 2022 Jakarta ePrix). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Per 5225C. This page being created at this time seems fairly standard. Editors more familiar with Formula E may have stronger arguments in favour of keeping or deleting this article, but I this appears to meet the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I choosing keep because there are currently numerous controversies involving Formula E in Jakarta that currently not included in the article, but still taking place by December this year, that leads Corruption Eradication Commission to investigate the Formula E controversies [19] and to a failed interpelation of Anies Baswedan in August 2021 led by Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle and Indonesian Solidarity Party [20]. The controversies include uncertain exact locations [21] and high number of commitment fees [22]. I would like to add these, if the decision of this deletion discusion was "keep". —DanielWhernchend • talk 05:04, 11 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 main policy argument for keeping was WP:NACADEMIC bullet #3. This requires that "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society ... or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor". This is not the case with the RACS - fellowship is granted on passing an exam. That is, it proves he is qualified to do his job, not that he is notable. Sources offered in support of WP:GNG were deemed insufficient to establish nothability by participants. No credible counter-arguments were offered why these sources met our guidelines. SpinningSpark 18:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Barnouti[edit]

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

Non notable doctor who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search mirrors the sources used in the article which are a plethora of unreliable primary social media sources and the rest are user generated. Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, fails WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MickyShy: Have you checked the sources within the article? He seems to meet all the criteria for WP:GNG. Magadlis (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. His sporting career also fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: He has credible claim of significance as per the many reliable sources that discuss him independently. I lay those out in my vote reply. Magadlis (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my delete !vote despite the new sources added. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added new refs that weren't included in the initial write-up of the article, so please have another look. The plastic surgeon has credible claim of significance demonstrated through the many reliable sources that discuss him independently. These are by no means unreliable primary social media sources or user generated content. Examples are New York Post, 9 News, ABC News Australia, SBS Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald, news.com.au, Mamamia, Stuff, and New Idea Magazine which are all independent of him. The doctor is notable and the article's got enough proper sources to justify its existence.Magadlis (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC) — Magadlis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Celestina007: If I have failed to demonstrate his notability then I am happy to hear what can be improved, but I think your assessment is off the mark.Magadlis (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources may be "reliable" but it is more the Doctor making comments on surgical practices rather that about the Doctor as the subject. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are which still discuss him to some extent, but some discuss him as the main subject of the article. Examples are the SBS Australia and Stuff sources.Magadlis (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google translate on the text at https://www.sbs.com.au/language/arabic/audio/sb-200-hl-m-fy-nh-llm-bsbb-mlyt-ltjmyl , again this is merely the Dr commenting on surgical practices, it is not indepth about him as the subject. LibStar (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the other one at https://www.sbs.com.au/language/arabic/audio/plastic-surgeon-dr-laith-barnouti-plays-oud-instrument Magadlis (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This is to note that the only advocate to retain this article on mainspace @Magadlis, is the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof. He is a fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS), a member of the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS) and the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS).Angiewalter37 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NACADEMIC point 3 refers to being elected a member of a society. This is different from a medical college where one applies to join, you are not elected into a medical college. Also being a member of the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS) and the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) doesn't really add to notability. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he just passes WP:Prof, but it likely to pass it more easily in the future. --Bduke (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

which part of WP:PROF does he pass? LibStar (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. While the subject is a member of several academic organizations in his field, these organizations allow anyone working in the field to join them and are not "elected" member organizations (beyond those serving on the governing boards). As such, fails criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC. The subject also does not pass any of the other criteria at WP:PROF. Additionally, the topic lacks sources where the Barnouti is the main subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:44, 15 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. Deletion reasoning primarily focused on that sourcing was from a single event, but that position was disputed on both policy and actual (as in, not just one event) grounds, to a sufficient strength to represent a rough consensus. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jaymes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

ONEEVENT. Possibly redirect to the AVN hall of fame. All the sourcimg relates to the subjects death. We are not an obituary and otherc claims of notabilty are depreciated when pornbio was devalued. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stories about her death from the BBC:[23], People:[24], and numerous other news outlets demonstrate her notability. He membership in the AVN Hall of Fame also demonstrates that she is notable in the industry. Thriley (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- all the coverage is of one event so since we are not news there needs to be evidence of enduring coverage for the event to count for retention. As for AVN HoF this is 2021 and pornbio hasn’t been a thing for a very long time and its no longer criteria to keep an article. Afraid you argument doesn’t really address the policy based reasons for deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A BBC obituary for an American + AVN Hall of Fame would be enough for me for notability, although I could see why some might argue the other way. But international coverage of someone's death at least points towards notability (her death was also reported on by Notimex in Mexico).[25]
There's at least one other time she got large media coverage, but it's very tabloid-y (mostly because it was first reported on by tabloids and then picked up by regular newspapers): a rumor that she slept with Nick Lachey,[26][27][28][29] and then later about how she wanted to sell the rights to the story.[30][31] - Whisperjanes (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel you are also proving the point of this being oneevent. As I mentioned HoF no longer confers notability so an argument on that basis is rejecting the community consensus on how we assess notability for porn performers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate your opinion - like I said, I can see why some might argue the other way; I think we just interpret the sources differently. To be clear, I am not arguing PORNBIO as a standard (I know its depreciated). I feel similarly to Thriley, which is that the HoF moreso "demonstrates that she is notable in the industry." The HoF award is extra, and I treat it like other top-industry awards that can't stand alone for determining notability. But an industry award + international obituaries + other sources seems beyond one event, at least to me. - Whisperjanes (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the nominator correctly points out in the intro, Jaymes is dead. So there is no WP:BLP concern. I further agree that most of the coverage came after her death. That happened with a lot of historical figures so should not exclude from N. There was also coverage during her life. Links are provided above and adding one in Polish from 2013.[32] Passes the WP:GNG well. All-in-all, the death per se was a minor event, and Jaymes had a passive role in it, so I would be against moving the article to Death Jessica Jaymes. The death was a trigger to write more about Jaymes. Did I say absolutely no WP:BLP concern? gidonb (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the only coverage is in death, in the usual celebrity Page Six way, then, one had a rather unremarkable and therefore (in Wikipedia terms) non-notable life. "Appeared as herself on the Howard Stern Show" is also a rather vivid marker of padding-the-resume. Zaathras (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be improved, but was her only coverage after her death? The facts seem to point in a different direction. And while coverage after one's death is legitimate, you may want to review your conclusion if this point is so important to you. gidonb (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG through sources mentioned and yes, AVN[33][34][35] & XBIZ[36][37] coverage count.[38] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ShaSimone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER, Not notable at the moment, may possibly meet the notability tag in future. Ampimd (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe we can keep it if more references are added? Billymufc (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Search reveals the notability of the subject. Passes WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Def Pen, Complex UK, and The Native Mag all have full length articles on her. Rusalkii (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:GNG. Covered by a number of notable and reliable music publications. Mooonswimmer (talk)
Delete. Nothing about this article indicates notability. In point of fact, it is not an article. Articles have sentences and paragraphs. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's sufficient coverage in Rusalkii's sources. Doczilla's argument needs no more than a WP:SOFIXIT response Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 13 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. Sandstein 16:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kippo[edit]

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

Lacks secondary sourcing. Loafiewa (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm conflicted on this one. It's no longer under development, but there seems to be quite a bit of discussion of it in information security circles, and it's the parent of several active forks that do seem to be notable. However, the sources discussing it are mostly blogs that individually would have trouble meeting WP:RS. PianoDan (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe its best to redirect the article from Kippo to Cowrie, which is basically the continuation of Kippo source code (a fork (software development). --Neo139 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm conflicted because I think we have a duty to our readers to write in plain English and not geek-speak. What's a "medium-interaction SSH honeypot"? A very quiet thing where Winnie-the-Pooh spends a bit of time but not too much? Unless either the article can explain what such a thing is, or blue-link to somewhere else that does, it's just telling those who know, what they already know. Elemimele (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ^(talk) 07:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG due to being discussed in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Valli, Craig; Rabadia, Priya; Woodward, Andrew (2013). Patterns and patter - an investigation into SSH activity using kippo honeypots. Australian Digital Forensics Conference.
^ Melese, S.Z.; Avadhani, P.S. (2016). "Honeypot system for attacks on SSH protocol" (pdf). International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security. 8 (9): 19. doi:10.5815/ijcnis.2016.09.03.
^ Anil Goel; Sanjay Misra; Shampa Chakraverty, eds. (2018). "Secure Shell (SSH) Traffic Analysis". Towards Extensible and Adaptable Methods in Computing. Springer Singapore. p. 113. ISBN 9789811323485.
^ Sanders, Chris; Smith, Jason (2013). Applied Network Security Monitoring; Collection, Detection, and Analysis. Elsevier Science. pp. 329–332. ISBN 9780124172166.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Initially opinions were split, but towards the end the view is almost unanimously that the improvements during the AfD have established the subject's notability. Sandstein 16:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vesey Alfred Davoren[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC (WP:SOLDIER is now deprecated). There are some hits for "Vesey Davoren" or "Vesey O'Davoren" on newspapers.com but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV I can see. Film roles generally minor. Sourced mainly to genealogical records; see WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BASIC, long list of poorly referenced minor roles and large and largely unreferenced section about his wife used to bulk up page. Mztourist (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: despite the long filmography he seems to have very minor roles, and as per nom. ww2censor (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, he was an unusual survivor of WW1, a war hero even, and his film career spanned silent and then talkie eras. An Anglo-Irish-Englishman who went to LA. And his wife was a talent, or do women not count? If this man is considered not notable one has to wonder exactly what is 'notable' in Wiki terms? His film work is properly referenced and more would become apparent of his career, for example his exceptional house in LA is still there. What is there not to like? Seems a shame that decent hard researched stuff is getting not just edited out but en-bloc deleted?Rodolph (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bit parts, and the war hero claim is tenuous at best. Maybe the bits about his wife should be split off into their own article, considering her section has more useful information than his (if it can be properly documented). Intothat darkness 14:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Intothatdarkness: I actually found this article looking for his wife. There may be just enough material to create it. I didn't find a huge amount of coverage but there definitely is some more. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be renamed and refocused on her, then? With a note about him somewhere in a "Personal Life" section. She seems to have been more notable. Intothat darkness 16:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some links https://www.lordheath.com/Vesey_ODavoren.html ; http://www.cinefania.com/persona.php/Vesey+O'Davoren/en ; https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/154709367/vesey-o'davoren ; & https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/255875-lieut-vesey-a-davoren-suffolk-regiment-confusion-over-death/ Rodolph (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are reliable sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None reliable? Incontrovertible, I'd say. One of them even includes a photo of a newspaper cutting. Is this a matter of taste rather than reliable biography? Rodolph (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper clipping itself would be reliable if we had the actual newspaper. But the clipping does not say what newspaper it came from, and it's published on a web forum, which as user-generated content is not reliable. More broadly, notability is not the same thing as WP:ITEXISTS. The subject of a biography must have received significant coverage, not just coverage full stop, to qualify for an article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user-generated content, how else do articles get written then if not by users? Rodolph (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

are you saying the whole article was made up, that Davoren is as real as Peppa Pig? Rodolph (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm saying that we can't rely on self-published or user-generated content as sources for Wikipedia articles. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT based on my WP:BEFORE and the sources currently in the article. TJMSmith (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the info that made him notable was deleted, so here it is as a reminder:

'He enrolled in the British Army's 7th Suffolk Regiment, under the command of Colonel Charles Douglas Parry Crooke. In October 1915 his Company (B) was massacred in action around the Hohenzollern Redoubt, just after the Battle of Loos.

The 7th Battalion of the Suffolk Regiment's War Diary,[5] 13 October 1915, states that:

Davoren ... was wounded [shot in foot and then side] in the action on the Hohenzollern Redoubt on October 11th, but continued to lead his Company until killed by a shot from a machine gun.

-Officers Killed

Major Currey (Vere Fortrey), ("an unsurpassed linguist". Killed commanding ‘B’ Company in the first attack upon the south side of the “Hair-pin”);

Captain Cobbold (Charles Augustus), (a pre-war director of the brewing magnates Ind, Coope and Co.);

Captain Sorley (Charles Hamilton) (the poet);

Lieutenant Gedge (Peter);

Lieutenant Wood (Geoffrey Dayrell);

2/Lieutenant Hartopp (Charles William Liddell);

2/Lieutenant Lee (Richard).

-Severely wounded

2/Lieutenant Smith (Donald Claude) died that day.

-Officers Wounded

Major Henty (George Herbert), (died 30 Nov. 1917)

and

Lieutenant Davoren (V. A.) [only survivor].

Davoren was rescued, carried for two miles, by Sergeant-Major Martin, of Bury.[6]

Film career

In his youth, as an undergraduate, before World War One he acted in Dublin's Abbey Theatre.[7] In the 1914-1919 war he was wounded thrice and was at one time reported dead. He temporarily lost his voice in a German mustard gas attack, and was given six months to live if he moved to a dry climate. He arrived in Hollywood, California, with his wife in 1920 where he acted in silent films before recovering his voice. He also directed plays and was in an early Hollywood Bowl production of The Pied Piper, taking the title role. He had changed his name to O'Davoren on arriving in America, on applying for U.S. Citizenship, perhaps aware of the romanticism of the Clann O'Dabhoireann and the American fondness for things Irish.[8] Between 1927 and 1957, he appeared in circa 67 films, mostly as butlers.[7][9]'Rodolph (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodolph What part of this is the part you're pointing at to show notability? -- asilvering (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being with his wife the lead photo & caption of the front page of The Sun and The New York Herald of Sunday 9 May 1920 (see https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030273/1920-05-09/ed-1/seq-25/) seems notable.Rodolph (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" isn't quite the same thing as "being famous". But additionally, that's about his wife. He's not even in that photograph. -- asilvering (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davoren is in the photo, twice even, the death mask is of him.Rodolph (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only see the death mask, twice. The guy on the left isn't Davoren. So no, Davoren is not in this photograph, as far as I can tell. But either way, that's all this is - a photograph and an image caption. Is there anything you can find of him in, for example, books about early film actors? Or the silent film scene in LA? You mentioned his house in LA, is there information on that that could be relevant? I think the newspapers have been plumbed about as thoroughly as they can be at this point, and none of them look like significant coverage (they just briefly say that he is significant, as a person). We're all obviously striking out just searching for his name, but I don't think Googling his name would turn up, for example, a reasonably extended section on him in a printed book about early 20thc movie actors. -- asilvering (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said he was in the photo. He is in the front page montage, twice. The house, the details were listed in the refs/footnotes, have a look. 21:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolph (talk • contribs)

Keep I think there are enough reliable sources to prove notability. For example this archived page from South Dublin Libraries https://web.archive.org/web/20171206192945/http://ourheroes.southdublinlibraries.ie/node/16364 where he is described as "a famous Hollywood actor". His marriage in 1916 to Ivy de Verley was reported in British newspapers like the Daily Mirror and The Tatler. His arrival in America in 1920 was reported in US newspapers https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030273/1920-02-15/ed-1/seq-23/ where he was described as an "Irish Aristocrat" https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86076142/1920-02-27/ed-1/seq-3/ descended from the Duke of Wellington. A few sources report that he his wife created a "Life Mask" of him https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030273/1920-05-09/ed-1/seq-25/ as he thought he was dying due to gas poisoning in WWI and he wanted to know what his death mask would look like https://archive.org/details/ccarm_002011/page/n8/mode/1up Piecesofuk (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more sources that may contribute to his notability: British Film Institute Filmography https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2ba8e9a746 and Turner Classic Movies biography https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/143143%7C150644/Vesey-O'davoren (you might need a VPN to access this site) Piecesofuk (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a husband to a notable person, doesn't appear to be notable himself. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't a sign of notability (who are we/you to ascertain what or who is notable, anyway?), but it shows he existed: ( https://www.fold3.com/document/8439819/declaration-of-intention-1926-naturalizations-ca-southern ) Rodolph (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are exactly the people to judge notability. Notability is a Wikipedia guideline—it's not a philosophical judgment on a person's worth or significance. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davoren was passed as notable in March 2018.. Why not now? What has changed?19:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolph (talk • contribs)

~~Delete~~. Well, I tried. I do think it's quite possible that there's some reasonable amount of coverage in a print book somewhere, and a way to find that might be via the house (for a local history book) or via the long list of minor movie credits (something in a book on the LA silent film scene, maybe). His easily misspelled name surely isn't helping, either. I'm not terribly inclined towards advocating deletion for historical figures with factual, non-polemic biographies, but the sourcing here is thin enough that I'm not convinced that's what we're looking at, and more doesn't seem to be forthcoming. I'm concerned that the only information we have for his death is the findagrave website. I do find it very odd that a 100-year-old man who had been a film actor of any note could die in 1989 without an obituary in the newspapers, though of course that isn't completely impossible. I'd be happy (relieved, even) to switch this vote to keep if anything further is found. Update: striking my !vote; obituary found. I don't know that we can truthfully call any of this "significant coverage", but at least it's no longer entirely passing mentions. If someone wants to turn this into a well-sourced stub, I'm not going to be getting in their way. (asilvering (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)) -- asilvering (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is stuff in a printed source, see the footnotes, the Suffolk Regiment's WW1 war diary. This man's notability is cumulative. Surviving the Western Front, having been said dead, and then re-inventing himself in the USA, being in dozens of films and then living to 100. None perhaps 'notable' but as a whole it is. His WW1 was notable.Rodolph (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What we're trying to establish here is notability based on significant coverage, according to Wikipedia's guidelines. None of that is significant coverage; it's a series of facts or assertions about his life. The relevant section is here: WP:SIGCOV. If you have additional evidence that you believe meets this, please share it! Regarding your earlier Davoren was passed as notable in March 2018, can you explain what you mean by this? -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. Interesting point re lack of obit. People who excessively outlive their contemporaries can often be slightly unduly forgotten.Rodolph (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re Asilverlining: 'Regarding your earlier Davoren was passed as notable in March 2018, can you explain what you mean by this?', by that I mean that I assumed (as one is told that so & so from 'bio verification' (or some-such name) had checked it) that new articles were assessed by various roaming editors, and therefore that when the article was posted in March 2018 someone must have approved it. Rodolph (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was likely new page patrol. A reviewer from new page patrol or articles for creation may mark an article as reviewed but nothing prevents other editors who perceive issues with the article from tagging it with a maintenance tag, proposing it for deletion, or nominating it for deletion, as here. Being marked as reviewed on creation does not mean an article is "approved" forever. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy de Verley, Mrs Davoren, her portrait (dated 1924 or 1927) of Nola Luxford is in New Zealand's National Library, Wellington.Rodolph (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of Ivy de Verley's mask portrait of James McBey, is in the collection of Aberdeen Archives, Gallery & Museums (Scotland)

Aberdeen Archives' quote: 'Artist Info - Ivy de Verley was born in Jamaica, West Indies on 27 July 1879. She lived in London, England for many years and studied in Berlin, before returning to Jamaica. Her Jamaican studio was destroyed by an earthquake in 1920, at which time she moved to Los Angeles. During the 1920s and 30s Ivy painted "mask" portraits and was active in the local art scene as the wife of actor Captain Vesey O'Davoren. She died in Los Angeles on 27 December 1963.' ( https://emuseum.aberdeencity.gov.uk/objects/139170/mask-portrait-of-james-mcbey-photograph-album-belonging-t?ctx=a162be231c3a02d15d6988782e012d5c6b4b8c42&idx=0 ) Rodolph (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy's pastel portrait of Halliwell Hobbes was sold on 31 May 2017, at Burstow & Hewett, East Sussex (UK).Rodolph (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, but all that does is bolster the notability claim for THE WIFE, not THE HUSBAND. I suggested above that the information about her could be put in its own article, as she's clearly more notable than he is based on your own evidence. Even the nominator says he found the page while searching for information about the wife. Intothat darkness 00:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy de Verley now exists, so any and all additional information about her can be added to that page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Maybe now she can garner the respect she deserves instead of being buried in this article. Intothat darkness 03:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This respectable Friends of the Suffolk Regiment blog describes the action at the Hairpin during the Battle of Loos, in October 1915 ( https://www.friendsofthesuffolkregiment.org/operation-legacy/the-hairpin ).

Alongside Davoren that day were Charles Sorley and Vere Fortrey Currey ( https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/93077 ).

Davoren was the only one of the 10 officers of his Company (B), of the 7th battalion of the Suffolk Regiment, to survive that day, & himslef had been reported killed. Rodolph (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find nothing that carries significant coverage about him and I've looked for several days. Lots of one line mentions for various films in both archive.org and newspapers.com. I did find the original source for this blog. While we cannot use the blog as it is self-published, we could use the original book. Also found this clipping that says he was interviewed as part of a 1986 cable TV series Old Hollywood as Seen Through the Eyes of Her Senior Residents, Section V, p 1 and Section V, p 6 and a single line, not even a proper obit that confirms the death date. Short of going to a library that might have non-digitized records on him, or finding a transcript or review of his 1986 interview, there just doesn't seem to be enough information available to write a detailed biography from available published and curated secondary sources. SusunW (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times, 24 November 1986, page 59 (by Ann Japenga):' One of the video's subjects is Vici O'Davoren, 98. After inhaling poisonous gas in World War I, O'Davoren lost his ability to speak. So he came to Hollywood to act small parts in silent films, a resourceful move since he didn't regain his speech for seven years. Like the other characters in the video [made by Lyn Picallo & Wendy Robbins], he talks mostly about Hollywood as home, not as a sprawling movie studio, says Robbins. ' (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-11-24-vw-12858-story.html) Rodolph (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to Vesey & Ivy O'Davoren's extraordinary LA home (2049-N-Las-Palmas-Ave_Los-Angeles_CA_90068), this sale particulars includes photos of them therein. https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2049-N-Las-Palmas-Ave_Los-Angeles_CA_90068_M12539-92962#photo5 Rodolph (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FULLER listing, more photos: https://www.estately.com/listings/info/2049-n-las-palmas-avenue--1 Rodolph (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TOPANGA YACHT CLUB, Topanga, California: 2021-08-05 The Malibu Times - "The Topanga Yacht Club" by Pablo Capra :(https://lowertopangaarchive.blogspot.com/2021/08/2021-08-05-malibu-times-topanga-yacht.html), here's the main part of their article, some of which is correct: 'In 1924, the Los Angeles Athletic Club bought Topanga Beach with the intention of building a Yacht Harbor. To promote the cause, British actor Captain Vesey O’Davoren (1888-1989) founded the Topanga Yacht Club in 1928. He proudly claimed descent from two English Prime Ministers, William Pitt (1708-1778) and “Iron Duke” Arthur Wellesley (1769-1852), as well as a family of medieval Irish scholars. His title, Captain, came from serving in the British Royal Air Force during World War I, where he was injured several times, including by a mustard gas attack that left him voiceless. In 1920, he left England, for better acting opportunities in Hollywood. He could still work because films were silent, and recovered his voice in time for the advent of sound films in 1927, but mostly played butlers. He did not live at Topanga Beach. Hardly any of the Club’s members did. Topanga was simply a preferred shelter for small boat owners before the Bay had marinas or breakwaters. USC students turned the social club into a racing team in 1930, with O’Davoren remaining its leader, or Commodore....The Club’s first officer, Helene Raymond (1878-1951), lived at Topanga Beach. She was the nation’s number two archer and an old friend of O’Davoren, who’d previously served on the California State Archery Association...' Rodolph (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rodolph at this point you're WP:BLUDGEONing the process. To quote: "If you have been accused of bludgeoning the process, then take a look at the discussion and try to be objective before you reply. If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear." I suggest you stop and let this AFD take its course. Mztourist (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree, and might ask you not to bully me. I have been finding NEW information, or clarifying things, or helping you to see info that had been obscured by other deletions, in an attempt to prevent a great wrong.Rodolph (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not bullying you in any sense. Did you even read the quote from BLUDGEON? Have you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? I suggest you stop or this will go to ANI. Mztourist (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I have posted fresh info on the subject and am not trying to bludgeon anyone. Finding more info seems a good thing to do and to say that is bludgeoning others feels like victim blaming, in that O'Davoren is the victim and needs defending. Ergo not bludgeoning but self-defence. Sorry if that has bored you. Rodolph (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is demonstrated the notability of the wife, which led to the creation of an article covering her. Your repeated postings could easily be seen as bullying those who disagree with you. Mztourist is correct...take a step back and take comfort in the fact that this led to the recognition of a woman's notability (something you commented on early in the process), even if that wasn't your original objective. Intothat darkness 14:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I never assumed that I was remotely vexing anyone. I just like information and thought that it had better be enthusiastically aired, and that some of the finer points of Davoren's notability are being missed. What is there not to like? It is a shame that my joining in is seen as threatening. Rodolph (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I understand the problem. By British standards Davoren is easily notable; Irish-English-Suffolk-Hollywood, etc. If he was to be judged by just UK standards, or if he was Polish and this page was say Polish Wiki, he'd be without doubt in, but English is international so his notability has to compete with global English thus worldwide and amongst editors/people who may not hold WWI in as much awe as the English/British/Irish do. Rodolph (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, its just that he fails WP:BASIC globally. Mztourist (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am utterly baffled by your responses on this AfD. What everyone is either trying to find, or has given up on finding (and thus called for "delete"), is significant coverage that establishes the notability (in Wikipedia terms) of the subject. The full guideline pages are here: WP:N for everything, and WP:BIO for people. You appear to be responding based on some other definition of "notable" that is not found in either place, or in any of the other sub-guidelines people have linked you to. It isn't "notable" to have many film roles, unless they are major roles. It isn't notable to have survived WWI when others died. It isn't notable to have a house in LA. It isn't notable to immigrate to the USA. It isn't notable to have a notable wife. It isn't notable to be a descendent of William Pitt. That doesn't mean that he isn't interesting, that he never existed, that none of the information you've provided is true, or that we're trying to perform a damnatio memoriae. It just means that he does not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia entry. -- asilvering (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In 1989 Variety published an obituary of Vesey Alfred Davoren. In fact a chunk of text in this article was a copyright violation of the obituary so I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up yet. I've added the source and some information and removed the copyvio from the article. Unfortunately this obituary isn't accessible without access to the Variety archives (some libraries might have this). Aside from this obituary, sources are incredibly weak and passing. The article needs MAJOR clean up, which once done will relegate it to a stub most likely. I think the existence of the obituary probably invalidates a lot of the arguments above (which I agreed with until this popped up in my search). Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a helpful source, but a single obituary is not WP:THREE in-depth sources. I'd reconsider my nomination if there were even one more in-depth source. However, 5.5 paragraphs in one notable source does not notability make, IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am under no illusions that this article will likely always be a stub with a handful of sources supporting it. However, Variety is pretty much the paper of record for Hollywood. An obituary there counts for a lot. We also have an entry in this book (now added to article) along with the many passing mentions and filmographies elsewhere. That should do it. (Sidenote: WP:THREE is just an essay and one that many misunderstand. It is about using the best three sources to support information or an article rather than providing a larger number of sources that editors do not have time to go through. Mistakenly, people use this to argue that three RS are needed to give notability. Always leaves me scratching me head.) Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree that this is enough but we're at the border line and it comes down to individual takes on the sources. WP:THREE is good shorthand for notability: one bit of WP:SIGCOV is clearly not enough, two is getting there and probably enough for notability, and three seals it. Three good sources is a good rule of thumb for notability and I'm comfortable citing the essay for that view. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an obituary in Classic Images from 1989 but I don't think it's been digitized. It's fine if you have your own standard of needing three reliable sources to determine notability. It is just bizarre to quote the WP:THREE essay (literally called Three Best Sources) which does not make this argument at all. I have actually abided by the spirit of this essay by only providing the "best" sources I have found - otherwise I would have refbombed every passing mention. Please see the author's clarifying note where he says This was never intended to set a standard that three good sources is either a necessary or sufficient condition for a topic to be considered notable. 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir.copic (talk • contribs)
Maybe the author wanted the standard to be higher then that. Otherwise, what should it be? Three bad sources? One or two bad ones? One good one and two bad ones? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your find of the obituary got me trawling back through the passing newspaper mentions again, and while I still didn't find anything sizeable, there is this LA Times article (20 June 1934: 10) that describes him and three others (one of whom has a wikipedia page) as "well-known actors" (my italics), distinct from the other "players" mentioned afterwards. That's at least better than what I found earlier, which mostly just established "he is an actor", full stop. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the WP:ANYBIO thresholds as an actor or soldier. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Due to WP:HEY. Thanks to the folks who have greatly improved the article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage about him building a boat in his backyard, and who he is related to and married to. ^[1] Minor coverage in places like ^[2] as he and two others sail to New York saying they are fed up with English producers. 84 newspaper.com search results to go through. They considered him important enough to mention all sorts of things about him. And with the obituary Vladimir.copic found, that's enough to convince me he is notable. He lived to be 100 years old. Dream Focus 07:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- [1] is local media coverage and focusses on the boat rather than the individual. [2] is a brief passing mention. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "1 Sep 1937, 28 - The Los Angeles Times at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2021-12-03.
^ "15 Feb 1920, Page 23 - New York Herald at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2021-12-03.

Keep Many roles over many years in many notable productions. Exceeds Entertainers. His obituary in Variety is clear enough. Notability depends on existence of sources, not what is cited in the article or available on line. Finding materials going back a century is daunting. User:RoySmith/Three best sources is simply one user's essay, and not policy. WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended, only marginally relevant discussion
7&6=thirteen I often see you citing WP:Preserve in AfDs discussions as a reason to keep articles. In this particular case the discussion doesn't have anything to do with the content of the article and that's what WP:Preserve is about. So can you clarify how it's relevant? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] The article was created at considerable effort. It contains a lot of information useful to our readers. One should err on the side of keeping too much of the irrelevant, and not on deleting the relevant. WP:Not paper applies too. While I WP:AGF, you might read the linked pages so we can avoid this rhetorical question in the future. The article is now amply sourced, which should be a consideration. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] If you do AGF, you might do well to assume others have read and considered those linked essays. The article appears to be an outgrowth of the creator's interest in genealogy, which while labor-intensive does not guarantee notability. I, for one, have always been dubious of the obituary standard. Obituaries are not fact-checked to any degree, and are often produced either prior to death by the individual concerned or otherwise curated by family members. Intothat darkness 19:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Likewise, you "might do well to assume others have read and considered those linked essays." Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander That there is a disagreement about the consequences of such consideration means we disagree. Your claim that this obituary was not fact checked sounds like pure personal supposition to me. WP:OR, WP:Synth. WP:Verifiabilty not WP:Truth. Ipse dixit butters no parsnips here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] And once again you resort to a wall of meaningless wiki-links. I was referring to the obituary standard in general and the fact that not all of them are fact-checked. Therefore I question their reliability as sound sources. And I find it quite ironic that you would link an essay about dogmatic statements. Intothat darkness 21:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] 7+6=13, It's hard for me to assume good faith when you discounted WP:THREE in your "vote" because it's an essay and then cited multiple essays in your subsequent comments to support your opinion. Also, it's rather bad faithed to call my question rhetorical. It's perfectly reasonable to ask why someone is citing a guideline for a reason to keep the article that has absolutely nothing to do with notability or the AfD process. And I was wanting an answer about it. So in no was it rhetorical. Outside of that, from what I can tell Variety has an extremely low to possibly non-existing bar for who they do an obituary on outside of the person acting in a movie. Even if it's a single, supporting role. So there's reason to use them writing an obituary for this person as some kind of notability indicator. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Your continued ~~soliloquy~~ duet has devolved into diatribe, resembling a personal attack. Given your history, I am not surprised; but it is neither persuasive nor helpful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Your defensiveness, calling my message a diatribe, and bringing up my history (whatever that is), instead of taking my question as a good faith effort to understand how WP:Preserve relates to AfDs could be considered a personal attack. I'm not surprised given your history of randomly insulting me when I ask you good faithed questions. Of course none of it has been productive. Usually the productive way to deal with being asked a question that you don't have an answer to is to just say so and move on. Not turn it into a personal battle with multiple people. Otherwise, this kind of unproductive, needless head butting and "diatribes" are bound to happen. Maybe don't be so triggered by someone showing curiosity toward you next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] 7&6=thirteen, could you please change "duet" to "trio"? I agree with Adamant1's reply, and it is disappointing to see that your behaviour hasn't improved despite the recent AN/I visits. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Talking of music, O'Davoren's great-great-grandfather Rev Michael Davoren (died 1810) was collated to the Chantership of Kilfenora, parish of Noughaval and Carrane, County Clare, Ireland, in 1790.Rodolph (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended, only marginally relevant discussion

7&6=thirteen I often see you citing WP:Preserve in AfDs discussions as a reason to keep articles. In this particular case the discussion doesn't have anything to do with the content of the article and that's what WP:Preserve is about. So can you clarify how it's relevant? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created at considerable effort. It contains a lot of information useful to our readers. One should err on the side of keeping too much of the irrelevant, and not on deleting the relevant. WP:Not paper applies too. While I WP:AGF, you might read the linked pages so we can avoid this rhetorical question in the future.

The article is now amply sourced, which should be a consideration.

Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you do AGF, you might do well to assume others have read and considered those linked essays. The article appears to be an outgrowth of the creator's interest in genealogy, which while labor-intensive does not guarantee notability. I, for one, have always been dubious of the obituary standard. Obituaries are not fact-checked to any degree, and are often produced either prior to death by the individual concerned or otherwise curated by family members. Intothat darkness 19:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, you "might do well to assume others have read and considered those linked essays." Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander That there is a disagreement about the consequences of such consideration means we disagree. Your claim that this obituary was not fact checked sounds like pure personal supposition to me. WP:OR, WP:Synth. WP:Verifiabilty not WP:Truth. Ipse dixit butters no parsnips here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And once again you resort to a wall of meaningless wiki-links. I was referring to the obituary standard in general and the fact that not all of them are fact-checked. Therefore I question their reliability as sound sources. And I find it quite ironic that you would link an essay about dogmatic statements. Intothat darkness 21:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7+6=13, It's hard for me to assume good faith when you discounted WP:THREE in your "vote" because it's an essay and then cited multiple essays in your subsequent comments to support your opinion. Also, it's rather bad faithed to call my question rhetorical. It's perfectly reasonable to ask why someone is citing a guideline for a reason to keep the article that has absolutely nothing to do with notability or the AfD process. And I was wanting an answer about it. So in no was it rhetorical. Outside of that, from what I can tell Variety has an extremely low to possibly non-existing bar for who they do an obituary on outside of the person acting in a movie. Even if it's a single, supporting role. So there's reason to use them writing an obituary for this person as some kind of notability indicator. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued ~~soliloquy~~ duet has devolved into diatribe, resembling a personal attack. Given your history, I am not surprised; but it is neither persuasive nor helpful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your defensiveness, calling my message a diatribe, and bringing up my history (whatever that is), instead of taking my question as a good faith effort to understand how WP:Preserve relates to AfDs could be considered a personal attack. I'm not surprised given your history of randomly insulting me when I ask you good faithed questions. Of course none of it has been productive. Usually the productive way to deal with being asked a question that you don't have an answer to is to just say so and move on. Not turn it into a personal battle with multiple people. Otherwise, this kind of unproductive, needless head butting and "diatribes" are bound to happen. Maybe don't be so triggered by someone showing curiosity toward you next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, could you please change "duet" to "trio"? I agree with Adamant1's reply, and it is disappointing to see that your behaviour hasn't improved despite the recent AN/I visits. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of music, O'Davoren's great-great-grandfather Rev Michael Davoren (died 1810) was collated to the Chantership of Kilfenora, parish of Noughaval and Carrane, County Clare, Ireland, in 1790.Rodolph (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's the obituary, which I guess is something, but it's hardly enough on it's own to justify keeping the article. Sure he's acted in a lot of things. 99% of his appearance seem to be pretty trivial roles though. For instance he played a butler like 26 times, a ship steward 7, and was a voice at a station once. All of those are pretty insignificant bit parts. So I don't really think anyone can argue the notability criteria for actors should apply to him. It's not surprising there isn't much in the references about him either considering that most of his roles were extremely low tier. In the meantime people can find the information that's in his obituary from the actual obituary or IMDB. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Obits are not slamdunk evidence of notability. If that is the best we can do then this doesnt pass N. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources have surfaced during this AfD to suggest notability, if obscure now (notably does not expire). Many sources need to be tossed and the remaining kept from which a short article can be written. I'm always more impressed when a reliable third party source directly asserts notability: "well-known actors" is a 'significant' statement of notability per GNG. Another source: "a famous Hollywood actor". Given this, and the age of the topic difficulty of finding old sources, I think the right thing is keep for now and rewrite with the best sources. Rodolph will need help, it's unclear they have a solid grasp on what is a good source, when to include something or not, and copyvio concerns. -- GreenC 23:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources (in particular the early 20th century newspaper articles) provided do appear to bring this subject over the notability threshold, just. I considered a merge to his wife as an alternative to deletion but ultimately feel the sources establish sufficient independent notability. Polyamorph (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as enough reliable sources coverage has been identified for a pass of WP:GNG such as the Variety obituary and coverage in books and the LA Times imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 07:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing has been greatly improved. Notability has been demonstrated. Wonderful job to those that dug for material. Thriley (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thriley, Atlantic306, Polyamorph, et al. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, article has been improved significantly since the nomination NemesisAT (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, interesting history worth keeping. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~ I see one obituaries. I checked it. I can only one and assuming WP:AGF it must be good, but the standard for any biographical article is at least two obituaries. I don't see the 2nd one. In fact I can't see one reference that tell me a full life biography of the man. This reference for example has his name and nothing else. Not a senior military man and no indication of being a notable film actor. The Heymann standard being touted by the WP:ARS pile on above doesn't work here, because the references are really atrocious. I don't think it even satisfy WP:THREE and will be broken for the rest of its life. scope_creep^Talk 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The atrocious quality of the references isn't very surprising considering 7&6=thirteen appears to be the main editor of the article since it was nominated for deletion. Hopefully whoever closes this ignores his and other ARS members votes. Since they are clearly meritless. Saying this should be kept because of WP:HEY, which should be disregarded since it's an essay anyway, is a joke. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I never knew it was that, until I got to the Afd. I saw the image on the article on a driveby and thought it might be worth saving but its now plain as day what it is it. It looks like a really poor quality references stich up. There is no reference I put my finger that give some framework of events, for the mans life. Not a single reference is available, which is shame as the man looks really interesting. scope_creep^Talk 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: There is a lot of great editors here, even the ones in ARS, that have created mountains of great articles, reams of them. scope_creep^Talk 20:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he looks like an interesting person. Unfortunately we aren't doing him or the readers of Wikipedia any favors with how the article is though. As far as there being a lot of great editors here, I agree. Which is why I stuck to the current AfD and particular edits in my comment. Outside of that, two of the points that WP:HEY is in expression of are a desire to see quality content on Wikipedia and a belief in a reasonable standard of notability. Neither of which are satisfied here. So WP:HEY clearly doesn't apply. I don't think it's wrong or an insinuation of anything bad about particular editors to say so either. That said, I don't really have that much of a problem with MrsSnoozyTurtle citing WP:HEY because at least she fairly assessed things before voting keep and it's not the only thing her opinion hinges on. Which can't be said for the other places it was used. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who participated in the recent ARS-AN/I debacle advocating for the deletion of ARS (and topic ban for 7&6), I strongly object to editors attempts to turn this AfD into another trial of ARS. It was clear at the last AN/I that editors are sick of the discussion and that those involved should drop the stick. I don't see anything the least bit controversial about the behaviour of ARS-affiliated editors in this discussion excepting some par-for-the-course jostling.

To address some of Scope Creep's issues, I believe the Variety obit and these two sources [39] [40] provide a framework for biography. A second obituary was published in Classic Images but has not been digitised as far as I can tell. I also implore you to actually read User:RoySmith/Three_best_sources and the author's note as the essay does not say what I suspect you think it does - it is an essay about brevity (providing fewer sources) in AfDs not about a minimum number of sources for notability. There is no way to "satisfy WP:THREE" here unless you believe editors should be providing less sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladimir.copic: Where did I say anything about ARS or the ANI complaint in the comment that your responding to? People who are loosely connected to ARS at best aren't now suddenly above approach or exempt from being involved in AfD discussions just because there was an ANI discussion about ARS. If you really want to see the stick about ARS being dropped, then drop it and don't bring the group up in conversations where they weren't being discussed. In the meantime, life goes on. People from ARS are going to interact with people who aren't from ARS and visa versa. That doesn't mean every conversation that involves someone who is a member of ARS has to do with ARS, or that we shouldn't interact with ARS members now because there was an ANI complaint about them. Like they can't be called out or questioned about anything anymore "because ANI complaint" or whatever. Get real. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll WP:AGF here so I'll briefly explain. ~~You~~ MrsSnoozyTurtle added a warning [41] regarding ARS and canvassing (which Adamant1 later readded [42]) on this page when to my mind there was no evidence of canvassing or blind/block voting. ARS or the AN/I was then mentioned in these comments [43] [44] [45] in above discussions. This is all I'll say on the matter as I'll lead by example and drop the stick. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladimir.copic: Wrong, I didn't add the warning. As the diff you linked to shows it was added by MrsSnoozyTurtle. I did bring up ARS, but not in relation to the ANI. The project isn't a taboo subject that people are banned from discussion now just because there was an ANI complaint about it. That said, I only mentioned it in passing and it had nothing to do with the point I was making about HEY not being met. So your the one making this about ARS. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is neither a standard nor a consensus that at least two obituaries must exist for notability and I have no idea where you got the idea that there was. One obituary in a major national newspaper is perfectly sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And which major national newspaper carried an obituary for him? Mztourist (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take it the reference is to ProQuest 1286134366, an obituary in Variety. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say any did in his case, although Variety may count as one (you will note that I have not expressed an opinion either way as to this article). I was answering the general claim that there was some sort of consensus about number of obituaries before some editors believe such a claim. There is no such consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree the military career is not notable, but the film actingi s, even tho the roles were not major. There seem to be enough sources given above to improve the article to clarify the notability . DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some LA newspaper articles from the 1920's about his stage career where he played some larger roles. Probably there's more to be found there. In 1934 the LA Times named him as one of the "well-known actors" appearing in a play. ETA: I added another paragraph for the stage roles; there seem to be a lot of them and not as butlers and bit parts. The "Young Actor Fooled Caster in Aged Role"[46] and "Two Actors Add Greatly to 'Amber'"[47] have WP:SIGCOV enough for him to be a notable WP:NACTOR based on his stage career. He's the subject of the first article and one of "two notable actors" profiled in the second. BBQboffin (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changed it to keep. There has been a lot of work on this article and its still ongoing, even now. There are two obits, both with different dates on his film career, so they look to be good, plus the Google books obit entry on his film career, plus the addition of the coverage from BBQboffin above noting he has some Irish ancestry which gives him deep historical presence plus the long career in film plus the the other works that is still ongoing makes it a good keep. scope_creep^Talk 11:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arrived Homes[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG Behind the moors (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom, no in depth coverage and fails WP:ORG. Suspected undisclosed paid editing with this editor. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whiteguru. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus fais to meet NORG Nosebagbear (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BiggerPockets[edit]

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

Repetitively Created. Fails WP:ORG. Not having Indepth coverage in the WP:RS. Behind the moors (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom, no in depth coverage and fails WP:ORG. I suspect UPE with this editor. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mr. Achilles. Clear consensus for no standalone; redirect as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles Alexandrakis[edit]

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

This is an interesting one. Article on an obscure fictional character entirely unsourced since it was created in 2006. I just created Jennette Lee. She wrote the novel Mr. Achilles, of which Achilles Alexandrakis is the titular character. Lee is certainly notable, Mr. Achilles might be depending on how many reviews are lurking around, but the protagonist of this forgotten novel almost certainly isn't notable. Repurposing to an article on the novel would require hjiacking the title and there's nothing sourced to merge to Jennette Lee or Mr. Achilles (assuming that could legitimately be created). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete if the book is not notable and has no article, the character from such a book should also be not notable. Artem.G (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and redirect. Nothing on GScholar sadly suggests that the novel or its characters are notable. Redirecting to the author's bio could be considered, but the character is not mentioned there at all... I would like to rescue the sentence "Mr Achilles is descriptive of both Chicago's socially prominent and poor immigrant classes." but I couldn't find a reference to verify this is correct. PS. I've added the name of the character to the author's bio, so redirect is valid now. Does anyone have access to [48] - it may contain some more in depth analysis but I get snippet view only :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Hellens and Hellions is on the Internet Archive. Pages 63–65 summarize the plot of Mr. Achilles (you'd just need to sign up for an account to read more than two pages at once). Probably still best to have an article on the book before/instead of an article on the character? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Achilles now exists (turns out it was notable after all) so the obvious choice is now to redirect to Mr. Achilles. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 22:38, 11 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 Draftified (for attribution). There is consensus that functionally the state of this content is not workable or rescuable. In order to provide the attributions, I will draftify this (to its current title).

@Vice regent:, can you amend THIS draft (re-adding your references), and deleting the one you created if you want to move this one. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Scholarship & Learning in Central Asia[edit]

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

This is an unsalvageable essay. How has it survived for over eleven years? Honestly, this is one of the worst Wikipedia articles that I have ever seen. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT deletion per nom. There is probably a notable topic on the history of education in Central Asia, but none of this content would be useful for that. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have copied the material to Draft:Islamic Golden Age in Central Asia, which is certainly a notable topic (see this book from Princeton University Press). I hope I can find the time to work on it.VR _talk 05:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For attribution reasons this page can't be deleted if we want to make use of content from it in another draft. Either it needs to be moved into draftspace at that title to be transformed, or it needs to be retained as a redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No embassies, agreements, state visits, known trade. Lacks third party sources and all there is to these relations is a bit of migration. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not nothing, but less than enough relations and consquently a lack of soruces about it. Geschichte (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spain-Switzerland relations. There isn't enough material to justify notability, except a celebration in Liechtenstein of the Spanish center [49], and Queen Sofia showing up to the funeral of Marie of Liechtenstein [50], which doesn't seem official state business to me. Given that relations between Spain and Liechtenstein are maintained through the Spanish embassy in Berne, Switzerland, and because Switzerland represents Liechtenstein in a variety of treaty negotiations with Spain (starting with the 1923 Spain-Switzerland trade treaty), I favor a merger over a deletion. Pilaz (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, delete. There's just nothing to merge. No mutual embassies, notable relations, and barely any coverage. Switzerland only represents Liechtenstein where it has a representation and Liechtenstein doesn't. I think the factsheets explain that Liechtenstein uses its embassy in Brussels to discuss matters with Spain. A redirect to Spain-Switzerland relations could also probably work, but it's my second preferred option all things considered. Pilaz (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of college football coaches who coached games in stadiums named after themselves[edit]

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

Pure trivia, an intersection that is not covered in independent sources. It's quite usual to name stadiums after long-time coaches, and sometimes that naming is done before they're retired, but that doesn't warrant an article. Reywas92^Talk 05:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I admittedly find this list to be an interesting piece of trivia, I'm afraid that it just isn't notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. I did a Google search on the topic of college football stadiums being named after coaches, and mainly got results which talk about that happening after the coach was no longer coaching for that college. This article's purpose is to show instances of the opposite scenario, where stadiums are named after coaches during a particular coach's tenure with that college, but that appears to be a much rarer scenario, and I don't see enough discussion of it in reliable, secondary sources for it to meet the notability guidelines. --Zander251 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fix the error someone made so the 14 entries load up properly now. I see there is a List of American football stadiums by capacity, List of current National Football League stadiums, Chronology of home stadiums for current National Football League teams, and many other stadium lists. Perhaps a column somewhere could be added to include who it was named after, and an asterisk added to the names of those who were also a coach who played there. There is news coverage on how stadiums got their names. https://thelistwire.usatoday.com/lists/how-top-college-football-stadiums-got-their-names-ncaa-2021/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/how-famous-college-football-stadiums-got-their-names/ss-AANSsPm#image=2 so be something notable to list somewhere. Dream Focus 06:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shocked that this long-standing article with a rich editing history has been nominated. As when the PROD was contested, I quote user:Normal Op 7:47, from April 29, 2020‎:Removed PROD. Every entry is notable enough to have its own article. See also https://mvsusports.com/coaches.aspx?rc=322: "and so Totten became one of a handful of coaches to preside in a stadium named after him". in addition, This article also covers the topic. Sources could be updated as an editing issue as many links are expired, but that's an editing issue not a deletion issue. Surpasses WP:LISTN--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though it is a "phenomenon" that exists, it fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How specifically? Just saying "it fails" means nothing. What criteria or measurement are you using to get to that position? Wikipedia is also not about WP:NOTHING.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Sorry, but it's a trivial intersection. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the deletion argument "it's trivia" (repeated numerous times, including the original deletion rationale) is listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically as being too similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To quote: "Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion." What is the policy or rationale?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have routinely deleted trivial intersections. Mangoe (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no independent reliable sources to suggest this is a notable intersection so fails WP:NLIST. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Several have already been supplied in this discussion. Do you not "find them" or do you not agree that those presented meet the standard? The statment seems like you've not reviewed the data that is already been provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the sources presented discuss this group as a set. The closest we get is a couple of isolated snippets of trivia; these do not provide the required depth of coverage to establish notability of the intersection. The other sources presented discuss individual cases in isolation (but again as snippets of trivia), or the general topic of "how stadia got their name". Nothing I have seen directly discusses "coaches who coached games in stadiums named after themselves", or even "stadia that have been coached in by the person they were named after", and this is what is required for NLIST. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You mean besides the one in USA Today mentioned above? In 2009, Snyder returned to the sidelines and became one of only five coaches in FBS history to coach at the stadium that bears his name. The other four are Bear Bryant (Alabama), Amos Alonzo Stagg (Chicago), Shug Jordan (Auburn) and LaVell Edwards (BYU). ?? Or maybe besides the other one from above How every SEC football stadium got its name Not many coaches get to coach in their namesake venue, but Paul “Bear” Bryant is not your average coach. ... In 1975, the state legislature agreed to add Byrant’s name to the stadium. Bryant’s coaching career ended in 1982, meaning he coached in the stadium “bearing” his name for seven seasons. Besides those two?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's basically a footnote in List of NCAA Division I FBS football stadiums then, perhaps as suggested above to include a column for a namesake. I see no basis for a stand-alone article for this trivia, even if USA Today named them in a sentence. I know most of these aren't FBS, but this cross-categorization has no meaning whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 20:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me ask again: Any reason besides your opinion is that it's "trivia" ? Perhaps something based on a policy or guideline would be nice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me ask again: any reason besides your opinion that this is "long-standing" and with a "rich editing history"? This is a non-notable cross-categorization of "college football coach", "has a stadium named after them", and "coached after the naming occurred", and passing mentions of those does not make "the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon". Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll of course answer--it's the first time you have asked. I hope for the same from you. The rich history of the editing of the article shows the number of edits going back to December 1, 2013. over 9 years. While I started the article, it has had involvement from numerous editors directly and a number of other articles link to this page. The article was nominated for a PROD by Uuser:KingSkyLord and was "de-proded" by Normal Op back on 29 Apr 2020, over a year ago. The editor that issued the PROD failed to submit it to AFD. Now while those aren't necessarily reasons to keep, it does show that the article has been reviewed and patrolled by numerous editors over an extended period of time. To me, that means it is long-standaing and has a rich editing history. But the reason to keep the list is because the sources provided and quoted above show a clear pass of WP:LISTN because a) a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and b) The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - USA Today does nothing more than list 5 FBS coaches (i.e. barely a third of the coaches in this list article) in the context of discussing one individual, and SdS discusses one individual. Neither source discuss the intersection of this list in any depth. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        According to WP:LISTN, that's more than enough.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        One source mentions a group of "FBS coaches" who have coached in a stadium named after them (or should that be bearing their name); others mention the intersection in context of "all (football) coaches". There is no mention of the intersection with "all college football coaches", which is what this list is concerned with. As an aside, should any mentions of this intersection be found, we require more than such trivial passing mentions to be able to say the intersection is sufficiently notable to warrant an article/list. Finally, as Reywas92 rightly points out above, this intersection also fails WP:NOT (as a non-notable cross-categorization). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure listcruft. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. Based on the sources provided above by User:Dream Focus, a list memorializing the namesakes of notable football stadia might be supportable (and interesting/useful), but the focus here strikes me as unnecessarily narrow. Cbl62 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add a "namesake" column (or something similar) to List of American football stadiums by capacity. Cbl62 (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that's where the discussion is going, so inclusion of the information would be a good move.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a List of college football stadiums named after coaches might be discussed enough, this detail is too much of a trivial intersection. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely esoteric and trivial scope. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN: “ One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.” The sources provided so far have only been passing mentions/one sentence worth of “coverage”: thus also failing WP:GNG. WikiJoeB (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The “rich history” of editing history of an article is not a reason to keep it. In past AfDs, we have deleted long-standing articles with numerous edits made to them. WikiJoeB (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the "rich history" comment of mine is not (by itself at least) a reason to keep, which I stated above. It does show that there has been peer review over time, and that's something that should be considered.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/projectify or refactor. The deletion arguments noting the scant sourcing supporting the notability of this subject as narrowly drawn are strong. What if we refactor this article to be something like List of college football stadiums named after coaches, which is a simpler intesection of variables and more likely to find broad sourcing?. Then those coaches who coached in a stadium named after them could be noted somewhere within that article. Otherwise, I would support userfying this article to Paulmcdonald's user space or projectifying it to WikiProject College football as it could be a useful resource for building articles about the relevant stadiums and coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ugh. Not only absurdly trivial, but fails both the GNG and LISTN -- as others have stated, there's just no coverage out there discussing this as a concept. Nor is the "rich history" argument something I want to hear from an admin who's spent as much time at AfD over the years as Paul McDonald has -- it's profoundly tone-deaf, and we would have unkind things to say to a newbie who used it. Ravenswing 18:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list fails WP:LISTN. The "rich history" argument is not valid if the content is trivial and does not have encyclopedic value. Whoever tries to defend his unpopular line of reasoning should stop making pointy comments. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Unanimous consensus to keep "My Tears Ricochet", "Epiphany". "Peace" and "TIMT" not unanimously !voted to be kept, but clearly no consensus to delete. Any future AFDs of these two should be done separately so they can be assessed on their own merits. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Tears Ricochet[edit]

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

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

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

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

These four songs are from Taylor Swift's 2020 album Folklore. The album is a notable record, but these four songs are not. Per WP:NSONGS, If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

The only sources that are not album reviews in these articles are one unreliable self-published site ("PopSugar") and two primary sources ("tunebat" and "musicnotes.com"), and interpretations of primary sources are potentially WP:OR. If you install User:Headbomb/unreliable.js, you will see the PopSugar source being highlighted as unreliable. These four song articles should be merged or redirected to the album article Folklore. Ippantekina (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "My Tears Ricochet", no opinion on other three: I'm only giving my input on My Tears Ricochet as that is the article that I am familiar with and I'm not presently interested in judging the quality of the other three articles as it stands. While, yes, the article does not meet WP:NSONGS, I would argue it meets WP:GNG. Folklore, as an album, recieved quite a significant amount of coverage, and while not every track on it is necessarily notable, I would argue "My Tears Ricochet" is, as it has recieved significant coverage, even if that coverage is from album reviews of Folklore.

The article consists of about 789 words by my reckoning (excluding the lengthy Swift quote in the background and release section), and even assuming half of that would be unnecessary in the Folklore article, this still leaves nearly 400 words (394.5) of the article that would be merged into Folklore (as per WP:NSONGS, this material would be contained in the album article), to an area of the "Songs" section that currently consists of 67 words on "My Tears Ricochet". In my view, merging the articles would be unnecessary, and simply give undue weight to "My Tears Ricochet" to account for its notability. --LivelyRatification (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The background and reception sections are negligible -- reception of the song in the context of album reviews is redundant. Music and lyrics can be reasonably merged without fear of cluttering the Folklore article, which still has ample space for readable prose. 00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep "My Tears Ricochet" and "Epiphany", Redirect "Peace", and Abstain on "This Is Me Trying" Keep "MTR" per above, and keep Epiphany because of these three sources showing that there is enough non-trivial sources for the song. There are not enough of these for "Peace".

Except for the Insider source (which covers the album, not this song), the other two do not mention "My Tears Ricochet" specifically anywhere. It is a documentary on the album making. Ippantekina (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are for "Epiphany". TheCartoonEditor (talk) (contribs) 13:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to comment on "TIMT" as I created the article, but I believe there are enough sources to have that page pass WP:GNG as well. TheCartoonEditor (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles may meet GNG, but NSONGS is a more particular set of criteria for this specific category of popular music. Ippantekina (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NSONGS does not override GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. All appear to meet GNG, with plenty of properly sourced song specific content. While most of the sources for "Peace" do discuss the song in the context of the album, the article on Folklore is already quite long, which makes a merger suboptimal. As for the use of PopSugar as a source in the "Peace" article, why not swap it out for the original Rolling Stone interview?--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RS interview is about the album, and it is a primary source. Not that primary sources are unacceptable, but if the only significance is derived from interviews, then it is insignificant. Ippantekina (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally familiar with PopSugar, and cannot attest to its reliability one way or the other, but looking through the reliable sources noticeboard, there does not appear to be a consensus that it is unreliable. In that case, it would qualify as significant coverage in a secondary source about the song "Peace" itself. That being said, I would otherwise be fine with merging if Folklore's article size was not already ~~WP:TOOBIG~~ rather large. As it stands, the article's size is already at a level where ~~a split is recommended~~ WP:SIZERULE suggests the article "May need to be divided".--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Amended comments upon further evaluation.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you install this script you will see PopSugar deprecated. Per SIZERULE Folklore's readable prose is still open to expansion (of course there needs work done) Ippantekina (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the RfC where it was deprecated? None of the times it was brought up at the reliable sources noticeboard was there a consensus that it was unreliable, though I will concede none of these discussions had significant participation. As such, PopSugar cannot be said to be deprecated on Wikipedia. As far as the length of Folklore's readable prose per SIZERULE is concerned, it is currently in the grey area where SIZERULE suggests it "May need to be divided". It would stay in that grey area with the merger of any one of these articles, but the merger of all four would almost certainly bring it past the point where SIZERULE recommends it "Probably should be divided".--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) If a source is straight-up unreliable (no editorial oversight or self-published blog) then it is pretty straightforward. PopSugar is one such source; most likely the editor who creates the script decides so. 2) I said "there needs work done" if we cut down the "Commercial performance" section (WP:CHARTTRAJ) and scattered quotes throughout the article, it is possible. That is not to mention much of the "Critical reception" and "Impact and legacy" sections should be c/e'd (WP:RECEPTION) to avoid "A said, B said, C said" format. Ippantekina (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that one user "decides so", does not mean that the source is deprecated. I am not familiar enough with the site to attest to its reliability one way or the other, but if you feel that the source is in fact unreliable, this is an issue that you should raise at the reliable sources noticeboard, as PopSugar is used as a source in a lot more articles than the ones being discussed in this AfD. If what you say is true, and writers are able to publish articles without editorial oversight, then the source should be deprecated and it should not be used as a source. If however, there is editorial oversight, its use in these articles is perfectly acceptable.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. They meet WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. All of the articles pass WP:GNG, plus Folklore is doing good in its current shape. Ronherry (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. This should have never been a bundled nomination. None of the examples given at WP:MULTIAFD fit this group of articles. While they are all songs on the same album, there is no overlap of content (beyond what's reasonable per WP:FORK) and there are no wider policy issues such as WP:HOAX or WP:SPAM. As such, we are having to evaluate each individual song against our notability guidelines independent of the others. Given that this creates a tangle for the closer and muddies the actual AFD conversation and process, this AFD should be closed for procedural reasons. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination of each individual song in non-multi AFDs.4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only actually valid !vote was Pilaz's which correctly notes that no actual valid deletion reason was given. With no other deletion !votes given, it defaults to keep on these grounds.

However, as there wasn't an actual discussion of, say, notability, this is technically "Keep, without prejudice against immediate renomination" Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya–Spain relations[edit]

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

The article itself mentions that the relations are "not very significant". Philosophy2 (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not entirely true, it mentions that the trade relations is not very significant. And the trade is more significant than what's seen in many other AFDs. Geschichte (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: what's the deletion rationale? All I'm reading between the lines is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Pilaz (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Spain is a major country so I don't see a good reason for deletion here.--Chuka Chief_talk 15:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain being a "major" country does not give it automatic notability in bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus that the relations are notable, with plenty more sourcing to demonstrate it available to be added in Nosebagbear (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namibia–Spain relations[edit]

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

While there are some relations, they are not notable enough for this article to exist. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the article fails WP:PRIMARY and WP:PEACOCK, WP:AFD is not cleanup and the article claims that the relation is notable, at least from a Namibian viewpoint per WP:BIAS. Geschichte (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly well-covered and notable relations for over 30 years. Coverage in Spanish, Namibian, and African publications: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Bilateral treaties: [57], [58] (commentary [59]). Diplomatic frictions over West Sahara: [60]. Pilaz (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Spain was a participant in the United Nations Transition in Namibia [61]; Namibia and Spain also got into a four-year spat after fishermen from Spain were arrested while fishing in Namibian waters. [62], [63], [64], [65]. Pilaz (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is clear consensus that this relationship is notable, as with most others in this theme nominated in a short span of time Nosebagbear (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mozambique–Spain relations[edit]

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

Only mentions regular matters that can be seen between most countries. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perfectly valid topic. Geschichte (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, WP:BORING isn't a valid deletion rationale. At the very least, it's not clear whether the nominator is questioning the notability of the article. Pilaz (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilaz The rationale is that the relations between these nations are just standard relations that you could expect any 2 random UN nations to have. If this article exist, there might as well be thousands of other detailing the relations of every country with every country, which would obviously be an insane idea. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Philosophy2: Per WP:GDBN: The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. No prejudice against a speedy renomination with a policy-based rationale. Pilaz (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the slippery slope argument is invalidized by numerous relations pages having been deleted in the last month. There is no ongoing effort to couple every country in the world, and in this particular case Philosophy2 also grossly misrepresents the character of the relations between Mozambique and Spain.

Wikipedia should definitely have more relations pages, but then again the right relations pages. Look at Template:Foreign relations of Cameroon, for instance. The notion that Cameroon has relations only to 1 other African country is ridiculous, and a substantial effort should be undertaken to add more. Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even most of those articles don't pass the General notability guideline. The only relations pages that should exist are those where the relations have been established and have a history. 2 examples are United Kingdom–United States relations and Greek–Turkish relations. However, if relations don't go past some embassies and a few foreign visits, there is no point on having an entire article about them. Philosophy2 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It only took three messages from the nominator to bless us with a policy-based rationale, so here are my WP:THREE: a "longread" article that discusses Spain-Mozambique relations [66], 40 years of relations and one accord signed on the occasion, from one of Spain's newspapers of record [67], and an article discussing how and why the United States wanted to see deeper relations between Spain and Mozambique [68]. There have been plenty of state visits from Mozambique heads of state to Spain, several cooperation programs in health and development aid, and even in defense training, notwithstanding the brief diplomatic spats that Spain and Mozambique have had over the years. Pilaz (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The formulation of the single policy-based deletion rationale (GNG) coming from the nominator seems to be incredibly prejudiced ("The only relations pages that should exist" (I suppose referring to abiding to GNG) "are those where the relations have been established and have a history. 2 examples are United Kingdom–United States relations and Greek–Turkish relations" and it reads rather as thinly veiled WP:BORING and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article can be improved, but I think that a stub to start-class article about the topic relying on third-party sources is possible, despite still not being to the nominator's liking. If the nominator's idea was to turn the AfD system into a workshop for article improving, they should reduce the frequency of nominations.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have said many times that the article does not need to be improved. There is no problem within the article concerning how it is written or structured. The actual problem is the fact that the existence of the article is a violation of the notability policy. Philosophy2 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Philosophy2: As WP:GNG indicates, "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article has been updated with several citations from reliable sources, such as Spain's major news outlets. In my view, they show that Mozambique-Spain relations meet our notability guidelines. Upon re-reading the article and consulting the sources, do you disagree with my assessment with respect to WP:GNG? If so, why? Pilaz (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamiki Ryunosuke Magazine Features[edit]

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

Non-notable list; this article is an indiscriminate list of all magazines or online interviews that actor Ryunosuke Kamiki is featured in. This list can be used for Template:refideas but definitely doesn't seem notable enough to be its own article. lullabying (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. lullabying (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --lullabying (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lullabying (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because this page also lists non-notable media appearances, such as YouTube videos, and per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture/Archive 4#Eradication of variety show sections, guest appearances are not notable:

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

lullabying (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree per nominator. Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 07:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not encyclopedic material. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTCATALOG. Link20XX (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Benet (computer scientist)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Currently, being used for spamming. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Kchdailian (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage - possibly TOOSOON. Apart from the linked 40-under-40 (which is basically worthless as a source), the best I find is a university alumni club bio and a cryptocoin blog about a Twitter argument Benet had. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No meaningful coverage, all are bare mentions or vanity awards like 40-under-40. A breeding ground for link building. The article itself looks like a paid spam. 45.72.215.55 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appledale, Washington[edit]

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

Apparently this was originally a rail spot, though the current location is at a farmstead. I cannot find any solid evidence of a town. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be just another rail stop that never actually became a town. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis B. Rosenberg[edit]

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

This page was very likely created as part of a COI promotional campaign. The discussion can be found here. While Rosenberg might sound notable from the puffery on his Wikipedia page, the only secondary source about him I could find anywhere on the internet was a Daily Mail editorialized OP-ed about how the Metaverse could be "the end of the world". BrigadierG (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom rational. After looking at other articles created by the originating editor I'm convinced that these were created for promotional reasons rather than improving wikipedia. W C M_email 18:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clear promotionalism, which is enough reason all by itself for deletion. Over-indulgent typical autobiographical content making minor avocations into major activities, and including everything the person would like you to know about themselves. Add to that borderline notability at best, and it's a vey clear delete. The only way to stop this sort of editing is to removehe articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and DGG's persuasive rationale. Ifnord (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, delete, since although a case might be made (for me at least) of notability, this article is quite fluffy. For example, it looks like his degrees were in mechanical engineering, which is fine, but the clear intent is to make him look like an expert in artificial intelligence, a field of computer science. Other circumstantial evidence includes single-purpose accounts, excessive use of capital letters, repetition, citing sources that do not mention the subject and corporate-style wording. the articles Immersion Corporation (written in bullets of historical present) and Unanimous A.I. also need help. One or two well-written neutral articles would be better. W Nowicki (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, reviewing history, it appears the page was stable for a long period but fluffy superfluous content was added more recently related to the various companies mentioned on the page rather than subject of the page. This material, when removed, gets to original intent. Jellostand22 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier version is still very highly promotional of his non-notable career. The added material is just a second layer of the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Jellostand22 is a brand new acccount, very suspicious. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. There are no sources about Rosenberg specifically. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly self-promotionSomeone97816 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Rosenberg[edit]

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

This page was very likely created as part of a COI promotional campaign. The discussion can be found here. The sources for this article are all either poor quality, primary, or do not mention Rosenberg by name. BrigadierG (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Looking at these sources, there is something very fishy going on here. Far too many of these sources don't mention Rosenberg at all. It looks like, at best, this is original research or firsthand knowledge being badly propped-up with tangentially related sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was conflicted on this one as it seemed there seemed to be adequate coverage to justify WP:GNG. As noted by Grayfell there is something not quite right about the article and it appears to have been written by someone with first hand knowledge. It's very promotional in nature, I do feel there is a WP:COI in there and it's not so much sourced as written and then the sources added. So I started looking for sources and other than superficial coverage or coverage in WP:SPS published by activitists I did not find significant coverage. Hence, I don't believe this person meets WP:GNG. W C M_email 18:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC) PS having looked deeper it appears that many of the photos used in the article may well be copy violations. W C M_email 18:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clear promotionalism, which is enough reason all by itself for deletion.Add to that borderline notability at best, and it's a vey clear delete. The only way to stop thissot of editingis to removehe articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage I found was all local newspapers and activist blogs. FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons outlined above. Clearly something not kosher here MaskedSinger (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mexal 1500[edit]

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

I think this is made up, aka a WP:HOAX. Searching doesn't bring up anything at all, or even stuff related to explosives. The article is also a stub with no sources. If found and it proves to have common and known uses and formulations an article could be made, but I think it's extremely unlikely given the lack of any search results. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 01:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also cannot find any information BrigadierG (talk)
Delete - Google Web hits are only mirrors of this wikipedia stub. Google Scholar only returns researchers who have Mexal as a last name, nothing to do with chemistry or explosives. Google News returns more people with the last name. I'm going to guess that someone with the last name of Mexal, or someone who knows someone with this name, decided to make a hoax article for fun. Fieari (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the described compound seems to be Ammonal. If there were any evidence this thing actually existed, we could redirect there, but absent any such evidence, this seems like a hilariously appropriate use of WP:TNT. PianoDan (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is supposedly related to the Cardoen AT mine, which is supposedly discussed in "Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance 2005-2006" ISBN 0710627017. Even if it's not a hoax, it's not notable. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to WP:HOAXLIST as this article has been active since 9 September 2006 wizzito | say hello! 01:46, 11 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 05:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Mongolia relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ten years ago, I tried to explain that there is no actual relations here or any potential. The diff since 2011 shows there's been no substantial change indeed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last AfD is full of keep WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes. The relations are not subject to significant coverage failing WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I'm ordinarily all for deleting bilateral relations pages where there's little evidence of some relations existing, there is clear evidence that the relations between the two countries. Trade is minimal, but the coverage in the sources in the article already indicate that there has been some coverage pertaining to the relation between the two in the context of Croatia's bid for the UNSC and I'm also seeing an English-language paper regarding the impression of Mongolia in Croatia. I'd be curious to see if anyone has checked Mongolian-language sources or (Serbo-)Croatian language sources to see if there is more information on the high level visits that have taken place over the past twenty years that would include WP:SIGCOV of this bilateral relation. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, this is just as ridiculously fringe in Croatian as it is in English. There is no significant coverage of the topic, it's just an exercise in meaninglessness. If you just google "hrvatsko-mongolski odnosi" or "mongolsko-hrvatski odnosi", there are literally zero Croatian sources about it. This topic practically does not exist in Croatian. It's just beyond the pale. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The question is not whether relations exist or are "significant" by some definition, but rather whether significant coverage of the relationship exists. And it does not. Yilloslime (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article and the sources offered seem to support no notable relations. Yes diplomatic relations have been established, but no embassies exist. There were some diplomatic visits to virtually zero practical outcomes. I cannot imagine what the article would be about.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the comments here that there isn't any substantial information to make it worth keeping. FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all to Polygon#Naming, with the exception of Triacontatetragon, about which there is no consensus at the moment given the difference of opinion among the participants who specifically mentioned it. Feel free to speedily renominate triacontatetragon: it seems the article may benefit from being discussed on its own. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icosidigon[edit]

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

Second batch a la Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tetracontaoctagon. Per the arguments made there, suggest redirect all to Polygon#Naming. The polygon pages in this batch (22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 60, 120, 360) also have zero content beyond formulaic information that could be written about a polygon with any number of sides.

Danstronger (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect all for the same reasons I gave in the other AfD. I thought briefly that there might be something salvageable in the 60-, 120-, and 360- cases, because of their connections to the number of degrees in a circle, but checking the articles reveals that the content there is as WP:TNT-worthy as the rest. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If there is anything special about any given number of sides, there's a "properties" column at Polygon#Naming for that info. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per nom. PianoDan (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now there are two (or 22 or 26 or ...) sides to most questions, but on the whole, redirect works for me. (Also, there's a mistake: "The sum of any icosidigon's interior angles is 360 degrees", so off with its head!) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all except Triacontatetragon: Plausible search terms, but nothing to really distinguish them from the generic treatment at Polygon. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revised to exclude Triacontatetragon, since the dedicated Mathematische Annalen article pointed out by JayBeeEll about its constructibility is remarkable (and it's more than a basic application of Gauss–Wantzel theorem or Galois theory, which were known by then). — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21, how long would you say a description of that construction should be? I'm wondering if it would better fit somewhere else. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Triacontatetragon was nominated for deletion back in 2017 and kept. XOR'easter (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Triacontatetragon is the unique one of these that has a reference that is actually about the article subject (rather than about some general principle, which is instantiated in the article for the case of 34 sides). (Apparently it was possible to get a two-page compass and straightedge construction published in Math. Annalen in 1913.) I am skeptical that this amounts to the kind of coverage needed to support an article, but it's at least conceivable. For the others, my feeling is the same as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetracontaoctagon: I see no reason to believe that any of them is notable, all the information in the article is instantiations of general principles properly covered elsewhere, and they should all be redirected. --JBL (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this is 6 !votes for redirects and one abstention. I'm not sure what should happen with tetracontatetragon -- unlike the others, it has a source, but it's not a great source, and I can see the merits both in keeping the article and in redirecting it. --JBL (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The existence of a construction for the 34-gon is trivially equivalent to the existence of a construction for the 17-gon (as well as any other 17*2^n-gon). Either one can be constructed from the other, either by bisecting angles or by taking every other vertex. Naturally any such polygon will have other constructions, but if they don't have historical significance or illustrate a point, including them feels like "indiscriminate collection of information" territory to me. Danstronger (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted under WP:G11 by Espresso Addict. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ram Anant Kulkarni[edit]

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

Indian scientist with zero sources.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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