The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lord (software developer)[edit]

Rob Lord (software developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A remarkably long-standing article that has only been edited by bots for the past seven years. While some projects he has been involved with are certainly notable, I have serious reservations about the guy himself, and the sources that can be found seem to corroborate this first impression, as they mainly concern themselves with Winamp, Songbird or whatever, but scarcely with the subject in a way that has any WP:GNG relevance. To me, this has all the hallmarks of a neglected remnant from a different era, and I think deletion would be the right move. AngryHarpy‍^talk 16:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 16:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 16:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a possible redirect target: Songbird (software). Pavlor (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pavlor, I had considered this, and for a person with a less generic name with no disambiguators, I might've just WP:BOLDly redirected it myself – but is anyone ever going to specifically look up "Rob Lord (software developer)"? I don't find that likely, they'd almost certainly type only Rob Lord, be redirected to Robert Lord and find him in the list. All we would have to do in this case is to turn Songbird blue, and with the short stub itself, I don't think there's all too much to WP:PRESERVE. AngryHarpy‍^talk 05:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This also fails WP:3REFS. I searched for other sources online to see if it could pass this criterion but there only seems to be copies of this article on various clones of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialan (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 June 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 02:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer lit[edit]

Boomer lit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article reflects a literary genre that doesn't exist. It’s a tag on Goodreads. Google Scholar returns nothing of note other than one article which mentions the Goodreads page. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No source indicates that this is an actual genre. KidAd • SPEAK 23:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A neologism that has received pretty much no critical attention. Seems to have originated with this blog. The strongest evidence I could find for its existence was this Telegraph article that outright admits "Boomer lit is relatively hard to come across if you don't know what you're looking for." The few GScholar results I found on it seem to equivocate Boomer lit with matron literature, if a redirect target is sought. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 04:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not inherited, fails GNG. Kieem trra (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with inherited notability? KidAd • SPEAK 16:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd: My guess is that they mean notability isn't inherited, in this case, from matron literature. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No indepth sources available. fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above delete !votes. Two refs from 2013 doesn't cut it. Jusdafax (talk) 03:47, 21 June 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 02:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris E. Janicek[edit]

Chris E. Janicek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This individual is a failed candidate for office, and does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Notice how many citations are to the candidate's own website. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Present criteria does not passes for WP:NPOL. Kieem trra (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does not follows all the norms and is not notable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful election candidates, but nothing else in the article demonstrates that he had preexisting notability for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 20 June 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. Since the article was improved, nobody has challenged the current state. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icebird (band)[edit]

Icebird (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources; the only one given is a link to their website. ~Hiddenstranger (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Funny, their music is definitely a thing but there's absolutely zero coverage out there I could turn up. Fails WP:BAND; WP:GNG; WP:BASIC Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just noting that there was a link to a review of one of the band's albums from Prefix Magazine, an RS, in the article at the time of nomination, which leads me to suggest that the WP:BEFORE work of the prior commenters may not have been thorough. Chubbles (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, as I am sure the nom did not, consider that sufficient to pass the notability guidelines. Not really a WP:BEFORE issue. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reliable sources added.
• Keep Sources provided since above discussion sufficient to demonstrate WP:MUSIC passage. Chubbles (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom . the sources are very funny . No significant coverege on RS : i see No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidence of notability is present in RS provided. HiroRanku (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment SPA Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as references have been added to the article such as Prefix Magazine and Time Out that have independent critical reviews of the band's albums and together constitute a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 8 June 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Terreberry[edit]

Steve Terreberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BLP of a musician and YouTuber, not reliably sourced well enough to override the prior deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Terreberry. Nothing here constitutes an "inherent" claim of notability that would guarantee instant passage of our notability criteria for musicians or YouTubers, so it all comes down to the quality of his sources -- but this is about 75 per cent reference bombed to his own YouTube videos and/or his music metaverifying its own existence on Spotify, which are not notability-building sources. And what's left after that is a mix of unreliable blogs, a tiny WP:BLP1E blip in the context of being invited to tour with a band but backing out due to anxiety and thus not fulfilling NMUSIC's touring criterion, and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people, which does not help to establish his notability as he is not the subject of those sources. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more coverage in real media than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The ref bombing was my fault as I wanted to be clear that these songs were released to Spotify by the artist and the existing sources were poor and likely to change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I only created the article because I believe the subject passes WP:GNG. I agree the refbombing was unnecessary, and the YouTube sources do not contribute to notability, but are usable per WP:PRIMARYCARE. I'm not sure which sources you consider blogs, but the subject has featured in MetalSucks^[1][2][3][4] (generally reliable per WP:RSMUSIC), MusicRadar^[5][6] (seems editorially sound, reliable per WP:RSINSTRUMENT), Metal Injection^[7] (reliable per WP:RSMUSIC), Loudwire^[8][9][10] (reliable per WP:RSMUSIC) Ultimate Guitar^{[11][12][13][14][15]} (reliable per WP:RSMUSIC) Guitar World^{[16][17][18][19]} (reliable per WP:RSINSTRUMENT), Alternative Press^[20][21][22] (reliable per WP:RSMUSIC). I'm not sure which unreliable blogs you mean. Yeah, some of this stuff is short blurbs on videos he has released, but there is a good amount of in depth stuff here in vetted publications. Mbdfar (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also Blabbermouth.net^[23] and Exclaim!^[24] (both reliable per WP:RSMUSIC, though these are both DragonForce related). All of these references span 7 years of coverage, so I'd argue against WP:BLP1E as well. Mbdfar (talk)

A few more for fun. New Atlas^[25] (previously Gizmag.com; no consensus on reliability, at least was found to have an editorial board), Gear Gods^[26][27][28] (can't find any discussion on reliability, though it is a sister site of MetalSucks). Here's a couple more Ultimate Guitar articles by a staff writer.^[29][30] Mbdfar (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if WP:ROUTINE applies per Wikipedia:What is and is not routine coverage. I guess the articles could be considered "light and amusing", but this is notability for coverage of a person and not a single event, so I'm not sure anything from Wikipedia:Notability (events) is applicable. Mbdfar (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is the case for the sources with an author, https://www.musicradar.com/news/the-12-best-online-guitar-personalities-in-the-world-right-now https://www.metalsucks.net/2020/06/03/seven-youtube-guitarists-worth-following/ https://www.guitarworld.com/news/what-if-deathcore-sounded-happy-video https://www.altpress.com/news/so_heres_what_elevatorcore_would_sound_like/ https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/dragonforce-parts-ways-with-longtime-bassist-frederic-leclercq-temporary-replacement-announced/ have no author. The ones at ultimate-guitar.com (the ones with the most coverage) are essentially blogs by a nonprofessional writer. So the routine nature of the rest are "Steve T. released a new video. Check it out." Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect about Ultimate Guitar. Per RSMUSIC, "Only cite articles written by "UG Team" or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere." All articles I cited are by members of the UG writers team. There is a lot of coverage of the subject on that website, more than I have here. Almost all of the sources you handpicked say they were authored by staff of sites that have been found to be reliable, so I don't see the issue. If the subject was a WP:MILL YouTuber, they wouldn't be showcasing his releases. Mbdfar (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

jomatami is the author of all or the ultimate-guitar articles you've linked here. He is on the writers list. WP:RSMUSIC Thanks for that link. The writers link moved. We should update the source. Walter Görlitz

(talk) 23:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that there is so much coverage, this would qualify under WP:BASIC even if the coverage in any one source are not in-depth. Peter303x (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long the sources are not "here is his latest video" or anything of that nature. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage here is pretty trivial, and it's not clear that the publications themselves are particularly reliable or notable. Some of the material is overly promotional, and it makes one wonder if the publications themselves are truly independent of the subject. All together, it lacks the depth of coverage that one would expect for an artist to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your qualms about how in depth some of the articles are, but consensus at WP:RSMUSIC has found the publications I've outlined above to be reliable (I made it clear which ones have not yet been discussed). If you believe them to be biased, perhaps another discussion should be started. IMO, there is enough detailed sources in that pile to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Mbdfar (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you stated so above and don't need to repeat yourself. I came to a different conclusion. Largely because you have cited industry magazines where reliability and independence are not always clear, and the articles themselves are more plugs to sell merchandise witch kickbacks to the magazine and the artist. These don't rise to the level of independence for a high quality sourcing that is necessary to establish WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with community consensus regarding these sources, perhaps you should start a discussion on the relevant WikiProject page. Mbdfar (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seeing that there is so much coverage, this would qualify under WP:BASIC even if the coverage in any one source are not in-depth. Peter303x (talk) 08:20, 22 June 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 Keswick, South Australia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Primary School[edit]

Richmond Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable primary school. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Bduke (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Seems completely non-notable. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Part of the school is heritage listed and is one of the oldest remaining public schools in South Australia (123 years). The laying of the foundation stone was attended by three future Premiers of the South Australia and a world renowned wine maker.

  One of the school's former students was the future architect of modern container deposit scheme that has been replicated around the world. I am researching other notable students for inclusion.

  The school is likely to be be one of the few state schools impacted by the largest public road infrastructure in South Australian history and there is significant public interest in information about the potential impact to the school. This page helps provide the community with a valuable resource on the school and it's historical relevance to South Australia. Reflexio (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many many primary and high schools listed on Wikipedia in Australia alone, I am not sure why you would specifically want to focus on this particular school. Reflexio (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For NSW (a single state in Australia) here is the list and you can see many have specific Wikipedia pages.

List of government schools in New South Wales

If the intent is to generally remove schools as they are non-notable, then this would have to be applied across the whole of Wikipedia, not this single instance. In any event, for South Australia, Richmond Primary School is notable. Reflexio (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you clicked on some of those bluelinks, you'll find it's almost always highschools that have articles. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but high schools have no more importance that primary schools. Why would you think they do? I have found many Wikipedia pages for primary schools. Reflexio (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The availability of good references about this are extremely lacking. Since, from what I can tell, they are all primary/local/trivial. I'm pretty sure it being of local historical importance matters either. Usually things have to be on a national historical register for their historical significance to count toward notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe common practice is to Redirect to Keswick, South Australia. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I support a Merge of sourced content into Keswick, South Australia as per WP:ATD, which says that an article must not be deleted if there is a clear alternative. However, a quick Google search tells me that as well as the Richmond Primary School in Keswick SA there is a Richmond Primary School in Victoria, Tasmania, New Zealand, Perth (in East Fremantle), South Africa and Hinckley in the UK - and there's several "Richmond Public Schools" too (e.g. in NSW) - so perhaps it's best not to redirect that term to the Keswick suburb article. I am open to being persuaded otherwise or something that would avoid an awkward disambiguation page that doesn't link to any articles. Deus et lex (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your comments, If the other schools are created on Wikipedia, disambiguation could be used to clarify which school and in which state. Reflexio (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the sourcing is poor but I don't think it's bad enough to warrant deletion. That being said I'll also favour a merge as mentioned above. NemesisAT (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your comment, I have added additional topics and sourcing and will continue to add more historical elements to the page. Reflexio (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm fine with a merge into Keswick, South Australia since it looks like there's been improvements since I voted deleted. Although, at this point I don't think the improvements are enough to warrant keeping the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your comments, I am in the process of obtaining more information from the West Torrens Historical Society and ave just received approval to re-use their information in relation to the school. This page has not been in play for long and I need more time to complete a more broader perspective. Reflexio (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhmm, I guess it can always be drafted so you can work on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I've done some more looking around Wikipedia, there are so many schools from around the world on Wikipedia, many of them have less content than this school. A common template has been developed for schools. I understand you may have concerns about schools and see you have created a page for nomination of deletions, but this would be a random and unstructured approach. If Wikipedia wants to reduce the number school pages, I think it needs higher level authorisation and more structured approach, and not as a result of a new page being created for a specific school. Reflexio (talk) 14:12, 21 June 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, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Sadaghdar[edit]

Alireza Sadaghdar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no reliable coverage for this artist. The only link in the article is the subject's official website. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GNG fail. How has this gone unnoticed for 12 years? Doesn't seem to have even a hint of notability.--- Possibly (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly A prod was strangely removed in January 2012 to place a BLP refimprove template instead. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - some of his paintings look absolutely beautiful but I too could not find any reliable sources covering him nor any evidence of any significant accolades or accomplishments otherwise Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:30, 18 June 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 03:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gypsy Angel[edit]

The Gypsy Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, cannot find significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I could not find any sources that could help this establish notability or show significant coverage. Only sources I found are film festivals. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:04, 21 June 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 Stubify. There is a clear consensus that this article needs to be shortened with promotional material removed. There is no consensus about whether or not the studio itself is notable and so a future (though preferably not immediate) re-nomination would be appropriate to see if consensus could be found at that time. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SOMOS Films[edit]

SOMOS Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Blatant advert. Not even as "good" as WP:ADMASQ. Suffers from appalling WP:CITEKILL, which is broadly irrelevant since it is an advert anyway and should be deleted as such. Fails WP:NCORP I kmow I accepted this at AFC. I had hoped the community might improve it. The acceptance was borderline. It is unsual for me to AfD my own acceptasnces. Normally I remain neutral at AfD when I have acceopted a draft. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Advert is a content argument, not a notability one. If notable, then that just means the article needs to be rewritten to meet neutrality standards, not deleted. The deletion argument you're choosing seems to be WP:NCORP, but haven't really addressed the sourcing itself in regards to how it doesn't meet that. And there does seem to be sources available discussing the subject studio, such as this, this, this, and this within Spanish language sources. I'm not voting just yet, but I would like a proper deletion argument to be made first before I decide. Silverseren^C 20:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify - Remove all after the lede paragraph. Wikipedia doesn't really have good procedures for dealing with advertising that gets into article space, and this AFD illustrates that problem, but further discussion of that problem belongs in a policy forum, and this is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment SOMOS Films is clearly an influential entity and one of the leading streaming platforms for Latin America. If things need to be rewritten to not seem like an advert, we can fix that. Does not call for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoDavidZellet (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but stubify I guess I will officially throw my vote out there. The subject of the studio definitely seems notable, based on available reliable sources. But the article is very promotional at the moment, so shortening it down to a single paragraph with the references I gave above and expanding from there would be the best option. Silverseren^C 21:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability isn't inherited - it may be that the studio has produced notable works but it doesn't appear to have resulted in the studio itself becoming notable. There's not a single reference that provides in-depth information on the company from an independent voice. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not how WP:INHERITED is meant to be used. Notability doesn't work downwards (such as a notable author doesn't mean all their works are notable), but it does work upwards in certain cases. If an author has written notable books, then the author is notable because of that. That's explicitly what the various WP:SNGs are about. In this case, extensive coverage of the company's works gives notability to the company itself as well. You should note that in INHERITED, the examples it gives of upward notability that don't count are a group a notable person was in and someone who has a notable relative. Those aren't the same thing as actual works made by a person/organization that forms the direct basis of notability itself. Silverseren^C 21:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm aware that there are four notability guidelines which are listed at WP:INHERITED where, in certain circumstances inherited notability is allowed. WP:NCORP is not one of those notability guidelines and it is incorrect to suggest that "extensive coverage of the company's works gives notability to the company itself as well". The WP:PRODUCT section of NCORP specifically states Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right.. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Somos Group apuesta por los largometrajes con Somos Films" [Somos Group bets on feature films with Somos Films]. Prensario Internacional. October 9, 2018.

So you mean sources like this, I presume? Silverseren^C 08:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stubify per Silver seren.4meter4 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per HighKing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:56, 29 June 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) Hasan (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social Policy Association[edit]

Social Policy Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:NORG. Sourced entirely to its own website. Searching doesn't turn up any in-depth independent coverage. Almost worthy of a CSD as a G11 or webhost violation if it hadn't been around over ten years. MB 20:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MB 20:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is quite a lot of coverage of its members, officers and awards. Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with the proposal to delete the article "Social Policy Association". This page refers to the principles, activities and governance structure of an established learned society based in the United Kingdom. Thus, it is understandable that most references would be sourced back to the documentaion and web pages of the association where important historical information is archived. The original article about SPA was set up more than a decade ago and the original information was rather dated, hence the recent substantial update. This update was undertaken by myself, as an authorized member of the SPA's executive committee. The article follows an almost identical format to the one used by other sister learned societies in the UK like, for example: Political_Studies_Association. I, therefore, fail to understand why the particular entry for SPA was recommended for deletion. Nevertheless, the recent update is only a start and the aim to is to enrich the current SPA article with more information and references in the forseeable future.Theo-papadopoulos (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added a lot of material to this and given the whole thing a thorough copyedit. There is source material enough here (especially the Exley, Glennerster and Smith articles) to justify its inclusion IMO and I imagine a more thorough search would turn up more. This is a long-established professional association and learned society in the UK, publishes three major journals and has been headed by some very notable people (some of whom it has also given its awards to). I have to say, however, that I can totally see why a non-specialist editor would think this was a pile of puffery and not worth keeping. Theo-papadopoulos: these edits are highly problematic. Firstly, you appear to have copied and pasted a large amount of material from the SPA's website; this is a flagrant breach of our policies on copyright violation. Indeed, someone needs to revdel some of these edits (I don't know what to do with this myself -- is there a place you go to report this?) Aside from that, we don't put citations in headings, we put them inline; we don't use li or p tags, we use wikimarkup (so a bullet point is represented by an asterisk, a new line is represented by a double page break), see Help:Wikitext; putting bare URLs in a reference is discouraged, see Wikipedia:Bare URLs; we use inline external links extremely rarely (see WP:ELPOINTS, no. 2). Whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm here, you really need to read up on these guidelines – especially our policies on copyright. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • For the record, the text I used in this update was approved by the SPA's executive committee of which I am a member. For accuracy and economy purposes we used text available in the SPA's website, also approved by the SPA's executive committee (text for which SPA holds the copyright). In any case, any potential violation of the Wikipedia copyright policy was unintentional and thank you for editing this text. Thank you also, for adding the extra material some of which we were going to add in the future, as I mentioned in my previous comment Theo-papadopoulos (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for clarifying your position, however unless the text is explicitly licensed in a way which is compatible with Wikipedia's own licensing (that is the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and, except where otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)"), you cannot paste it here. I know it might seem strange as you work for the organisation but copyright is one of the few rules we really are strict about here. Also, if you work for the SPA, I should point you towards our conflict of interest policies, which are summarised in a simplified form here. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
      • I understand your point. I think this is resolved now after the editing. For the record, I do not work for SPA. I am an elected member of its executive committee (volunteer) and my term ends in July 2021. I am also a contributor to the Wikipedia project in two languages. Thanks again Theo-papadopoulos (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant professional association. Easily enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Quite enough independent material. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 16 June 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 Adani Group. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adani Cement[edit]

Adani Cement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Run-off-the-mill coverage. Sources covering its entry into the market. Nothing to suggest significant coverage throughout multiple independent sources. Delete or possibly merge with Adani Group. nearlyevil665 18:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Adani Group Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Adani Group seems appropriate. Recently found subsidiary which doesn't meet WP:NCORP independently. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. According to the media citations, the company was incorporated a week ago. Fails WP:NCORP. Seems to be WP:UPE/WP:COI.-Hatchens (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a high possibility: Badassboy 63637 is connected to DombivaliCare, the creator of this article... who has been blocked by Deb in the first place. Badassboy 63637 has been doing series of minor edits at Adani Group and Gautam Adani. Also, it seems they tried to remove AfD notice from this page. Calling for a proper due diligence to prove the association of these IDs with the company. -Hatchens (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and salt Deb (talk) 07:56, 19 June 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 Ateneo de Manila University#Schools. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo School of Government[edit]

Ateneo School of Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 18:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Schools. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Schools. Since the available sources about it are mediocre at best and there's zero reason not to redirect it to the main institutions article as an alternative to deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 21 June 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Masterson[edit]

William Masterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: clearly passes WP:PROF as a University President. StAnselm (talk)
• Keep – I'd say the Ramon Magsaysay Award is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. As "Asia's Nobel Prize", it seems to be of substantial importance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes WP:NACADEMIC #6 as a university president. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He still fails WP:GNG but according to some obscure links (ever voted upon by the full wiki-community?) he is declared E. So, instead of fighting this I withdraw this nomination. The Banner talk 17:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One: The Movie[edit]

One: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article on a film that does not appear to be notable. The article was originally created by a WP:SPA as an obvious promotional piece, and while most of the overtly promotional portions were cleaned out, it still does not appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. I performed a WP:BEFORE search on the film as well as on some of the individuals involved with its creation, and while I found it listed in directories such as IMDB or mentioned in press releases announcing screenings, I did not find any actual coverage or reviews in reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by Nominator - Per below. The handful of reviews found meet the bare minimum of item #1 of WP:NFILM. As no other deletion arguments were made, I will go ahead and withdraw the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The RT link in external links was bad, but I have fixed it thanks to the Wayback Machine. The correct RT page lists three reviews that should meet WP:NFO#1. It's not the best article, but enough sources WP:NEXIST to meet notability requirements. For some reason RT doesn't link the Seattle Times piece, but if interested, it can be found here. -2pou (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @2pou: - Thank you very much for this. I actually did try searching Rotten Tomatoes manually to see if reviews existed after seeing the link in the article wasn't working, but I was searching under the full title of "One: The Movie", which the few sources I did see mentioning the movie all referred to it as, and that came up with nothing there. Apparently, its only listed at RT simply as "One", which was a pretty big oversight on my part. Rorshacma (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   -2pou (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rafal Zielinski[edit]

Rafal Zielinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, referenced entirely to his own films' self-published production websites rather than any discernible evidence of reliable source coverage about him or his work to establish his notability -- and while about half of his films do have Wikipedia articles, almost none of them are properly referenced as actually passing our notability criteria for films either. There's only one film in his entire filmography whose notability claim is both clearly stated and properly referenced in its article, but even having directed a notable film isn't necessarily an automatic notability freebie for the director in the absence of a GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage to support an article with. And even on a ProQuest search, I'm just not finding much to improve this with: apart from one article that's actually about him, I'm only finding a few glancing namechecks of his existence rather than substantive or notability-building coverage otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Created 10 years ago, and still looks quite bad, failing WP:GNG. Likely a case of WP:VANITY or self-promo anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Current sources are not enough to pass GNG. Kieem trra (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per rule doesn't pass GNG. So delete. Trakinwiki (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:44, 18 June 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 emerging consensus is that the notablity of the list itself cannot be proven. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of association footballers who died during their careers[edit]

List of association footballers who died during their careers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There was an RFC on this talkpage, with very little outcome, however one suggestion was to just delete this page. We already have List of association footballers who died while playing, which has a clearer, better defined scope. No evidence this list passes WP:NLIST, and it is in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL as it lists hundreds of players who wouldn't otherwise be mentioned on Wikipedia (as their footballing achievements didn't meet WP:NFOOTY, because they only played youth football, or played in minor leagues). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A player dying whilst playing is notable, and already covered by a different list. This wider, more general list is not needed. GiantSnowman 18:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many people have careers as footballers, as other athletes, as actors, as scientists, as writers... Many people tragically die at a young age of a wide variety of unrelated reasons including health issues and accidents. But it's not a notable intersection to list them like this as if this is a particular phenomenon. There is List of accidents involving sports teams that lists the incidents in which multiple people died. Reywas92^Talk 19:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Reywas92 and nom. Footballers are not immune to death; as Reywas92 notes, it's not a significant intersection. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --littleb2009 (^she/_her) (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NLIST. There are already other notable lists that cover the notable people on this list. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not against removal of all non-notable people on this list that don't meet WP:NFOOTY (i.e; those without blue links). Surely this is the most obvious resolution, retaining notability? It's hard to argue for deleting a page I must have sunk more than a dozen hours into by now. If we're deleting this, delete List of basketball players who died during their careers and List of baseball players who died during their careers, among many others. Be consistent. Removing all non-notable names is by far the most logical approach to this. Mrsmiis (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like a great idea, those are also are also non-notable intersections between one fact and another. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Reywas92. Although WP:TRIVIALCAT doesn't apply to lists, the same principle applies: listing people by the circumstances of their death is rarely encyclopedic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list is useful and well referenced. However, can be considered removing players who are not notable to Wikipedia. CzeCze11 (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation so violates WP:NOT Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my comment above, what would be required for an article like this to be kept would be reliable sources discussing in depth the connection between footballers dying and that death taking place while they are contracted to a club. Essentially, this is just a list of players that died young and, whilst that is certainly tragic, Wikipedia is not a memorial page and we do not need a list article on people of every line of work dying before they were able to retire from that line of work unless online or offline media clearly deem such a topic to be a notable one itself. At the moment, we have a list of deceased footballers sourced to obituaries and death announcements but no indication that the intersection itself is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / Delete: Keep if those other lists with dead athletes stay, delete if those get deleted. its not fair if this one is deleted but the basketball and other ones survive.Muur (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't really make sense, as those other articles have not been nominated at AfD. So essentially you are saying "only delete this one if another article which isn't actually up for deletion gets deleted"?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reasons people are giving to delete this page apply in exactly the same manner to the other pages mentioned. It definitely makes sense. Mrsmiis (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well then feel free to nominate them at AFD. But we shouldn't be bundling multiple articles together- there was an AFD that did try to bundle them all together, and was closed with response to nominate these articles separately. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The list is useful and well referenced. Some time ago an incident where a footballer died on the field happened, and I was curious to find out how many other footballers of the same team died tragically in similar conditions at an early age, and also how many from the same country, and I found this information only in this list, so this was useful to me. Also, having such information gathered together could also come handy for statistical purposes. And, of course, if the contents in it are referenced, I don't see something wrong with them, because obviously these deaths get reported on news (they are not hidden) and, even everybody dies, it's something when a footballer dies at an early age, because of the recognition they get, and out of human interest. Furthermore, as said before by more than one people, it makes perfectly sense to me as well this article to be deleted only if other similar articles get deleted, but not only those related to athletes' tragic-early deaths, but all that list deaths of people, including, for instance, the 27 Club, among others... Finally, why was this brought up for deletion shortly after the Christian Eriksen Euro 2020 incident? I don't think we should get carried away from that incident's momentum and look in depth if there is harm caused from this article, as, even though it's not essential, it serves well as information without causing any harm, at least in my humble opinion... Nialarfatem (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not entirely "well referenced", and also the RFC discussing this was month or so before the Eriksen incident. This AfD nomination has nothing to do with that. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it makes sense what isn't "well referenced" to be removed. The deletion doesn't make sense, as per me. Nialarfatem (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with any attempt to draw parallels between this very broad group of footballers and a list with as much coverage as the 27 Club. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 27 Club is pointless. Probably someone noticed that many artists died at 27 and thought this was significant, but it really isn't. Perhaps one of the peaks of dying young may be at 27, but, other than that, a list with artists dying young would make more sense than one with only those who died at 27, e.g. a list of artists who died before reaching 40 or 30 years, and there is no such list at the moment, only 27 is "significant"... what I am saying is if listing deaths deserves deletion, then the same applies to the artice of 27 Club as well... Nialarfatem (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be significant, but it has received an absolute ton of coverage in reliable sources, including having an entire book published about it, which 100% makes it notable in WP terms. There doesn't seem to have been the same level of coverage of the general concept of "footballers who died during their career". Each one may have received some coverage, but that doesn't mean the over-arching concept is significant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Speedily deleted by Jimfbleak under WP:G11 and WP:G12. (non-admin closure) Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagore Engineering College[edit]

Tagore Engineering College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

80% Copyright article [1] Chief Minister (Talk) 15:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Marked it for speedy deletion as WP:G12. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. The result was Speedy Delete under G5 (non-admin closure) Jupitus Smart 17:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midas english school[edit]

Midas english school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability found in article or online. Fram (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Classic example of why schools should be speediable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can find zero significant coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Heart ^(talk) 06:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It does not meet any notability criteria. Secondary and reliable sources are missing. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G5. Non-notable school; created by a blocked user's sockpuppet. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if we had agreement that secondary schools were notable, this would be insufficient for an article. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Concur with Ab207. It was made by a user who was evading an indef block. Should be speedily deleted under WP:G5.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Housewives from Another World[edit]

Housewives from Another World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable television film, only reviews available are from self-published blogs, does not meet standards for significant coverage to meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources such as no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not have the level of sourcing here to show this film is notable. We need to stop acting as if every film that was commercially released is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Nothing found to pass GNG or NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely no significant coverage from reliable sources to establish any kind of notability. The sources I found at this article's entry on DE Wikipedia are unreliable as they are amateur reviews from blogspot. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 23:59, 20 June 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald J. Savoie[edit]

Donald J. Savoie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. I am the article subject. I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want the article to be deleted, per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). DonaldJSavoie1 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Besides possibly meeting GNG, Savoie is a very clear NPROF pass on the basis of citations (criteria 1), holding the Canada Research Chair in Public Administration and Governance at the Université de Moncton as well as the Clément-Cormier Research Chair in Economic Development (criteria 5), winning the Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Prize (criteria 2), and being a member of the Royal Society of Canada (criteria 3). While subject requests should be honored for borderline situations, in this instance Savoie's notability is very far from borderline.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I live in the region in which M. Savoie is active (Atlantic Canada) and I can attest that while I am sure he is a private person, he publishes prolifically about public affairs and therefore contributes to the public dialogue, debate and no doubt also continues to influence public policy within the region and beyond. It is for these reasons that I wrote the initial article on him. I was in fact very surprised that it had not been written much earlier. I was happy to see a photograph of the subject and other improvements added to the article by others, after I began it.Verne Equinox (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. members of the RSC and Order of Canada are notable, he also passes WP:NPROF with the Canada Research Chair, a named chair and a notable prize: Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Prize. This is not a borderline call, but a clearly notable individual. --hroest 02:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has published almost 500 articles, essays, etc and has over 6700 citations according to Google Scholar. He meets WP:NPROF. Peter303x (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly passing GNG. Trakinwiki (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trakinwiki, you joined three days ago and have contributed to only deletion directly. It takes you 2-3 minutes to decide whether the article should be kept or not. What are you? The best Wikipedian ever? Most of your comments are copied/pasted and very reliable on previous comments. Do you even bother to check about the subject in-depth before commenting? Or you have some other things in mind? And apparently, I am a day old and this being my first suggested article, I am learning about the rules, and you KNOW ALL THE RULES as you comment clearly in 2-3 minutes (that also using mobile~)? I am posting this on other comments of yours as well. HeyitsmeFellen (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable scholar, won a notable prize for his accomplishments. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Decapitones[edit]

The Decapitones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BAND. WP:BEFORE does not turn up any significant independent coverage or indication of notability. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yet another non-notable band page Dexxtrall (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:BAND. Lesliechin1 (talk) 10:04, 17 June 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 The Good Witch (franchise)#The Good Witch's Charm. czar 06:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Witch's Charm[edit]

The Good Witch's Charm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.Review at Common Sense Media [[2]], plus coverage at Broadway World [[3]] and Good Housekeeping [[4]] seem enough for WP:GNG. Also, film is a part of a series of films that all have articles on Wikipedia, why single one out? Seems like all or none should have been nominated. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Changing vote to merge to newly created franchise page. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the Good House Keeping source really speaks to the notability of this film. The article simply gives a brief synopsis of each film and then ranks them based on the opinion of the writer. There's no actual coverage of the film in the article. One trade article about casting and one online review I'm not confident really is considered significant coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 13:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Common Sense Media is not a reliable source for establishing the notability of films; it's an advocacy organization, not a media outlet with established and notable and recognized film critics writing for it. Good Housekeeping source is just a blurb, not substantive coverage — while it would be fine as a source in The Good Witch itself, it doesn't singlehandedly clinch the standalone notability of all of its sequels just because it mentions their names. And the Broadway World source is written very much like a press release, rather than independent analysis, so it's not adding much either. We're not just looking for verification that the film exists — we're looking for verification that it has a credible notability claim, such as actual critical reviews from genuine film or television critics in real media and/or evidence that it won or was nominated for major film or television awards. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat, you are incorrect. Common Sense Media is indeed a reliable source for notability. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. To quote the discussion that established that, "There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed." Please familiarize yourself with the sources listed on that page. Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between "acceptable as a source of entertainment reviews amid a solid mix of GNG-worthy sources" and "instant maker of a GNG pass all by itself if it's an article's only non-primary source". Even if Common Sense Media is accepted as the former (although note that it comes with caveats), it is unequivocally not the latter. For example, even if we accept it, both WP:FILM and WP:TVSHOW still require more than just one critical review. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying CSM is enough on its own, I was simply pointing out that your assessment of CSM as not being a reliable source was incorrect, as your opinion on the reliability of a source does not override the combined opinions of multiple Wikipedia editors over several discussions about CSM. With that said, yes, other sources are needed to make this article pass WP:NFILM, but CSM is definitely one source that counts toward it. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wouldn't it be better to create a combo article on the films at Good Witch (film series) than delete all of these, since it leads into an N-met long-term television series? Nate • (chatter) 16:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that if the consensus winds up being delete, rather than losing the information, a combined article on the film series would be a viable alternative. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this and other films into an overall combo/list article on the film series - maybe even a page that covers the series as a whole. At 6-7 movies, there are going to be some that are notable, some that aren't, and some that are borderline. It makes sense to have an article that covers them all, as well as perhaps covers the TV series as well. That would be a good landing page for any of the non-notable or borderline films, plus TBH it's something that should exist as a whole. I've started a draft at User:ReaderofthePack/The Good Witch (franchise) if anyone can help with this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This page now exists at The Good Witch (franchise). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, feel free to rename the article as is appropriate - I wasn't sure if the films and TV show would make up a franchise or not, but didn't know what else to call it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the franchise page detailed above where content has been merged, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 16 June 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. Evidently considered an important topic by many... Sandstein 07:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-urination devices in Norwich[edit]

Anti-urination devices in Norwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The vast majority of the page is based on a single published 32 page booklet with the authors own unsubstantiated opinions of what some otherwise unidentified and unrelated features in one particular town might have been for. Other links on the page appear to be very general information and do not directly support the conclusions drawn in the article or leaflet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty_Antar (talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is fine, and well-referenced. Rather a silly nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source here re Hamburg and London. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • 'Silly'? Thank heavens we generally demand slightly more evidence to support an article than what looks to be one self-published booklet, otherwise the value of Wikipedia would be nil. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the article, but it is completely reasonable to question its sourcing. If this is just one person's theory, it should not be all stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. —Kusma (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Disclaimer, I'm a Norwich chap, so I'm standing too close to this particular wall. Yes, the article relies heavily on one self-published 32-page pamphlet. That reflects the specificity of the subject: realistically, not many authors will have felt moved to write an article on how not to pee on a wall in Norwich, and publishers may not have viewed the likely sales figures with enthusiasm. Nevertheless, the pamphlet can still be an accurate source, and it's not the sole source; and the article is well-written. Yes, the Eastern Daily Press (which is the leading provincial newspaper for this part of the UK, and well-respected) has called the author of the pamphlet 'quirky', but this requires interpretation: Norwich people are proud of being quirky. The EDP doesn't report on every bit of self-published nonsense, so the fact he got an EDP quote lends weight to the pamphlet's value. I would prefer to see a WP article on anti-urination measures more broadly, in which case this could have been merged - but there is currently no such article. The remaining question is whether the subject is notable: Norwich was, at the relevant time, the second most important city in the UK, so although it's now a provincial backwater, it has historic notability as a venue for anti-urination devices. And urinating over buildings is certainly big enough to be notable. So I reckon, keep, and hope that someone extends it to other destinations. Elemimele (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Examples from London exist. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Lviv, Venice, modern versions. Great topic, especially if not restricted to Norwich, even if that used to be the centre of the universe. —Kusma (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ... and if the theme is broadened to "Measures employed to tackle urination in cities", then Amsterdam's pee-in-a-planter would be relevant, and would strengthen the article. Elemimele (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but consider broadening the scope beyond Norwich. Anti-urination devices/urine deflectors are notable concepts, but at time of writing those are WP:REDLINKS. TompaDompa (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepMerge to Urine deflector. Article seems well flushed out (so to speak) with plenty of research and references. Not sure why this was nominated. Policy? Meets WP:GNG. — Ched (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC) ce - ty SN and Kusma for the research — Ched (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this needs deletion, but let's give the nominator a break. The pamphlet

  • Loveday, Ray (2016). A.U.D.s: An Intimate Study of a Minor Architectural Feature. Norwich: E R Loveday.

  is the central source of the article (and apparently the only source talking about AUDs) and does not count for GNG, as it is (let me find the right TLA) a SPS. —Kusma (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I came here with the expectation—like Johnbod—that this would be a "rather silly nom". However. I see on the talk page that Paul Kernfeld raised the issue of sourcing in December, and was never replied to. A shame, because if they had've been, perhaps we wouldn't be here now. But it's clearly an unreliable source; not only is it self-published (Loveday Publishing), but either Worldcat nor the British library have never heard of it. While SPS are largely not acceptable as sources, it's true that they may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. A retired high school teacher though does not fit the category (in fact his motivation was that he's a little bit cheeky!). Not only is he not an expert, but he also admits that the thing he might be expert on may not actually exist.
  Since we currently host an article which states something exists when it may well be a figment of someone's imagination just a pet theory of one author, I'd suggest a more thorough analysis of what makes Loveday a reliable source. ——Serial 13:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I'm not arguing that anti-urination devices do not exist, simply that this is a subject that needs to be properly sourced and referenced and simply assuming every buttress, stabilising reinforcement or other non-corner is an anti-urination device because that fits your pet theory isn't worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.Mighty Antar (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move to Anti-urination device: Not sure why the name of the article is so specific, but anyway it should be able to be expanded. --littleb2009 (^she/_her) (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but move to a more general title and expand to cover the concept generally (which, as other !voters have said, does exist). The article as it stands is far too reliant on a self-published source. firefly ( t · c ) 08:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see that @Andrew Davidson: has created a Urine deflector page, so it's no longer a red link. This is great. I'm in favour of the Norwich material being merged there. My only worry is whether it would have been better to call it 'anti-urination measures' or something, so as to include those measures that discourage urination in the wrong place by encouraging urination somewhere more useful (like Amsterdam's planters). By the way, this is AfD is absolutely exemplary of WP at its best: by cooperative and well-mannered discussion, we've ended up with a narrow article broadened to something much better, which will also have a better range of more solid references. Elemimele (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's nice to see the other article but I see no need to merge as yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Meh. Evidentially, at least we know that one of these topics actually existed, rather than being a pet theory. ——Serial 17:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod (or anyone else who thinks this article should not be merged), what are the two GNG sources for "Anti-urination devices in Norwich" (as opposed to "Anti-urination devices" generally)? Levivich 13:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don Shelley[edit]

Don Shelley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:NCRIC as per Cricinfo profile. No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:SIGCOV. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete County cricket scorers don't tend to be notable enough for their own articles. Middlesex's scorers are listed on the Middlesex page, however on another recent discussion it seems that deletion is more appropriate than redirect, as its excessive detail for them to be listed on the page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wholly non-notable in the context of a global encyclopaedia; I accept now that I probably was wrong even to propose a redirect in that other case. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete assuming that Middlesex's scorers are removed from that page, otherwise redirect to Middlesex County Cricket Club#Club scorers. Either way, no need for an article on someone who will never pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete County cricket scorers aren't notable as a result of having that job themselves. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would fully concur with the arguments made above. Dunarc (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michalis Hatzigiannis live performances[edit]

List of Michalis Hatzigiannis live performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is this more WP:LISTCRUFT or WP:FANCRUFT — who can tell? Either way, we should not be providing a running log of someone's non-notable concerts, per WP:NOTDATABASE. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia isn't a fan site; simply no need for an exhaustive list of concerts attended Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Spiderone. JIP | Talk 23:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is both fancruft and listcruft at its best (or worst?) Either way, this is not a Wikipedia topic. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Vistas[edit]

Tamil Vistas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable media company, despite grandiose claims of TV monopoly and 'world wide' coverage. The sources cited are all self-published (company's own website, blogs, etc.), and a search finds just the usual social media and similar non-RS mentions. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. This has been previously speedied, recreated, draftified and moved back to mainspace, all within the last day or two, so may need salting as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Grief. Created. Deleted. Recreated. Draftified. Moved to mainspace. Not notable, fails WP:GNG, sources are all blogs, self-pub as per nom. Make it stop. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - clear WP:NCORP failure; zero coverage outside of self-published blogs and company's own website Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - Non-notable failing WP:ORG. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 05:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per above. Fails GNG and NCORP. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nominators evaluation. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, none of those claims are accurate. There doesn't seem to be any coverage of it whatsoever. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:16, 18 June 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. Geschichte (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Montoya[edit]

Sebastian Montoya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability is not inherited. Coverage is either routine or in relation to his father. No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete - Another WP:BLP of a child racing driver. Ethical concerns aside this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, although Sebastian's famous father is likely to pass on enough notability over time for this to eventually pass WP:GNG. Right now some of this should be merged into Juan Pablo Montoya, while the results tables should be scrapped. From sources it's possible to tell that Sebastian's racing career is clearly a noteworthy part of Juan Pablo's biography, but it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a separate article yet. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough reliable sources for notability, and while he may get enough coverage for notability eventually, it is not our job to predict that. Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:30, 21 June 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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Year Plan[edit]

The Four Year Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, created by the production company's (indeffed) account. UPE Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Don't these reviews in The Guardian, Indy and The Times establish GNG? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think the nomination is more focused on the nature of the article's creation than meeting notability guidelines. However, I think enough edits have since been made by independent editors that that wouldn't be justification to delete (on its own) for me. The ((COI)) tag should remain, unless someone reviews the neutrality and puts a ((Connected contributor)) tag on the Talk page. The reviews posted by DoubleGrazing satisfy WP:NFO#1. -2pou (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 09:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Queens Park Rangers F.C., don't think we need a separate article. GiantSnowman 09:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to QPR per GiantSnowman. I consider this a rather unique AfD. With the reviews, it passes GNG, but barely. However, it's also clearly promotional, everything we can say about it comes from one of three reviews, and there's another place where it can be covered. Therefore I think the proper course of action here is to do a selective merge into the QPR article or the history of QPR article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I lean towards keep, all football documentary films are promotional, why single this one out?? There is a lot of room to improve the article, there are some sources on that could be added from the google search I saw. I also feel this scraps by and just passes GNG. Govvy (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is just notable enough in my opinion. It won a semi-notable award and has coverage and reviews from The Guardian and the Independent alongside other smaller (yet reliable) sources. I do acknowledge that this was created to be promotional however it still passes. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As it passes GNG, and the documentary by virtue of its topic is always going to be mildly promotional, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it if it passes GNG. Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 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. Less Unless (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo Art Gallery[edit]

Ateneo Art Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced and promotional The Banner talk 09:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, unless someone is willing to rewrite this article by adding citations and removing the promotional crap. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is notable - references would be nice, but this is no reason for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article needs some clean-up by removing anything promotional. Other than that, I managed to find some reliable sources about the museum. There's a paper about the museum. It is discussed in a few books: [5] and [6]. It is briefly described in this book as the first museum of modern art in the country. It is also briefly discussed in this book. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks pretty notable and per sourcing found above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To Ateneo de Manila University. Since the art gallery is already mentioned there and I don't think the sources are good enough at this point to warrant an independent article. Especially after you get rid of the promotional crap. The few (apparently trivial) sources we do have are good enough to justify a merge though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG with new sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:25, 21 June 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 Ateneo de Manila University#Housing as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cervini-Eliazo Residence Halls[edit]

Cervini-Eliazo Residence Halls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Looks like advertising and a manual The Banner talk 08:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:NOTGUIDE Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I highly doubt dormitories can be notable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - significant coverage in independent, reliable sources simply doesn't exist. (As an aside, I am astonished that this has survived largely unchanged since 2003). firefly ( t · c ) 11:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Residence halls. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 19 June 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) 05:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gervase ndyanabo[edit]

Gervase ndyanabo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Businessperson/accountant/lay-church-council-member who is not notable, does not have SIGCOV. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All coverage is either not substantial or not independent. Fails WP:BASIC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (speedy, even?) as non-notable; basically just a CV. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 16 June 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 08:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Heights, Manhattan in popular culture[edit]

Washington Heights, Manhattan in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Yet another "x in pop culture" example that fails WP:NLIST. I couldn't find any other such list. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Anti-pop cult activists drive material off of the main page, forcing it to go to "X in pop cult" articles, and then nominate them for deletion, and all because the Wikipedia community sees value in this material and has steadfastly refused to outlaw them. As long as the material is sourced, it's a legit list article. Nom does not specify in what way the article fails NLIST, just waves their hands and says it is. This amounts to nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I stated "I couldn't find any other such list." There is no consideration of it as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You wrote "Yet another 'x in pop culture'" and "I couldn't find another such list". Which is it? Are there myriad "x is pop culture" articles of which this is "yet another", or are there no other examples? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Your "reasoning" is beyond my ken. I can't make two points? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not when the two points directly contradict each other you can't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How do they contradict each other? There are many "x in pop culture" lists. I cannot find a specific Washington Heights list (the difference between "any other list" and "any other such list"). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What other kind of "in Washington Heights" list would you expect to find, and why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• None, and that's why NLIST applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pop culture trivia, lack of notability. Most of the entries are passing mentions of Washington Heights, e.g. song lyrics mentioning it in a line or 'an episode of CSI was in Washington Heights'. Waxworker (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 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." Once again, we have no evidence of these being notable as a group. It doesn't matter that it's well sourced, that's irrelevant per LISTN. I also have concern that this list topic is just too specific/narrow. It only covers trivial pop culture mentions in a single neighborhood. Because of this, I also feel that it may be in violation of WP:SALAT. And because this list appears to just be a case of WP:IINFO, it's a violation of WP:CSC and WP:LISTCRIT.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 12:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bruh. The only reason this was created was basically as a compromise between me and Beyond My Ken, basically I thought that the IPC section of the page should be trimmed down but he didn't and the compromise was to have an abridged version on the page and then the full version here. So I guess go ahead and delete it if you guys want but really I don't get what the point would be unless Wikipedia has some server space issues at the moment. I understand the motive for deleting pages on Wikipedia in general, if it didn't happen people could go around making whatever random pages they want. But this page fits into a pretty clear role, which is acting as an extended list for an abridged one in the main article, just as Category:People from Washington Heights, Manhattan does for the notable residents section. Because it fits a clear role, and is a page that as I said made sense to create in terms of preventing unnecessary edit conflicts, means to me that it should stay up. Not everything has to be uniform across Wikipedia, but it should make sense. So I'm not saying someone should go around to every neighborhood page making one of these IPC extension pages. But if a similar situation arises for a different neighborhood page where there is way too much info in the IPC section and resistance among certain editors to trimming it, then I think it imakes perfect sense for a page like this to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk • contribs)
• Keep: Referenced information that is useful/interesting for readers. Lots of topics have separate "in popular culture" pages so there's no reason a neighborhood can't as well if editors feel the content is too lengthy for the main article. --Albany NY (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So your rationale is WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I knew someone was going to say that. I specifically mentioned other pages because the nomination said "I couldn't find another such list." WP:USEFUL says "If reasons are given, 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion." So, let me elaborate. This is useful for finding out about works of culture depicting the neighborhood and seeing how they do so. Deletion of this page would result in a loss of this useful knowledge and hence be a disservice to readers. --Albany NY (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I stated above just now, "such list" refers to Washington Heights specifically, not pop culture lists in general. Also, USEFUL states, "Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless" (bolding as in USEFUL). "disservice to readers" is like saying it's useful because it's useful. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Clarityfiend, it's not playing. Your made a contradictory statement, and now you're trying to Wikilawyer your way out of it. And even if I were to accept you explanation, what it amounts to is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. The fact that there is no Skyscrapers in Washington Heights or Washington Heights in classical literature article does not means that the current article is not valid. 'Fess up, you just don't want popcult coverage on Wikipedia, and that's why you want to delete the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think that I would say something so stupid as I never saw any pop culture lists ever? Now who's contradicting yourself? Because you also claim that I hate lists that I've supposedly never seen before. This is all off-topic anyway. I don't particularly like lists like this, but I'm not on any crusade against them. Which is totally irrelevant in any case. Obfuscate much? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you would or would not "say something so stupid" is not for me to say. All I'm doing is pointing out the inherent contradiction in your earlier statements; as for me, I've said nothing whatsoever contradictory. I will point out that your comment "I don't particularly like lists like this" is an understatement, considering your history with them. There's no "obfuscation" in pointing out that (1) Your reasoning for nominating the article for deletion don't make sense, because they are contradictory, and (2) Your actual reasoning is something else entirely. Those are entirely relevant considerations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As mentioned already above, there do not appear any sources that discuss these entries as a group or set, or the concept of "Washington Heights in Popular Culture" as a whole, thus failing that portion of WP:LISTN. The actual entries are almost entire just pure trivia along the lines of "a scene of this show was filmed here" or "it was mentioned once in the lyrics of a song", many of which are not referenced to reliable, secondary sources. The few reliable sources included do confirm that yes, a few of these entries definitely were set in the neighborhood, but none of them actually establish why the overarching concept of the topic of this list is notable, or why it would pass either the WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just a reminder for everyone, that although there are editors who very much dislike Wikipedia covering pop culture references (not a cabal, just individual editors who really can't stand it), there has never been a community consensus that such material is outside the purview of the encyclopedia, and certainly never one that popcult stuff should be deleted wholesale. If popular culture material is properly referenced it is no different from any other referenced material, and deserves to be left alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Seasider53 (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject New York City, the only WikiProject listed on Talk:Washington Heights, Manhattan in popular culture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary split. Rorshacma and Locomotive207 cover my thoughts on LISTN. Shorten to the stuff that matters (per coverage in reliable sources) and include in the main article's prose. IMDB and Genius are unreliable. czar 06:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This nomination seemed familiar, and sure enough, similar articles were deleted some weeks ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange County, California, in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maine in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tallahassee in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile, Alabama, in popular culture, etc. Unless a suitable article can be written like Hoover Dam in popular culture, this list is not a notable topic. ✗plicit 12:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the article about Washington Heights there should be a section about works set in Washington Heights, if descriptive sources about that are found, whereas the more sporadic mentions of Washington Heights, such as playing a peripheral role in a single episode sometime, should be thrown out. Geschichte (talk) 13:59, 21 June 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 02:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Ryan (actress)[edit]

Deborah Ryan (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:ENT with only one major role in a notable production. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BLP sourced only to IMDb. Fails ENT.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG let alone WP:ENT. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 13 non-important roles in TV series. Does not meet WP:ENT. Peter303x (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per rule doesn't meet GNG & ENT. Trakinwiki (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trakinwiki, you joined three days ago and have contributed to only deletion directly. It takes you 2-3 minutes to decide whether the article should be kept or not. What are you? The best Wikipedian ever? Most of your comments are copied/pasted and very reliable on previous comments. Do you even bother to check about the subject in-depth before commenting? Or you have some other things in mind? And apparently, I am a day old and this being my first suggested article, I am learning about the rules, and you KNOW ALL THE RULES as you comment clearly in 2-3 minutes (that also using mobile~)? I am posting this on other comments of yours as well. HeyitsmeFellen (talk) 19:45, 17 June 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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Walker (activist)[edit]

Christian Walker (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not established as a notable person. Gay black conservatives might be rare, but doesn't automatically make you notable. Doesn't even have half a million followers on social media. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: No, being gay, black, or conservative does not automatically make you notable. The number of social media followers one has is not how we establish notability, either. What truly matters are the number of independent, reliable sources you have. And, during a cursory check, Walker has in-depth coverage by: NY Magazine, The Independent, Newsweek, People, Fox Business, Weho Ville, CBS News, Washington Examiner, Los Angeles Blade, Los Angeles Blade, and The Daily Dot. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above linked sources. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – the sources identified by Dr. Swag Lord are clearly enough to satisfy the GNG. Always make sure to conduct a WP:BEFORE search prior to nominating. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Follows all the norms, has reliable sources, and is notable too.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:34, 20 June 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. Consensus is to keep and expand the article with further information about the pandemic in the country. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in the Cook Islands[edit]

COVID-19 pandemic in the Cook Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article contains just a duplicate of the information in the article COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania, there is no added value in this separate article, suggest it be deleted and made into a redirect rather than trying to maintain both articles Aeonx (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think that there is room for articles on countries and other political entities that have not reported cases of COVID-19. For example, we have articles about the COVID-19 pandemic in North Korea and Turkmenistan even though they have not officially recorded any cases of COVID-19. This sets a precedent for places like the Cook Islands, which have not yet recorded genuine cases of COVID-19. Regarding the duplication issue, one way to address it will be to condense the content in the Oceania article with the Cook Islands article having the real "meat." Will accept any outcome depending on what the rest of the community says. Andykatib (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is certainly a title that could be an article, but the current article text (copied at a prior point from the Oceania article) has less information than what is on COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania, and what is on the Oceania page is not remotely substantial in itself. The North Korea and Turkmenistan articles mentioned are substantial in a way this article is not. However, if this is deleted, it should be on the understanding that it could be recreated from the redirect if there is content for a more developed article. CMD (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My preference is for the article to be developed, with content transferred from the Oceania article. There certainly is not doubt that the topic meets WP:GNG. Schwede66 06:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A historical case is not a active case, but it not mean "not a case at all". I suggest that the case be counted as a "suspected case" in the infobox. We have to expend article (RNZ has published a lot of articles on Cook Islands and COVID-19 pandemic).Sami270 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andykatib and Schwede. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable enough to pass WP:EVENT Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania: I doubt that this article could have enough information in it to be relevant enough. Plus, it's always possible to split it back off if the need truly arises. --littleb2009 (^she/_her) (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to merge, this article was copied from other articles (with no attribution for some of it) including the Oceania article, and has had no independent content development since. CMD (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the article meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: notable as per others. Duplication is no WP:DELREASON. Shortness is no WP:DELREASON. Article contains more content than WP:REDDEAL (not a policy) recommends as a minimum.‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 00:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Have added some new material relating to a possible travel bubble with Australia. If we keep the Cook Islands article, we could probably shorten the Cook Islands' entry in the COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania article. That's what I did for the COVID-19 pandemic in the Federated States of Micronesia and the COVID-19 pandemic in American Samoa articles. Andykatib 07:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is notable per the comments above, and the article has enough relevant information to justify not merging it. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]