< January 08	January 10 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ellen Alpsten[edit]

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

Written by a sock farm of a de facto banned editor with no other significant input from other editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note, the image at Commons is a copyvio, and I've tagged for speedy there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Delete There is always a problem finding "coverage" of writers whose bylines create a cloud of not-GNG-relevant Google hits. One recent book was shortlisted for two prizes--not quite NAUTHOR. If that book and its sequel(s) keep getting attention, the missing in-depth coverage by independent RS may materialize. Alternatively, this bio might redirect to an article about the book. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - she misses NAUTHOR by a bit, but the two books might scrape NBOOK. It may be TOOSOON - perhaps the projected set of four, once published, would do the trick. Ingratis (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: The sockmaster was blocked after this article was created, so it seems we must go the AfD route. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Henrytoxteth15 is relevant here. Considering Alpsten on her merits, she fails WP:NAUTHOR Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and maybe recreate the article in the future. It's a close call to me but I lean towards deletion. There seems to be almost enough between reviews in Lancashire Evening Post,[1][2] Publisher's Weekly,[3] and a piece in the Telegraph.[4] However, a lot of other reviews seem more niche and their reliability isn't clear (History of Royal Women[5] seems to do sponsored posts and I don't know if Better Reading[6] is reliable). Probably best to wait and see if she receives more attention. Her debut novel was in 2020, this might just be WP:TOOSOON. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: @BuySomeApples: both of her books have also been reviewed in The Times - the references were formatted in such a way that that was not immediately apparent. Does that affectt your opinion? Ingratis (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NAUTHOR .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ryans Corner, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE it appears on some maps and is in GNIS, but per WP:GEOLAND as a populated places that is not legally recognized (GNIS is not legal recognition), it needs to meet WP:GNG and it does not meet that standard. snood1205 20:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete A few old newspapers.com hits with "at Ryan's Corner" as a location on the road near Dolington, but nothing establishing it as a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 21:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 23:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as a lack of sigcov indicates insufficient notability for inclusion. Such-change47 (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverageJuggyevil (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evolove[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Article makes several claims of notability, cannot verify any of them. Of the sources, only one mentions the band and it is a probable PR piece. Band's website is now in Chinese. No reliable sources in web search. This was an aspiring band that probably didn't make it past 2012 Rogermx (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I would just like to note that Evolove has released 4 albums in 2018.^[1] I don't have any other opinions about this article's deletion. ShockedAwe (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, the number of albums released does not mean notability. Rogermx (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ https://www.pandora.com/artist/evolove/ARXXmZwm9Zbv9xV

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 23:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Coverage in reliable sources not found. Neocorelight (Talk) 10:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stephanie Wright[edit]

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

Member of the Snohomish County Council. The expectation of county council members who have not served as a member of a state or national legislature is that the sourcing show more than "they exist" or routine actions. The sourcing should describe their impact on policy development or the political significance of their actions. In this case, the subject does not currently pass WP:NPOL and the sourcing is not sufficient to meet our expectations of local office holders. A redirect to Snohomish County Council is not possible at this moment since there is not (yet) a list of past members on the page. Enos733 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Wright has not held any office higher than County Council in the past. This article is also reasonably short and doesn't include anything major she did on the Council.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Megan Dunn (American politician)[edit]

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

Member of the Snohomish County Council. The expectation of county council members who have not served as a member of a state or national legislature is that the sourcing show more than "they exist" or routine actions. The sourcing should describe their impact on policy development or the political significance of their actions. In this case, the subject does not currently pass WP:NPOL and the sourcing is not sufficient to meet our expectations of local office holders. A redirect to Snohomish County Council is not possible at this moment since there is not (yet) a list of past members on the page. Enos733 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Dunn has not held any office higher than County Council in the past. This article is also reasonably short and doesn't include anything major she did on the Council.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete:As she is only a local council member, and no RS pointing out any other notability, fails WP:NPOL Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 08:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vicente de la Fuente García[edit]

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

Mayor of a town of 12,000. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for mayors of places this small we need extremely good coverage, which is not at all what we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Per [7], the subject was also a provincial deputy (Provincial deputation (Spain)) in A Coruña Province; however, I don't know if Spain's provincial councils meet the WP:NPOL requirement. Curbon7 (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Spanish provinces are like French départements, English counties or Italian provinces. If he had been a member of the Galician parliament it would be a different matter. Mccapra (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep This is an odd one. By only being in Deputación da Coruña as opposed to the Xunta de Galicia, he does not qualify for WP:NPOL. However, I think that he might meet WP:GNG. Here's a sources table. snood1205 15:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Snood1205
https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/coruna/betanzos/2021/12/22/fallece-excalcalde-betanzos-vicente-fuente-87-anos/00031640212659527538129.htm	La Voz de Galicia is a widespread paper without a known affiliation to Vincent de la Fuente	It is the most read paper in Galicia and is widely regarded as reliable	The entire article is about de la Fuente	✔ Yes
https://www.laopinioncoruna.es/gran-coruna/2021/12/24/memoria-vicente-fuente-60998929.html	~ The paper itself is independent from de la Fuente; however, the author works at a museum that was established by de la Fuente during his role in government. It is not published by the museum itself and seems to be subject to the editorial guidelines of the newspaper still.	Despite the implication of the name, la opinion is not an opinion paper but is a general interest newspaper in Galacia	The entire article is about de la Fuente	~ Partial
https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/coruna/betanzos/2021/12/27/sede-cultural-santo-domingo-betanzos-llevara-nombre-vicente-fuente/0003_202112H27C6998.htm	(See above)	(See above)	The article is about renaming a building after de la Fuente	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Weak Keep per snood's table. If there's more out there to help establish NPOL/GNG, I'm okay with giving it a chance. The article definitely needs to be expanded though, like so many other articles on Wikipedia, it's on the borderline of being worth keeping. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I know I'm guilty of voting to keep based on sources I find then I forget to incorporate them into the article. I had yet to set a 2022 resolution, but that seems like a good one, so thank you Royal Autumn Crest. Per your comment, I have expanded the article a bit. snood1205 17:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - No worries! My bad, I thought you had added them. My opinion remains the same though. Good work. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comment on new sources would be worthwhile.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I am satisfied the new sources demonstrate sufficient sigcov for the subject Such-change47 (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - as per the sources indicated in the table. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, although borderline I think it just gets by WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Star Mississippi 02:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suzanna Kempner[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep on top of the British Comedy Guide piece already in the article, there's significant coverage in reviews under her stage name Sooz Kempner eg The Skinny, Broadway Baby, Chortle Mujinga (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There is quite clearly significant coverage in independent reliable sources currently used in the article, as well as those suggested above by Mujinga. Richard Nevell (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - sources indicate there is sufficient sigcov for the subject to meet WP:GNG and WP:N - Such-change47 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Reviews of events don't pass WP:NOTNEWS. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - And NOTNEWS would be applicable if Suzanna Kempner was a news event. However, she is not a news event, she is an actor, and so the relevant guideline is WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The article clearly demonstrates that she has. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTNEWS isn't applicable solely to events. Please read it again. Also, which of her roles was notable? Literally none her roles would pass GNG. She doesn't pass GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- I have read it many times. WP:NOTNEWS is meant to be used for breaking news about current events, people whose notability is derived from one current event, and trivia about current events. It does not supersede GNG or notability guidelines for people. Per WP:NACTOR, The Mikado is very obviously notable, and she played one of the significant named roles. Jerry Springer: The Opera is also notable (if you disagree, you should probably also nominate its article for deletion, though I don't think you'd be successful), and her role was significant enough to be mentioned by multiple unaffiliate reviewers and to have at least one solo number (i.e., not a generic chorus member/standin role), so this also counts toward WP:NACTOR #1. Et cetera for the other roles mentioned in the article and above. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gnomingstuff - except she wasn't even in Jerry Springer the Opera, she simply worked with the composer. Her performance of The Mikado took place in a 96 seat venue and appears to have about three reviews when I do a search for it. There is no significant coverage of her, reviews of performances don't make her pass! Nobody has provided any significant coverage and that says it all. Because I've looked and it doesn't exist. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ItsKesha: Why wouldn't reviews of her performances count towards notability? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is a review of a performance coverage of her, or coverage of the performance? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Per above. The page seems to meet notability guidelines for actors/entertainers. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -Sigcov for the subject to meet WP:GNG, lots of reviews, mentions in more substantial articles as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, Per above, passes WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment FAO closer So far, the comments are all keep. However, there are various points of contention in this. Firstly, voters saying there must be source is worthless, when absolutely none have been provided bar the first comment. But four/three paragraph reviews don't demonstrate notability/significant coverage, and routine reporting of Edinburgh shows also doesn't demonstrate either. Voters saying the subject is notable is a flawed argument when nobody has actually explained how/why. Voters simply saying "GNG" or "sigcov" is flawed without demonstration of how these policies actually apply to the subject. The fact of the matter is the article in its current form doesn't demonstrate any general notability or significant coverage, searching for sources simply increased the likelihood in my mind that the subject fails to pass based on either of those policies. And this is supposed to be a discussion, not a poll. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a few sources to consider below. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chortle

Connelly, Graeme. "Sooz Kempner: Defying Gravity : Reviews 2014 : Chortle : The UK Comedy Guide". www.chortle.co.uk.
Richardson, Jay. "Sooz Kempner: Queen : Reviews 2016 : Chortle : The UK Comedy Guide". www.chortle.co.uk.

British Comedy Guide

Hawkins, Si (6 August 2021). "Sooz Kempner gets a dressage dressing-down from the IOC - Balls Etc". British Comedy Guide.

Fest Magazine

Hawkins, Si (14 August 2017). "Sooz on Film". Fest Magazine.
Burgess, Marissa (10 August 2018). "Review: Sooz Kempner: Super Sonic 90s Kid". Fest Magazine.

Funny Women

Stone, Kate (24 August 2015). "Sooz Kempner: Character Activist". Funny Women.
Stone, Kate (14 July 2016). "Sooz Kempner: Queen". Funny Women.
Stone, Kate (17 August 2016). "Sooz Kempner: A Bit of a Character". Funny Women.
Stone, Kate (19 May 2017). "Brighton Fringe: Sooz Kempner - Sooz on Film WIP". Funny Women.

The Guardian

Hawkins, Si (28 September 2021). "'He drains my bad habits!' Comedians on why they need an alter ego". the Guardian.

The Wee Review

Thornton, Adam. "Sooz On Film - Review". The Wee Review | Scotland's arts and culture magazine.

Keep - Dilbaggg (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gretchen Rhodes[edit]

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

Failed a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete nothing notable about her. Just a singer. Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I believe the subject of article meets notability guidelines. Shas performed with and contributes with many notable musicians and performers. However, I understand this is subjective. Would appreciate input or insight for how to improve the article instead of delete it. JDMCMAH (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Addressing :@Such-change47 comment. I understand that notability is not inherrited - and phrased my comment poorly. The artist is in a trio with two notable musicians, so I do believe that the artist meets item 6 of the guideline WP:SINGER. Additionally, the artist contributed materially to two gold selling albums. JDMCMAH (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: after checking the guideline at WP:SINGER I do not consider this singer to have met the notability criteria listed. Referring to the above comment, notability is not inherited. I note that merely failing to meet guidelines does not necessarily mean the article needs to be deleted. However looking at the totality of not meeting guidelines and having very little if any sigcov, the article both fails to meet guidelines and also does not have any compelling alternative reason to remain and so should be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I don't see the kind of coverage necessary to surpass WP:GNG or WP:BLP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, doesn’t meet WP:SINGER. -Xclusivzik (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete there isn't significant coverage, and it also fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG Juggyevil (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER MaskedSinger (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tobias Alpsten[edit]

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

Contested WP:A7 speedy deletion. Clearly fails WP:GNG with zero reliable sources. Part of a recent spree by WP:SPA accounts promoting the Alpsten family; see Alpsten family, Ellen Alpsten and Caspar Alpsten. No claim to meeting WP:ANYBIO. To be honest, I'm not sure what the actual claim to notability is here. Wikipedia doesn't need an article on every single person who founds a company, LinkedIn is a better and more appropriate platform for promotion than Wikipedia.

During my WP:BEFORE search I found trivial coverage only; see Chronicle Live and Digital LA. Such coverage does not count towards GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Search for coverage reveals nothing that rises to GNG, and the bio makes no clear claim of notability. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom - not notable.Ingratis (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and bordering on CSD. I notice the article on his wife is new, written by a sock farm, which I'm probably going to put up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and SNOW close, not notable in the least. Note @Dennis Brown that I actually did CSD it originally. The CSD tag was improperly removed by one of the other socks (now blocked). — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)^{(or here)}}} 08:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - speedily. Fails GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete not notable, no in-depth coverage can be found.MartinWilder (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - A clear case of not meeting notability guidelines. Such-change47 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Maxim Fadeev#Discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 00:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tansuy Na Bitom Stekle[edit]

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

Music album. No references, no evidence of significance.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, Does not have coverage from citation. deleted article in Russian Wikipedia. Alimovvarsu (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Maxim Fadeev#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Woody Woodpecker theatrical cartoons. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chew-Chew Baby[edit]

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

Initiate formal discussion to resolve an edit war over the subject's notability that has been going on between several editors for almost two months. Paradoctor (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to List of Woody Woodpecker theatrical cartoons, per the precedent established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puny Express. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep covered in the book Cartoon Carnival: A Critical Guide to the Best Cartoons from Warner Brothers, MGM, Walter Lantz and DePatie-Freleng [8] DonaldD23 talk to me 20:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not getting a preview. Can you please quote or describe the relevant information in the source? What other independent sources cover the cartoon? Paradoctor (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is just three paragraphs describing the cartoon. However, the book also covers what seems to every single cartoon from that era in similar depth, and most importantly it is self-published (see Lulu.com). In fact, the publisher is on the spam blacklist. The author does not appear to be an established subject-matter expert so that source is entirely unreliable. eviolite (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of Woody Woodpecker theatrical cartoons. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of Woody Woodpecker theatrical cartoons. Fails GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to list article. Fails WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alpsten family[edit]

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

Created by an WP:SPA solely dedicated to creating articles on this family, which seems to have no WP:RS coverage. Even the basic claim that they originate from Småland doesn't seem to be covered anywhere. The only member of the family who is potentially notable is Ellen Alpsten. Wikipedia is not a web host for vanity projects like this so the article should be deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I agree entirely with Spiderone's assessment of this article and those associated with it. Even the one on Ellen Alpsten is largely promotional of her novels. Ingratis (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Geschichte. Vanity page for vanity articles which are soon to also be deleted at AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and Geschichte. Fails GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability standards due to a lack of sigcov. Appears also to be a WP:CONFLICT. Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic and this article is not aiding this purpose. Such-change47 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Powys. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upper Chapel Pastures[edit]

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

Article provides no information beyond the fact that this place is an SSI. It has been unreferenced since its creation more than a decade ago. I can find no other information on this site, nor can I locate it on a map. Seems best redirected to List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Powys. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Powys. This list has quite a few of these mass-produced substubs, and there's no need to have a bunch of crappy pages like this with no content. A short data sheet can be found at [9], indicating it's the empty pasture at [10]. I have no idea why we should have an article on it without any other coverage. Reywas92^Talk 19:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as above. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. I don't see a further relist achieving a different outcome. Star Mississippi 02:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vincent Palmer[edit]

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

Is Palmer notable enough to warrant an article about him? I don’t think so.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 18:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Although there was some publicity around the search for this person and his inclusion in a then-unusual online most-wanted list, the question of whether an article is appropriate would have to meet the conditions at WP:PERP #2, and I am not seeing evidence of the required sustained coverage. AllyD (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tina More[edit]

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

Very Poorly sourced, and has been for 4 years, may not even me as notable as Bobby Mores wife. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 18:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

George Albemarle[edit]

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

Based on my reading of novels set in the UK, I don't believe titled people are ever referred to this way. "George" yes, "Albemarle" yes, but "George Albemarle"? Clarityfiend (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per implausible short term. While I know that is techincally an RfD argument a disambiguation is essentially a collection of redirects and all of them are implausible from the page. I could not find George Albemarle being a reference to the name of any of these four men. It might make sense to have a set index for George Keppel, Earl of Albemarle, but there already is George Keppel which is a WP:DAB linking to both of them. I don't really think that this disambiguation has much utility and the page views show that as well. There were a total of 15 page views for George Albemarle in the enter year of 2021. snood1205 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 18:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find evidence that any of these people are referred to as George Albemarle and I don't think it's a search term that someone would use to find them. Suonii180 (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All Around (web series)[edit]

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

No indication that this web series meet WP:GNG or WP:NFO, WP:BEFORE does not bring up any SIGCOV. JBchrch talk 14:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 18:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P. David Searles[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:BASIC. Page was created by SPA User:Pdsmls55, who, based on the initials, I assume was P. David Searles and so is a likely WP:AUTO breach. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete We only have one source at present, which has the subject as the writer. A asearch turns up listings of his books, and an interview with him, but no substantial sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Unconvinced that the subject has done anything noteworthy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stefanos Kafataris[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL as Ermis Aradippou FC are not playing in the 2021–22 Cypriot First Division so his league appearances are at semi-pro level. U17 games for Cyprus also do not confer notability. Neither of the sources cited count towards WP:GNG and Google News and DDG have nothing to offer even when searching in the Greek language, save for a couple of passing mentions in squad lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG JW 1961^Talk 18:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Userfy as possibly TOOSOON just due to the player's age and age of the article. I don't necessarily think drafting makes sense as an ATD, but I think that there is potential for this player to be notable and it does seem that for younger players it's not incredibly uncommon to Userify as opposed to Deletion. TartarTorte 19:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. No point in sending to draft as he isn't on a squad that would make him notable if he played.--Mvqr (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV and thus does not warrant an article. GauchoDude (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, fails NFOOTBALL and GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidoooo123 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caspar Alpsten[edit]

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

I was unable to find any significant coverage in my sources to confirm WP:GNG notability. Also doesn't seem to meet WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYBIO. Every single source cited is self-published and I couldn't locate any WP:RS on Alpsten. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no RS, no notability - entirely promotional. Ingratis (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - All but two sources of the Caspar Alpsten page aren't actively controlled by the user so all sources qualify as reliable and independent, the subject is notable and the article upholds Wikipedia standards. The user Ingratis seems to not have done his research.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blankslate123 (talk • contribs) 21.03, 9 January 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE, see SPI Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - As the creator of this page, I'd like refute any points made in question to notability or reliability of the majority of sources cited. I must agree however that some points are poorly cited with one or two sources being self published, this is because I first saw them in print. I wasn't quite sure to leave those out totally or simply leave those minor details unverified. If the consensus is so, I'd like to take the opportunity to remove and replace any information that isn't 100% verifiable. I'm also quite new to the Wikipedia community, I've made an effort to look into the guidelines before editing the article and in my view the subject fit all the relevant criteria to be on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindropcroptop (talk • contribs) 21.26, 9 January 2022 (UTC) (now blocked)

Where is this significant coverage then? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I also searched but found no reliable sources about this person or his work. Possibly TOOSOON. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - lacks SIGCOV from reliable third party sources.-KH-1 (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - faily GNG, no proof of notability, lack of 3rd party coverage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: All of the potential sources appear to be self-published. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability standards due to a lack of sigcov. Appears also to be a WP:CONFLICT. Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic and this article is not aiding this purpose. Such-change47 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rob Redding[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has had many issues for a long time. The most important, as I see it, are violating the following guidelines: WP:PROMOTION and WP:GNG.

WP:PROMOTION: The article is written in an excessively favorable way about its subject. Redding is described as a "polymath" with no basis for such a description, and the article even lists his "peak chart positions."
WP:GNG: Redding does not have sufficient and lasting notability to warrant a Wikiepdia page. Many of the sources are from his own outlets and presented in a misleading way to overstate their influence.

These reasons are closely linked, and they cannot be remedied because the fundamental purpose of this article seems to be Redding's self-promotion. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think someone who has done as much as Mr. Redding should be deleted, I don't think that the world needs less black and brown heroes. That's what deleting this page would do. Redding page has almost 100 cites. The most latest is the Washington Post, some of you are just making this personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregpolk (talk • contribs) 15:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because WP:PROMOTION:

EWBlyden 85 (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment – The last time this was discussed at AfD was in 2006 when inclusion standards were far, far more lax, so for anyone reading this, I don't think it being a '2nd nomination' should bias your view coming into this discussion. Second, I think Redding News Review should also be looked at for deletion, as should Talkers Magazine (mentioned in the article). I think Rob Redding might possibly meet notability guidelines, but a) it's impossible to tell with how WP:REFBOMBed this article is to hell and back, and b) the article needs to be cut drastically. The article in its current state is a disgusting abuse of the project to promote an artist. Honestly, even if he does end up meeting notability guidelines, I support WP:TNT or something similar thereto. There's nothing redeeming here, and the article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article looks like it's been copy/pasted from http://robredding.com/ click on about > robe redding bio. The actual source is https://tiger-wrasse-tfmt.squarespace.com/rob-redding-bio (it's a frame). Tag as unambiguous copyvio and be done with it. If someone who is not Redding or affiliated with him wants to start over, I can quickly grab all the sources ever used in the article and archive them. Vexations (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing the copy/paste from his site, is it somewhere in the article history? JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try [11] or [12] Vexations (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I was using old revision and trying to match it with an archived version of his website, which earwig did not like. Do we know for sure that his squarespace/personal site language predates its use on wiki? JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but it would be unusual to copy one's bio from Wikipedia to one's own website, wouldn't it? Vexations (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. The sourcing appears quite weak. Curiocurio (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Nothing but trivia and promotional bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. FMSky (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Samsung Galaxy M series#2020 lineup (2nd generation). ✗plicit 00:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Samsung Galaxy M01[edit]

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

Article amounts to a spec sheet without any encyclopedic coverage whatsoever. I can't find a single review from a reliable source or any reliable sources discussing this phone in any substantial depth. India Express is a reliable source, but there's basically nothing in those few paragraphs that you couldn't find on the M01's GSMArena page, and the NDTV article one is just a trivial piece about the M01 getting Android 11. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found. Fram (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe. There are already articles at Samsung Galaxy and Samsung Galaxy M series which would be the appropriate place to discuss phone models that meet notablity guidance, including evidence from appropriate sources with significant coverage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't Delete it! Because: I have added link of review of the phone by a reliable source in the article. The review is from a good website- Sammobile. Please check it before deleting article. It describes the phone in depth. I also added many more reliable References.Blue Mango Juice (talk)
Redirect to Samsung Galaxy M series#2020 lineup (2nd generation). No evidence this needs a separate article, and the phone details and specifications are adequately covered there. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Samsung Galaxy M series#2020 lineup (2nd generation) per nom and Joseph. AryKun (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as above, valid search term but no need for a standalone article. Star Mississippi 18:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mike Thiel[edit]

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

I think this is WP:ADMASQ and I can't find evidence that the subject or his business are notable in a before search. CameronVictoria (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is a promotional coatrack for the company he runs, using promotional buzzwords like "celebrating" and "savvy", it is not an encyclopedic article, and there is no indication that it could be salvaged to being an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a platform to run free advertising for your travel company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete - The tone of the article is promotional BS and its needing cleanup is, as always, a separate issue from notability. That said, the only source I could find was this from the Boston Globe, which does not make the case for his notability as a person: https://www.boston.com/travel/travel/2018/06/12/an-interview-with-the-founder-of-hideaways-precursor-to-the-likes-of-vrbo-and-homeaway/ Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6 News (Turkey)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadıköylü (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. trwiki version has no references and has been nominated for AfD there by the same editor. It appears to be related to a tr:Kanal 6, but we lack an enwiki article for it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete WP:GNG does not meet the criteria. ×Elvorix^talk 15:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josh Mosqueira[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Coverage is limited to mentions in passing, some press-release like coverage of him working on a major video project (and then quitting), plus an interview; all of this really focuses on Diablo III and not on him, and I'd argue that WP:NOTINHERITED is also an issue here. There is no indication he won any awards, and that his work and career have been subject to any in-depth analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I have added a Polish book as a source (Krew, pot i piksele. Chwalebne i niepokojące opowieści o tym, jak robi się gry (Blood, sweat and pixels: Glorious and disturbing stories about how games are made), in which the author writes extensively about Mosqeira's move from Ubisoft to Blizzard and his subsequent work on Diablo III. That plus two magazine articles and a newspaper article about him and his work on various projects would be a clear case for a Keep. He was also for a time the public face of the Diablo III project during its development, and speaks French and Spanish, so was interviewed extensively by North American, European and Australian entities. I can add some of those as well if the article needs further bolstering. I can also add more details from the Polish book, but translating from Polish is a long andd arduous process, so if we have enough now, I'd prefer not to.Guinness323 (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Polish translation? Blood, Sweat, and Pixels is an English book, AFAIK. Btw, I am a native speaker of Polish, so I can help here. Also, the English edition is at Z-library... I was able to access it within one minute. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per sources found by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - clear NAUTHOR pass (based on Montreal, Constantinople and Tribe 8. Also meets GNG, but that is less important in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 08:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solomon Islands–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to these relations. No embassies, agreements, state or minister visits. The historical interaction is covered in Solomon_Islands#Arrival_of_Europeans_(1568–1886). LibStar (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Per nom. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Yilloslime (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable as being one of the oldest foreign relationship of the Solomon Islands. Could do with some more references though. Moondragon21 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Delete - The primary issue is that this article has no references independent of the subject. Primary sources only appear included. No secondary resources of significance can be located as far as I can tell. As such WP:N is not met and so I recommend this article is deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Pilaz has brought to light new secondary coverage in another language I had not previously noticed. I now am satisfied notability standards are met.Such-change47 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - secondary coverage of the relationship exists, although it's predominantly in Spanish: The Solomon Islands and Spain, a reciprocal vision from the former Ambassador of the EU to the Solomon Islands [13]; an essay about the "sister cultures" because of Spanish exploration of Melanesia [14]; there is academic research on the current perception of Spanish explorers in the Solomon Islands [15]; in 2013, Spain opened an honorary consulate in the Solomon Islands [16]; and when Guadalcanal, Seville and the cities of Guadalcanal island became sister cities in 2013, it generated quite a bit of attention in Spain: [17], [18], [19], [20]. To me, the city diplomacy and the historical relationship are drivers of the relationship between the Solomon Islands and Spain even to this day, with plenty of sources satisfying WP:GNG. I therefore also think that the historical information should appear in this page (although perhaps in a more condensed version, linking to the Solomon Islands history section). Pilaz (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: perhaps this gets some attention?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Pilaz's points. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Clearly there is a long history of the relationship between these two countries. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abd Al Jabar Al Rifai[edit]

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

Bio of an Iraqi professor translated from ar.wiki, where there are sources. These focus on the receipt of a minor award. One is an interview and only one looks like a decent piece of coverage. Overall there is nothing here to suggest a pass of WP:NPROF. He only obtained his doctorate in 2005 and one of the only solid claims in the Arabic article is that he has supervised about sixty theses, which is just kind of the day job. The rest is vague and fluffy. There is already a version of this article in draft space. A BEFORE search brings up copies of his books and interviews but no in depth third party coverage. Mccapra (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support deletion; I am the editor who recently removed puffery, excessive detail, etc, and the actual substance remaining amounts to the fact that he is a professor, which in itself does not constitute notability. UrielAcosta

Delete as doesn't pass WP:NPROF. Unless independant reviews are found (I had no luck), doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR either. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and lacks sources and fails WP:NAUTHOR also.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no other support for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Chopped Canada episodes[edit]

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

This has been sitting in the new pages queue for months and I’ve looked at it enough times that I need to bring it to AfD for consensus. I know we have a lot of list articles about episodes but most of these don’t appear in any way noteworthy. It’s really just a copy of a directory and I’m not sure why we’re hosting it. Mccapra (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Category:Lists of food television series episodes has a lot of list just like this one. More community discussions should be had whether to keep this sort of thing. Many people come to Wikipedia to a list of episodes for a television show. This article only list who competed and who won each episode, who the judges were, linking to any of them that have their own Wikipedia page, the date it was first shown, and the name of the episode. A summary showing more information about what happened during the episode and the ratings of it would be nice, but not required. Dream Focus 14:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep no rationale for deletion indicated. It should probably be referenced, but I'm assuming it can be. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I'm not entirely convinced of the encyclopedic value of comprehensive episode lists for reality competition series in principle, but in the absence of a formal consensus against them there's no reason to treat this differently than the equivalent American List of Chopped episodes and its various by-decade size management chunkouts like List of Chopped episodes (season 41–present). The basis for notability isn't actually any different, and the American articles aren't really referenced much better either (all of the ones I looked at just had one or two references at most, if they had any at all). Could the article use some improvement, yes. Might I feel differently if the American ones were bundled with this, yes. But given that they both suffer from identical problems, there's no remotely credible reason to treat only the Canadian one as a problem while giving the American ones a pass. You'd be much better off attempting to establish a consensus against episode lists for competitive reality shows across the board, and even that would probably fail, than you are trying to single this one out as somehow uniquely less notable than another country's identical treatment of its local version of the same franchise. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually in cases like this, the article with the least number of views is nominated for deletion first, then the others are nominated with a link to the previous AFD claiming that somehow established consensus. But this time the nominator for this article stated they choose it because it was sitting in the new pages list, that how they found it. So I'll assume good faith. Since list articles like this come up often enough over the years, it'd be great if we could just edit the rules for list pages to say it was fine, and avoid future problems. Dream Focus 15:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdraw It’s clear that there is a consensus to keep articles of this sort so thanks for making that clear to me. Mccapra (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Atrangi Re#Soundtrack. The Keep !votes are without sourcing that are about the soundtrack and not the film, or backing in guidelines. A merger to where it's already discussed makes sense. Star Mississippi 03:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atrangi Re (soundtrack)[edit]

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

A film soundtrack that does not meet the requirements of WP:NALBUM. Most of the content is sourced from interviews and routine promotional coverage. Regardless, the album may be merged into the film article Atrangi Re which is just over 12 kb in total. Ab207 (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Atrangi Re: That can help expand the parent article which is too small. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: I had edited the contents of the article. 122.178.238.128 (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, IP. Some of the links you added in reception section are not working/misleading. Eg. HT, TOI. Also, it will be helpful if you explain why the article should not be merged. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: In process of expanding Atrangi Re page. Also, the soundtrack article meets WP:NMUSIC. Arjann (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you elaborate how does the soundtrack article meet NMUSIC? As per my searches, the ablum lacks reliable independent reviews of its own. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't wish to owe too much explanation for the contributions made. Whatever it is, the article definitely meets NMUSIC.@Ronherry: @YOÜ AND I baby: @Albany NY: @Ippantekina: @Cyphoidbomb: @Wizzito: @Aleyamma38: @Fylindfotberserk: @Ravensfire: @Hammersoft: requesting your views — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjann (talk • contribs) 13:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arjann:, I believe making an explaination would strengthen your argument. Also, the ping doesn't work when you don't sign the comment in the same edit but I would avoid making such pings per WP:CANVASS. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ab207:, I don't have time to argue and face unnecessary discussion on this. This is not the first time I am coming across someone like you who is hell bent on deleting a page that meets WP:NMUSIC. I am quite busy. You may carry on but I am done. @Ronherry: @YOÜ AND I baby: @Albany NY: @Ippantekina: @Cyphoidbomb: @Wizzito: @Aleyamma38: @Fylindfotberserk: @Ravensfire: @Hammersoft: requesting you all to take this ahead on behalf Arjann (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Per Arjann. Article needs to be trimmed by removing anything, including sources, not related to the album. Other than that, the rest of the sources which talk about the album seem reliable. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most sources are about the film, rather than the album itself. The soundtrack must be independently notable to meet WP:NALBUM, else, it should be merged with the film article. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- How exactly does it meet NALBUM requirements without a single reliable review of album, rather than the film. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

merge to the main article. Creating separate articles for soundtracks should be the exception. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Ireland national rugby league team players. Consensus is that he isn't notable. Because he's in the target list, a redirect there makes sense for now. It can be deleted if he's not verifiable, or the article can be draftified or restored if better sources are found. Sandstein 08:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom McCabe (rugby)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Certainly doesn't pass for his rugby union credentials under WP:NRU, and I can't find anything to back up the Irish international claims in the article. There's nothing on Rugby League Project for example, which would likely bring something up if accurate (there's another Tom McCabe but different dates). I'm not seeing anything for a GNG pass either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify as a possible option to deleting if there's no clear consensus established to keep the article. There might be no way to improve it any more than has been tried, but there does seem to be at least a valid claim for notability per WP:RLN which might somehow make it OK to keep this as a stub after some triming, particlarly if McCabe's international career can be verified. I know very little about rugby; so, if those who do feel this can't be kept, then it can't be kept. FWIW, I came across this article first at WP:THQ#Pictures that are owned by the person who has asked it to be uploaded? what tag do I use to say it's got no copyright? and tried to explain to the article's creator Stevehogan1605 that instead of focusing on images and the title of the article that it would be better for them for focus on finding reliable sources to add as citations to the article. The article was completely ended up unsourced so it ended up WP:BLPPRODed for deletion as I though might happen; some citations were added and the article deprodded, but almost all of them were only tangententially related to the subject, except for one to a YouTube video related to a rugby game between the US and Ireland in 1996. The problem with the YouTube link is that it was almost certainly a WP:COPYLINK which means a link to it can't be added to the article even as a citation. I tried explaining this to the creator at Talk:Tom McCabe (rugby)#Notability and unsourced content, but never got a second response. I did ask about this at WT:RL#Tom McCabe (Rugby League player), but have yet to receive a response. I also tried looking for some sources myself and found a few, but they're from archived pages of the Rugby League Ireland official website and aren't really helpful for establishing notability. In their only response so far on the article's talk page, the creator referred to this article as a "test page" and stated that the RLI "shot itself in the foot" by "not recording information". I've got no idea what that really means; however, if no reliable sources were covering this individual, then it seems unlikely an article about him can be justified. The creator also mentioned in their article talk page response that they are the "historian for Rugby League Ireland" and that their plan is "put up a full and far more detailed history of RLI than currently exists" (including "to have every full international up there (currently on the last squad we have broken links as those players do not yet have pages") and that they "plan to write them [these pages]". This might be a noble plan perhaps, but I'm not sure such a thing is in accordance with WP:NOT, particularly if this "test case" article is going to be basically a template for other 292 articles about "Full Internationals" that the creator stated they want to write. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Draftify,MarchjulyJust a few points to answer the above. The subject is a rugby league international, the other sporting information is to give further info but the main reason for uploading the info is to point out about the rugby league international status. Records from that period for international rugby league are sketchy at best. The rugby league project is missing a large amount of information. The Rugby Record Keepers club will soon be posting all international information and that is the agreed source for the International Rugby League so would be a more reliable and trusted source for verification.
The link to the Rugby game is the actual international, it is definitive proof of the 17 players, including McCabe, who played in that international. It is absolute proof and is far better than a match report in, say, League Express or Rugby Leaguer (the national weekly RL newspapers of the time and both would have carried a report, though that would require me getting across to Yorkshire and sifting through a physical archive (none of the papers have been digitised)). The video to the game has been archived in the University of Huddersfield's Heritage Quay (https://heritagequay.org/archives/RFL/MD/1/3/878/).

Furthermore, your knowledge of the lack of Media coverage misses out on two things; This was one year after the www formed (had we been in a time of the web then there would be match reports galore) and then there's the manner in which RL was treated by the national UK newspapers. Until Rugby Union went professional in 1995 (same year as the emergence of the www) RL was treated as a second class sport and not given much coverage by the media (RL broke from RL in 1895 due to broken time payments - miners being reimbursed to play RL and being forced to miss work shifts, something that the amateur Rugby Union wouldn't allow)).

I give you a different example of the lack of knowledge of RL, not just by the admin herewithin, but also by the wider RL community. RL Cares is a charity that supports former RL players in times of need but also collects and collates the wider RL history. I made a point of collating all the games I could, from different media formats, across different computers and gaming consoles, which were specifically about Rugby League. I donated these to the RL Museum. Here's the article. I know my stuff when it comes to specific parts of RL history - computer games and Rugby League on the island of Ireland.

https://www.rugbyleaguecares.org/news/general/gaming-collection-joins-the-sports-archive/?fbclid=IwAR06C66AL75u6rhwapaC-DKmF7Ez9zfcnBqANRZfprqBg565_iWBhJjqZs4

And just for additional information, someone else has linked McCabe to another wikipedia page to do with Lansdowne FC (Rugby Union club), showing how he is one of their former RL internationals. That page and that link existed prior to me building this first page.

And the project to get all the full internationals up here isn't that big, it's a simple template for all the players and I have to get information on each of them. Sometimes i have to talk to them to gain additional information. As a historian it is my duty to get as much information as possible to preserve the history. It is beyond parody that this could be considered conflict of interest, it's due dilligence, nothing more. Any person trying to garner information would be aware of that.

It's in your hands, if you still consider the above not enough to prove then crack on, remove the page, but it concerns me you are being selective if that is the case. If I go on the England Rugby page then I can find all the past internationals if I so wish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ireland_national_rugby_union_players Many of these aren't notable but are rightly captured with a page to assist in the capture of the history of the game of Rugby Union. Does this amount to double standards?

Point in case William Hallaran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hallaran I wouldn't consider the referencing or even the information on this page to be anywhere near the information I have provided you for McCabe but I wouldn't want Hallaran removed as it is correct to have him up as he is a former Rugby Union international. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevehogan1605 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I'm aware, just playing internationally isn't enough to pass rugby league guidelines. He'd have to have played in a world cup or european cup (for tournaments Ireland have competed in) which he did not. So he'd have to pass GNG. The rugby union list argument is irrelevant as the rugby union guidelines state that anyone playing internationally for Ireland has presumed notability. It's obviously likely this person existed and likely played for Ireland (although I haven't found a source confirming this), but this information is likely better recorded in a list article on Wikipedia (perhaps List of Ireland national rugby league team players) or on a specialist rugby league encyclopedia. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment If verification of him playing internationally for Ireland is found/shown, I'm happy for this to be redirected to List of Ireland national rugby league team players as a valid WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rugbyfan22 The link below will show him named in the team line-up (displayed on screen after about 3 and a half minutes) in the 1996 USA v Ireland Rugby League international from RFK Stadium, Washington, and he scores a try during the match (after 50 minutes). Link below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevehogan1605 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - @Stevehogan1605: Please don't add this YouTube link to anymore Wikipedia pages. As I tried to explain on the article's talk page, a link to this YouTube video can't be used on Wikipedia per WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK because the uploader of the video is almost certainly not the original copyright holder of the content. Just for reference, a reliable source (as defined here by Wikipedia) doesn't need to be available online; it only needs to be published and somewhat accessible. So, if you're aware of any books, newspapers, magazines, etc. that you think might be considered reliable sources by Wikipedia that help show that McCabe meets WP:GNG, WP:RL/N or WP:NRU, then please add information about them to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tom McCabe (rugby) to give others a chance to assess them and see if they can be used. The more information you can provide about the source (e.g. publication name, publication date, author name, isbn #), the easier it might be for someone to track it down. Lots of newspapers, for example, archive their older content and these are sometimes accessible online. Of course, online sources are easier to verify, but there might be other ways to verify sources not available online. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Providing the creator a chance to reply to 03:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC), and also for wider community input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to the list suggested above. I assume that sources for everything in the article exist, but I'm not sure that a single rugby league cap for Ireland int he sort of match he played in means there is real notability. The list would appear, by the way, to be out of date and has a whole pile of errors associated with it (an article exists for Oliver Roberts, for example). I'd suggest starting with the list and ensuring that whatever references exist are used in it will help us judge whether individuals might or might not be notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete this text. Whether this is ultimately kept as a standalone or merged doesn't require continuation of this AfD. Star Mississippi 03:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist) (2006)[edit]

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

Non-notable communist party of Nepal. Note there are many communist parties of Nepal, with many sharing a very similar name to this one, including Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (a major party) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist–Leninist). There also other parties with the exact same name as this one, such as the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist) (1991–2005), so be aware when looking for sources. Only post 2006 sources are likely acceptable here and those that specifically mention this party name. This party appeared to have had its best election results in the 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, where it received 0.2% of the vote. The party (or another incarnation of it) may have also run again in the 2017 Nepalese general election where it received 0.01% of the vote. It is a very minor party and while poor election results don't determine notability, they're still a good gauge of relative importance. I have also been unable to find any sources satisfying WP:SIRS on this particular entity and so I doubt it is notable under WP:NORG. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 07:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 07:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 07:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 07:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: @Chess: I have tried to verify from the linked source that the party merged into Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre). If so, that might be an appropriate merge target; however the link seemed to fail verification (I added an ((fv)) tag). If we can verify that, I think merge makes sense, otherwise delete. snood1205 14:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Makes sense. I would support a redirect if verification can be done. Don't see the need for a merge though, there's not much content to be merged here. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 22:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - @Chess: Oh yeah that makes sense. Redirect is preferable to merge here as there is no real content needed to save. Could be worth adding a line to the Maoist Centre article about the merger, but only if a WP:RS can be found. snood1205 20:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - The merger in 2012 would be with MLM Centre, not Maoist Centre, with MLM Centre merging into CPN(Marxist). This is detailed in the links below. --Soman (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Thank you Soman. I did not realize MLM Centre and Maoist Centre were separate entities. snood1205 23:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Non-notable political party, as per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - the communist movement in Nepal is very notable (with parliamentary majority of communist parties), the smaller communist groups play a particular role having recognized historical leaders and constantly forming new platforms and alliances. There is independent coverage dedicated to this group, denoting notability in Nepalese context - see for example articles like https://sansarnews.com/295406/ (full piece on split and reunification of the party), https://sahakarisanjal.com/2020-01-18-8240-sahakarinews.html (news on merger with the Kattel group), see also https://sahakarisanjal.com/2020-01-18-8251-sahakarinews.html , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqDIEyOgVu8 (interview with party chairman), https://www.facebook.com/Ujyaalo/posts/535156983177773 (news about merger with the Malema Kendra group, link at main site no longer available), see also https://www.facebook.com/merojilladotcom/posts/421178564608480/ on same note, https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2016/11/506000 (news about death of party chair). Lately there are also mentions of a CPN Marxist (Pushpalal), I suppose a splinter group of the party. Both CPN(Marxist) and CPN Marxist (Pushpalal) have been part of same alliance (see https://www.dainiknepal.com/2020/11/475949.html and https://bisheshpati.com/main-story/79964/ ) --Soman (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the WP:NORG criteria on trivial coverage. Coverage of "expansions, acquisitions, mergers,... " (emphasis mine) is considered WP:ROUTINE and does not satisfy the "significant" coverage requirement. Likewise for the deaths of former leaders, although the leader may be notable due to that coverage. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 18:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that WP:ROUTINE refers solely to the notability of events, and is not applicable here. The snippet on mergers in NORG refers to businesses. Coverage on political mergers is by no mean trivial. --Soman (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NORG applies equally to most organizations, including political parties. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 16:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep- (changed my vote) - new sources identified seem to substantiate this political party. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Deathlibrarian: if there's no RSes why the keep vote? Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 05:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, Chess - that was a late night edit! meant to be a delete.I've changed it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. There are essentially two parts to the original delete rationale, first a tidiness argument that objects to a confusing profusion of similarly named articles on small political parties and second an appeal to NORG. The first problem seems solvable with normal editing. With respect to NORG, if a party has fielded several candidates over a number of years for national office, it clears my personal notability bar. I reject the idea that we should apply NORG in a manner that is blind to the difference between political parties and companies. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's called NORG, not NCORP. You can't just ignore policy because you don't like that it applies to certain kinds of organizations. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It is not policy but a guideline, and I do not ignore the guideline but reject inflexible applications of it. I see no value to these kinds of scrappy challenges to !votes at AfD. I am surprised to see an editor as experienced as yourself engaging in this way. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Personally, I don't like that less profit oriented organizations in practice get treated better than for profit corporations. I'd like to see NORG evenly applied rather than used solely to delete for profit companies. I don't believe we should create "flexibility" here. It's not that I'm unaware that your vote is based on the commonly held idea that some types of entities should receive lesser scrutiny than others. It's that I don't believe that idea is based on what the community intended when we adopted WP:NORG as such. What you're proposing is to disapply WP:NORG because of an assumption that political parties should be treated differently than for profit corporations. I think that's systemic bias that privileges some organizations over others based on their goals. My "inflexibility" here is a conscious choice because I would like to see organizations treated the same regardless of they want to make money or abolish the concept of money. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 21:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's more than reasonable grounds for differentiating notability standards between for-profit enterprises and those that are not; it's not as if the the tsunami of online global churnalism is primarily the result of the efforts of environmentalists, church organisations or Nepali communist parties, inter alia. It's not systemic bias to adopt mechanisms that recognise the effects of wealth and organisational power upon the generation of information; it's systemic bias to ignore or deny those effects. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, but the community hasn't adopted any of those mechanisms and the policy is called WP:NORG, not just WP:NCORP. If you believe in this differentiation go ahead and propose it at WP:VPP but right now you're just proposing to have local consensus override global consensus. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 04:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus has already been established, that's why there is WP:NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note the second criterion, which says that notability is established if "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." Then note WP:ORGCRIT, which says an organization is "

notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" You will notice this is the same exact wording with respect to the sourcing requirements, although NONPROFIT seems to add an additional criterion that organizations much meet which is that "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale."

The wordings of NONPROFIT at best apply a stricter criteria. Your claim that NONPROFIT establishes a lower bar is not based in reality. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 05:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can agree to disagree (NB "additional considerations"), but I genuinely doubt there is community consensus to interpret any part of ORG as establishing that for-profit enterprises should be held to a lower threshold than non-profits. Regards and best for 2022, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree on the second point but that's the only interpretation I see other than holding them to the same standard. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 17:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by Soman, also the 21,000+ votes in the 2008 Constituent Assembly Election is not insignificant. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep but note that no source establishes WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPTH. The sources pointed by Soman are just press releases. One of it even says this party has merged with another, which means this party does not exist anymore. However, the fact remains that the party had its candidates in the parliament in some point of history, so I vote it for a Keep. PS: It is head-spinning work to identify the parent and children of communists parties in Nepal. nirmal (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Keep even though sources don't provide SIGCOV" is an interesting !vote. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 07:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like further input about the sources provided, there appears to be some conflicting views on them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. and discuss possible merger or redirect DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SKIL Bill[edit]

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

Bill does not look to have gone anywhere, and sourcing is scarce. There are no inline citations, but a pile of ELs at the bottom, almost all of them primary and/or partisan/low quality, which don't look to amount to notability. It looks like this bill was introduced perhaps three times, but never got so far as a vote (unless I'm misreading). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Ramkinkar Baij. Sandstein 14:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ramkinkar Baij (book)[edit]

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

This is an article about a biographical book. The book's author is notable, and so is the subject of the book, and both have their own Wikipedia articles. The book itself doesn't seem notable to me, any more than any other decent biography of an artist, and the information in this article would much better be merged into the author or subject's articles. The article was PRODded in 2014, but prod removed without explanation, hence bringing it here. Elemimele (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. I expected to !vote delete, because I can't get any of the sources linked in the article to work for me, and art books for exhibitions strike me as the kind of publication that do not often get the coverage for WP:NBOOK. It was also challenging to filter out coverage of the people and the exhibition. But to my surprise I did find a book review in The Telegraph (India), 620 words, which is quite long! So if just one more review or other in-depth coverage can be found, that would be a clear keep. A case could be made that the second NBOOK source could be this substantial interview with the author about the book, though interviews are not that independent. (This sort of thing strikes me as better than a blog post because the interviewer and the publication both do some "filtering", but not as clear-cut as a review.) The only other thing I turned up was the definitely trivial coverage in this review of the exhibition which mentions "texts by R Siva Kumar and KG Subrzamanyan, both of whose publications on Baij are part of the retrospective." So I don't think an NBOOK pass has been proven. But I do think it's unexpectedly likely that a second source would exist, especially if the award mentioned in the article can be verified, and therefore I lean keep. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't doubt that the author and the painter are both beyond question notable. The review is definitely a start. But since the book was the catalogue of a major exhibition, it's not surprising that reviews exist (that's part of the publicity of such things), and my feeling remains that the book is notable because of its author and subject, not as itself, and it's therefore best handled in the articles about the painter and the author. I note, too, that although information about the book is included in Ramkinkar_Baij (which more-or-less duplicates everything in the book's article) it's only in the Legacy section, and the book itself is not cited as a source at any stage. If this book is s very notable as the definitive source about the painter, I would expect it to be a well-cited reference? Elemimele (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 13:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge or redirect' No basis for aseparate artcle. It's the vcatalog of a single exhibition of a single artist, and the notability is derivative. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with R. Siva Kumar per DGG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Penny board[edit]

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

I don't exactly think that this article should be entirely deleted, but I think that it needs to be merged with Penny Skateboards and AfD was the only place I could find to discuss that. This article, as it stands, is very much focussed on the brand Penny Skateboards; I therefore think its content would fit far better under the title Penny Skateboards. It may be worth creating a section to discuss other manufacturers of small plastic skateboards in that article, but I see no reason to have two separate articles. Swadge2 (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The penny board is quite popular and notable due to the number of writings on it. Perhaps Penny Skateboards could redirect to the article about the board , ie merge, unless there is nore to say on the company. The penny board article is averaging 81 views a day, compared to the company article, 4 views per day. So the board should be our primary topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Penny board is notable enough but could use some work. I will update both this and the company page as there is no mention of their products or their history. They have enough various products and information about them that it is enough to justify a page. Pecors (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having read your responses, Pecors and Graeme Bartlett, and having thought about this a bit more, I now no longer think that the articles should be merged/deleted. I'll try to do some work to expand and improve both articles now and in the next few days. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as primary notable. Aoziwe (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - per Graeme Bartlett. Deus et lex (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Penny boards are a part of skateboarding's history. --Wil540 art (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ram Page[edit]

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

undistinguished non-notable student newspaper at a branch of Texas Tech. This and the following articles were written by the same obvious COI editor ": ASUPhotog " DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unlike the others, where I could maybe see a case for a redirect, this isn't helpful for the reader and it's too small to merit a merge. Star Mississippi 14:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 12:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angelo State University College of Nursing and Allied Health[edit]

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

no justification for a separate article for this division of a branch of Texas Tech. I am nominating the other divisions separately just in chance one of them might for some reason be separately notable. I note they are all by the same obviously coi editor. DGG ( talk ) 10:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: per nom. Chumpih ^t 17:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom. This is not an institution likely to have independently notable subdivisions at this level. BD2412 T 03:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The references for this are abysmal and there's zero reason it can't just be mentioned in the Angelo State University article if it's even slightly notable enough to warrant it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete while a redirect wouldn't be amiss, this should probably be deleted first as phrases like Also initiated will be the Center for Rural Health, Wellness and Rehabilitation are almost certainly a copyvio from a past version of their website. Star Mississippi 15:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 12:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angelo State University College of Liberal and Fine Arts[edit]

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

no justification for a separate article for this division of a branch of Texas Tech. I am nominating the other divisions separately just in chance one of them might for some reason be separately notable DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: per nom. Chumpih ^t 17:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom. This is not an institution likely to have independently notable subdivisions at this level. BD2412 T 03:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The references for this are abysmal at best, if not non-exiting, and there's zero reason it can't just be mentioned in the Angelo State University article if it's even slightly notable. I don't think it's worth merging or redirect though. As there's nothing well referenced enough to merge or any evidence that it's a useful search term. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 12:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angelo State University College of Sciences[edit]

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

no justification for a separate article for this division of a branch of Texas Tech. I am nominating the other divisions separately just in chance one of them might for some reason be separately notable DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: per nom. Chumpih ^t 17:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom. This is not an institution likely to have independently notable subdivisions at this level. BD2412 T 03:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 12:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angelo State University College of Business[edit]

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

no justification for a separate article for this division of a branch of Texas Tech. I am nominating the other divisions separately just in chance one of them might for some reason be separately notable DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: per nom. Chumpih ^t 17:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom. This is not an institution likely to have independently notable subdivisions at this level. BD2412 T 03:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The references for this are abysmal at best, if not non-exiting, and there's zero reason it can't just be mentioned in the main Angelo State University article. I don't think it's worth merging or redirect though since nothing in the article is properly referenced and I doubt it's a useful search term. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete the article lacks any indepdent sources. Sub-divisions of educational institutions are not default notable, we need to show significant indepdent coverage of a length and depth to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angelo State University College of Education[edit]

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

no justification for a separate article for this division of a branch of Texas Tech. I am nominating the other divisions separately just in chance one of them might for some reason be separately notable DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: per nom. Chumpih ^t 17:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom. This is not an institution likely to have independently notable subdivisions at this level. BD2412 T 03:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The references for this are abysmal at best, if not non-exiting, and there's zero reason it can't just be mentioned in the main Angelo State University article if it's notable. I don't think it's worth merging or redirect though, since nothing in the article is properly referenced. It doesn't seem like a useful search term either. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 12:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angelo State University College of Graduate Studies[edit]

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

no justification for a separate article for this division of a branch of Texas Tech. I am nominating the other divisions separately just in chance one of them might for some reason be separately notable DGG ( talk ) 10:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom. Chumpih ^t 17:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom. This is not an institution likely to have independently notable subdivisions at this level. BD2412 T 03:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Angelo_State_University#Academics. It's not remotely notable, but it's mentioned there and is a valid search. Star Mississippi 15:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 12:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Burhan Mukhtar[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE done. There is no footballer of this name. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG according to my searches and, according to this article, he plays in the 4th tier of India, which is definitely not professional. Also see history of Draft:Burhan Mukhtar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't Delete i didn't understand why Burhan Mukhtar is nominated for deletion said that he playe in the 4 tier of indian football but according to the JKFA Professional League it's the 2nd tier. and you can also check J&K Bank Football Club and Lonestar Kashmir FC players, they also have articles on wikipedia, there are many football clubs on wikipedia which only plays in JKFA Professional League and is considered professional. while infact they are professionals according to the level based in country. They also participated in first addition of Real Kashmir Cup. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:5503:B086:8BD2:C8C8:528:400C (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC) — 2405:201:5503:B086:8BD2:C8C8:528:400C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Comment First and only edit by the above account. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IPs are dynamic, so it's possible that all these edits from the range might be theirs. hemantha (brief) 12:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of the references provide significant coverage; see WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok it's about references not about professianalism. so does it need more detailed references? User:Spiderone give me some more details how this article can be moved from AFD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonygrizmen1 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By adding sources that show in-depth, detailed coverage of Mukhtar to the article or this discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ https://kashmirobserver.net/2021/01/02/real-kashmir-cup-wins-for-lonestar-kashmir-fc-kashmir-avengers-fc/

Delete: Subject does not appear to have WP:SIGCOV required for a standalone article. The only article I was able to find was this, a routine article that he signed for a team. GauchoDude (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The only article I was able to find is this that show in-depth details about Him and the other articles i mentioned didn't show much info. So if this Article was trashed, can I in future create a new page about him with good references if found. I was a little concerned so asked it here i'm sure people here would help me Thanks.Grizmen (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article doesn't look good to me. It's posted by 'NewsDesk' rather than a proper journalist and it is littered with really poor grammar. Look at the lower case 'mukhtar' and 'avengers' (in the club name) and also the inappropriate use of full stops. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject and the league he plays in isn't even six months old. Article is horribly written to boot. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RentAHitman.com[edit]

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

Promotion of criminal services in a provocative manner. Article is nothing more than copies of crime reports and interview. Staberedu (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Note that I am the creator of this article. Nominator has provided no valid WP:DELREASON. They seem to consider this article promotes criminal activity but have misunderstood the site. It is a joke website that looks like the homepage of a contract killing organisation, but there are no "criminal services" provided. Subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources - Dumelow (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joke — men received jail sentences. it's no place for anonymous police operations. There's no sources to corroborate the notability of the site itself. ~ujqy (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undecided and listening to the arguments. Nick Levine (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not many arguments to listen to, so far. But I’m thinking Keep. Nick Levine (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep; it certainly doesn't read like an article promoting crime. On the contrary, the message is that if you attempt to purchase assassination by internet you're quite likely to get passed to the police. But most importantly: the site appears to have resulted in more than one news event, and it's attracted detailed attention from several reliable newspapers, so it probably qualifies for sustained notability. Elemimele (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural keep: Nominator provided no valid reason for deletion; additionally they seem to have misunderstood the article, and this misunderstanding seems to play a critical role in their nomination. No prejudice against renomination, but this nomination is so flawed it can't reasonably continue. Curbon7 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carlos Hoenen[edit]

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

Quite a simple nomination - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Came across this article during suggested cleanup tasks, and there is little I can do to assist in improving this article. Its three sentences say all there is to say about the subject, and it has no ability for expansion due to a lack of significant coverage or verifiable sources. Per WP:CREATIVE this person is not an important figure, no significant new photography techniques, no major role in a well known work, and the works are not of significance. Such-change47 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Such-change47 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Not as simple as you might think, the corresponding article in the Portuguese Wikipedia is much more complete as has a good amount of seemingly reliable sources. Curbon7 (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete there is nothing here to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Ginbopewz (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: The article only needs improvement. The article in Portuguese is much better. A quick search shows that he was one of the most important photographers in Brazil in the late 1800s. His photography studio was one of the most important in São Paulo (Brazil's biggest city). He's mentioned in several books and works about the history of photography in Brazil. See here, here, here, here and here. He also has a profile at the pt:Enciclopédia Itaú Cultural which, in Brazil, is normally an indication that an artist is notable. I believe he passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 06:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider Kacamata's notes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Kacamata!'s comments. Curiocurio (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I rewrote the article using information from the Portuguese article about him, and added sources. I suppose it passes WP:NBASIC. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 18:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I looked at the (english translation of ) that Portuguese article. I don't see notability as an historical figure or as a creative artist. or businessperson. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creditcoin (protocol)[edit]

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

Hello AfD folks. This crypto product might not meet WP:NPRODUCT, since much of the coverage seems to be routine announcements and churnalism. Could you please evaluate it? MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: This is the next step in blockchain technology and currency: providing/securing loans or credit. All online systems are vulnerable to attacks and so there is the Byzantine Fault Tolerance and the Avalanche Blockchain protocol for smart devices (both of which appear to deal with disruptions to security of transactions where currency is involved.) There seems to be enough reliable sources here to satisfy WP:NPRODUCT - it is an emergent issue in cryptocurrency - credit - loans in the blockchain sphere and the necessary security. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's confusing. If it's "the next step" delete until the step has been taken. Emeraude (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, lack of significant coverage in independent sources. This may or may not be the next big thing, but that isn't a reason to keep until it actually happens. - MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 16:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete because of WP:COI, as mentioned above. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 17:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is there isn't sourcing to verify notability and we can't presume GEOFEAT without sourcing. If someone wants this to contemplate a merge, ping me. No need to go through REFUND Star Mississippi 03:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

San Rocco, Marsico Nuovo[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this church. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments: I have seen prods removed on similar articles with comments such as "clearly notable". "Old church" does not automatically equal notable. On top of it, this church is in a small Italian town of around 4,000 people which makes it less likely to have coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like the it.wiki name varies slightly, which leads back to a similar article San Rocco, Potenza that has interwiki links while this one does not. I suspect that if it really is this old, then yes, it should be notable, but I'm not sure how much the it.wiki sources help. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- On further comparison, it's likely these are separate buildings. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I was thrown off by the fact that there isn't at least an Italian Wikipedia article. I've been reading church articles and they typically do have an article elsewhere. I agree that old typically means notable, but I'm not willing to assume in this case. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Marsico Nuovo. From what we have at present this is a NN church that happens to be mentioned in a tourist guide for having a painting by (presumably) a NN article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I cannot imagine any circumstances under which a 17th century building would not be notable. I cannot find an online heritage list for Basilicata, but I am sure it would meet WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You aren't sure with no verifiability. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete I found a couple of pictures of the front, and none of the interior; it is a gabled, stuccoed box of no architectural distinction. That's all I got besides what our article already says. One indeed would think that its age would have attracted more attention, but so far, apparently not. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Chelsea Pig[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Seems to be a WP:MILL bar/restaurant. Most of the refs are interviews with a new owner, and thus not independent. The MyLondon article is the best source, but that is routine local coverage in the food section and even that is mostly based on an interview. Not seeing enough for WP:GNG. MB 17:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, per recent accolade. Seasider53 (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure that's significant coverage. Lots of restaurants get reviewed and the recent article looks to be about that calibre. FalconK (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MB 17:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MB 17:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I was very fond of this place when I lived in London back in the 1980s but I couldn't find substantive WP:RS media coverage, under either the present name or the old "Pig's Ear" name, that would support a claim of notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. It is indeed run of the mill; nothing to establish notability in 130 years. News search turns up basically nothing. FalconK (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. Perhaps this will be a stat to more realistic standards for restaurant aticles."restaurant of the week " is an absurd basis for notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Professional and working class conflict in the United States[edit]

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

Essay unsourced for over a decade with irreconcilable maintenance tags. I considered re-scoping the article to "class conflict in the United States" but that would be redundant to existing topical disciplines with better sourcing, such as social structure of the United States, labor in the United States, and economic inequality in the United States. We have not covered class conflict geographically (nevertheless created geographical splits from the article) ostensibly because that ideological framing is not conducive for WP:NPOV. Since there is no sourced content worth merging elsewhere, I recommend deletion. czar 04:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. czar 04:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Mostly unsourced, and whatever can be salvaged (if anything) could go into Class conflict#Capitalist societies. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 02:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Hedley[edit]

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

No significant coverage and no claim to significance, sources are mostly primary or routine coverage. Fails the GNG and NMOTORSPORT, and arguably YOUNGATH as well. Another junior driver given an article without meaningful coverage on which to write one. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Junior driver who seems to at most notable only for WP:ONEEVENT (winning the Ginetta Junior Championship). Currently WP:TOOSOON for an article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Coverage seems to all be routine (I had to remove a citation from the article as it doesn't even mention Hedley). Clearly fails GNG and NMOTORSPORT. A7V2 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Nivea (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 04:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Run Away (I Wanna Be with U)[edit]

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

This song charted and was released as a single, but I believe it still fails WP:NSONG because I could not find any evidence that this song has received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. The only coverage that I see is in album reviews, and I do not see enough coverage to justify a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Nivea (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Nivea (album) per WP:ATD. ✗plicit 02:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zombie Beach[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous discussion ended in no consensus, however, this film still does not have enough to pass WP:NFILM. Merely being shown at Festivals does not guarantee notability. Hopefully a second discussion will come with a firm result. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I'm finding coverage for the director, who looks like he is probably notable, but I'm not really finding anything for the film in specific. I'll keep digging, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I'll grant that I was the nominator the first time, but neither the issues nor the sourcing here have actually changed. An editor removed the maintenance tags in October, without actually addressing the substance of the reasons why they were added in the first place: there's absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about the film being shown here at all, except for a brief glancing mention of the film's existence in an article about its director (which is not enough in and of itself). Simply being shown at film festivals is not a notability freebie in the absence of published reviews of the film by professional film critics in real media, and "notability because awards" is not automatically fulfilled by every award presented by just any old film festival that exists: that attaches only to a narrow elite tier of film festivals (Cannes, Berlin, Toronto, Sundance, etc.) whose awards can be shown to garner media coverage, and not to film festivals whose awards have to be cited to the festival's own self-published website about itself because media coverage doesn't exist. That is, an award has to be a notable award (i.e. an award that the media considers important enough to cover as news) in order to make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claims here are cited to primary sources, not media coverage, which means they aren't notability-making awards. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from having to be sourced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Concur with deletion statements made thus far. If festival awards were to contribute to notability, at least one review would be expected out of the festival to meet GNG. — 2pou (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baxter Taylor[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows this singer is notable. SL93 (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete but. I thought the same, but the question is whether: "Taylor discovered that his song "Marie Laveau" had become a hit, recorded by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show in 1971 and Bobby Bare in 1973. In 1975, over 12 years after it was written, Taylor and his co-writer Shel Silverstein received a BMI Songwriting Award for the song." means that subject passes WP:GNG due to receiving an award. Jdcooper (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, I doubt that the "BMI Songrwiting award" is a prominent enough accolade to pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 8. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 on the main article, redirect for the rest, with the option of merging independently sourced content. This discussion is a mess, and has gone on long enough. There is clear consensus that the spinoff articles aren't worth keeping. Consensus isn't clear on the main article; a standalone might be justifiable, or a merger to the article about the founder, but that decision should be taken on the basis of quantities of coverage in reliable sources, and rather than examining that this AfD has devolved into off-topic argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Al-Ameen Educational Society[edit]

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

Articles about a non-notable university and its several articles (listed below) that I had nominated through PROD deletion back in October which resulted in deletion. It seems that they were recreated, but nothing has changed in regards to the quality or information about them. Any sources currently used don't mention the school in detail and are only in passing. None of these articles meet GNG. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Al-Ameen College of Education
Al-Ameen College of Law
Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy
Al-Ameen Institute of Information Sciences
Al-Ameen Institute of Management Studies
Al-Ameen Primary & High School
Al-Ameen Arts, Science and Commerce Degree College
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]
Keep and Redirect all others to Al-Ameen Educational Society which appears to be notable. Al-Ameen is a known institutional chain in India. Definitely notable as a whole. But individual entries need to be redirected to the article on the society that runs them. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appearing notable can be given to any article nominated at an Afd discussion. But appearance is not a requirment. It's whether or not it actually is with sources that qualify in some form of significant coverage. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all The articles about the colleges clearly aren't notable. The article about the institution might be, but from what I can the references are all either primary or extremely bias, trivial, PR puff pieces. Especially the ones from The Hindu. Which clearly aren't up to Wikipedia's standards. So the article isn't worth keeping unless someone can find references that are. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge: Merge all pages associated with the subject to the primary subject, which I believe is likely Al-Ameen Educational Society. I did see a few reliable sources on the primary subject, not each individual department of it. Add sections in the primary page about the various colleges, if relevant and reliable sources are available. Multi7001 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I am the author of these articles, I leave it to all users for consideration. If not possible to keep it as separate, it can be merged. DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'd be fine with merging the articles as long as the target article does not become a dump for un-referenced material or material that is only sourced to primary references. If someone can pick out the few good lines and references from each article and just merge them though without the other stuff I'm fine with it being used as an alternative to deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There still needs to be sufficient established notability for the primary page. There have been countless deletion noms from high-scale American institutions like Princeton that attempted having separate pages for colleges, but there must be reason for a primary page first, then all other extensions merge, if relevant. There might be insufficient reliable sources in this case. Multi7001 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't disagree. Which is why I said we should only merge the articles if there are good sources to do it with. Obviously I'm not for merging the articles if what we merge won't at all improve the target. I'd be really surprised if we couldn't find 2 or 3 useable references out of the 8 articles though, but it's possible they just aren't that notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am eager to see if the primary page, Al-Ameen Educational Society, avoids deletion. The focus should be on that page, and after the AfD nom concludes, the extensions/colleges should be merged, if relevant. Thus far, only seen strong sources and coverage for the institution's founder. Multi7001 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main page doesn't have enough to survive with sourcing, etc. The article on the school's founder has better sourcing and the sources used on the school's article's are more about him than anything else. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might after the other articles are merged or redirected. There's really no way to tell until then though. I guess that's kind an inherent issue with "mass" nominations like this one. Not to say the articles shouldn't have been nominated this way, but doing so does make it a little harder to suss out the best option for all the articles involved in it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated as a mass because I had gotten them deleted after PRODDING them just last year as I stated in my nomination. For some reason, they were restored and all had failed per my original PROD nomination. So much so, the navbox that no longer exists for these articles was deleted because it was all red links. I think that if a prod deleted an article then it had merits to be. And if it were recreated, it was probably due to a deletion review discussion, but I didn't find one and the articles haven't changed in any form whatsoever post-recreation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately (or maybe not) it's pretty easy to re-create articles that have been deleted through the PROD process without any discussion or anything. At least you were able to get them deleted that way in the first place. Normally it's pretty hard for PRODs of schools to not be removed on sight. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NORG multiple sources have been provided in the article. Any merge should be discussed on article talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it doesn't. Stop saying it does when you haven't read those links that are used as sources. All of those "sources" don't help the article pass notability. Not a single one of them talks about the school in-depth nor prove any notability. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever the case is with the references or lack of them it's perfectly fine to have a merge discussion in an AfD. In fact, it's probably better to have it here where people will actually see and participate in the discussion, instead of on some random talk pages that no one will look at. Let alone participate in. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adamant1, this Afd may interest you since this is the same keep voter who's only here to go after me over one thing and claim that since I've nominated the article I'm causing a problem. And is making false accusations against me. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be careful with pinging specific people so it doesn't look like WP:CANVASS. If certain people are repeatedly making accusations toward you or causing problems in multiple AfDs that you've nominated the best thing to do is to report them to ANI. Reading over that AfD, it looks like both Venkat TL and Valjean are both bludgeoning, making personal statements, and have WP:COMPETENCE issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not trying to canvass, just to alert the behavior and as to why this editor has voted keep. It's a major concern here as over there and on other discussion venues. Because as I've said and as you have said, their behavior is something I've noticed on Afd's where they vote keep since the article exists and find one or two links and thus they think it's notable. Even after repeated instance of trying to ask them how does it pass GNG, they don't respond to that issue. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know your not. It's still better to air on the side of caution though. I'm not going to vote in the other AfD, but I did leave a comment about the neutrality of references. Hopefully that helps. People often confuse what works in an article with what works for notability in an AfD, when they aren't really the same. For instance it's usually fine to cite a social media link in an article if it's supported by a better references, but no one can claim a social media shows the topic is notable. A lot of people don't know that though. So I'd give Venkat TL the benefit of the doubt that they just don't know the difference, rather then reading malicious intent into their actions. Not that I'm saying you are, just giving my perspective on your disagreement. If you do enough of these you'll learn eventually that it's mostly pointless trying to discuss things with people. 99% of the time people aren't going to change their vote or admit their wrong just because you lay out a well reasoned argument for why they should and are. It's not confined to just keep voters either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Delete Effectively unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 22:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emmy Morgan[edit]

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

Quite simply fails the WP:GNG guideline. The sources are almost exclusively self-published or not third-party and even then, the coverage is superficial. Her two books were self-published and the rest of her work appears to be on non-notable projects. Finally, the username strongly suggests that the article is an autobiography. Pichpich (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete with storm and fire: Complete vanity article of NN subject. No ground to add to the nom's cogent assessment, save that the quality of writing of the article is nowhere close to even minimal professional standards. Ravenswing 11:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment original creator has moved the entire text to their talk page, when their intent was clearly to move it to draft space. It's probably eligible for speedy-deletion as misuse of talk-page, but that would be unhelpful as it's a mis-move. Maybe someone can move it to the right place? I don't know how. Elemimele (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reverted the move. It's now back in mainspace. --Finngall ^talk 16:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with all the other comments that this is an article likely to be deleted. But I don't think we're following correct procedure. The article's creator obviously intended to retract it back into draft-space, and we ought to respect that decision. If it re-emerges into main space it would be eligible for deletion, but I do think that the most helpful thing to do in the current circumstances would be to move to draft, and advise the creator to take a good look at the criteria for notability of biographies. Elemimele (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree; it's not helpful at all. Let's be realistic: the subject is light-years from notability, and if this is indeed a COI, never will be on account of her writing. All pushing this into draft space would do is kick the can down the road for a G13, and perhaps hoodwink the creator into thinking that there's a chance. I'd encourage the creator, instead, to improve her writing skills and seek to contribute in other ways. Ravenswing 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Ravenswing said it better than I could. Complete promotional piece and zero notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - lacks reliable sources and doesn't seem to have any claim to meeting WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYBIO or any other guideline Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – A little too soon for someone who hasn't done so much. Anything she has theoretically worked on is non–notable as well. Should some form of notability be met in the future perhaps, but not now.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - None of the provided sources are independent or reliable, and I found nothing better. @Elemimele: I wouldn't object to draftification if the state of the article was simply "needs work", but if I were evaluating this as an AfC draft, I'd be inclined to reject rather than simply decline. I've seen way too many COI authors create articles in mainspace straightaway or promote them from draftspace themselves without a proper evaluation, then quickly try to move their articles back to draftspace as soon as the AfD tag drops, trying to use the self-draftification as a means to avert deletion and divert scrutiny. It doesn't work that way, and such behavior should not be validated. --Finngall ^talk 23:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.