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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Ending[edit]

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

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

Do not appear to satisfy WP:NBAND. Little to no coverage on their career and no notable releases. – DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 23:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete other than their own website, none of the refs work, and I can't find any substantial coverage. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: their label ProgRock Records perhaps needs to go as well. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I didn't find enough back in 2010 and nothing seems to have changed. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. No independent reliable sources and fails WP:NBAND. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom - sources are good for SIGCOV, per Ganbaruby. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin Traitorous[edit]

Shaolin Traitorous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

De-PRODded with the edit summary "deproded. Article can obviously be improved and de-orphaned"; no sources were added and no improvements were made, of course.

Prior to my PROD, I did as thorough of a BEFORE check as I can for an English speaker and found nothing except trivial mentions in lists and database listings (oh, and pirate sites). No doubt the movie exists, but is it notable per WP:NFILM? Not as far as I can find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Deproder here. Personal attacks don't help. I have added the Chinese name of the movie and de-orphaned the article at the time of the deproding. Minor improvements, I agree, but "no improvements were made, of course" is inaccurate. I have helped substantially improve HK movies articles in the past, and by experience decent sources can often be found, mostly in Chinese language after some serious digging is performed. I wish this can be done for this article, hence my deproding, which as expected is triggering an AfD, which will attract more attention than a PROD and which hopefully will see a poor stub being converted into a decent article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for removing the prod and for your improvements to the article, Underwaterbuffalo (talk · contribs). I agree that for Hong Kong movie articles, "by experience decent sources can often be found, mostly in Chinese language after some serious digging is performed". This is the case here. Cunard (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing on a WP:BEFORE. Kolma8 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Kolma8, I asked Ganbaruby (who commented below, and who can read Chinese) to have a look at Cunard's references, and they've confirmed it constitutes SIGCOV (as opposed to just trivial mentions or ads or something), so I'd like to move for withdrawl - will you strike your vote so I can do so? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Premeditated Chaos, you got it. Kolma8 (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 2. I have made improvements to the article and added an English language ref: a PhD thesis that details the movie and uses it as an example across 14 pages. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. "大太监". Sin Chew Daily (in Chinese). 1976-11-27. p. 16. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.
  2. "大太監打鬥激烈：故事情節無新意" ["Shaolin Traitorous" fights fiercely: the storyline is nothing new]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-24. p. 9. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  3. "因大太監提早公映，上官靈鳳行期大亂，陳觀泰出正名執導，萬事不理賺錢為先". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-24. p. 9. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  4. "「 大太監」穿針、麻雀引線". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-11-25. p. 9. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  5. "影片趕緊推出，宋廷美感意外". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-22. p. 3. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  6. "大太監匆匆推出古，王家達田鶴險武鬥，吳思遠聘大狀反禁制令". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-22. p. 13. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  7. "大太監今公映". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-23. p. 6. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  8. "黃家達與田氏兄弟，幾釀武鬥，似有下文". The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-07-24. p. 3. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  9. "大太監招待會匆匆上映，上官靈鳳黃家達聯合演". Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1976-07-22. p. 20. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  10. "大太監提早映，上官靈鳳趕辦手續，日內來港". Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1976-07-23. p. 7. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  11. "宋廷美今招待記者，介紹新作「 大太監」". Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1976-07-21. p. 18. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  12. "張翼拍攝大太監後，轉演反派獲得成功". Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1976-07-24. p. 14. Retrieved 2021-08-22 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shaolin Traitorous (simplified Chinese: 大太监; traditional Chinese: 大太監) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've reviewed the Chinese-language sources above, and I can confirm that there is WP:SIGCOV here. You could build a "Production" header here, and also use the review in the second source for a "Critical reception". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mod Dam 1199 R[edit]

Mod Dam 1199 R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another promotional article about the artist/architect Mario Kleff by a COI/UPE editor who has now been indeffed. This motorcycle, which was a Honda modified by Kleff is non-notable, it caught fire and burned up not long after. Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. The short-lived modded motorcycle does not meet WP:GNG, and does not seem like encyclopedic material. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a vanity project. Is it notable, that is probably hard to determine, it is a 1200cc Ducati engine in 125 frame. It has some coverage but it is from a blocked UPE. Get rid. It is just another custom bike. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a one off creation is nothing as notable as a Triton, Tribsa or even Norvin of which many were created. ww2censor (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Idunnox3 (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NFT. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per my comments in the previous nomination. All of the third-party sources that are actually about the subject are blogs repeating information from the self-published Facebook posts, and can hardly be considered to help establish notability per the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Pinging previous AfD participants John B123, NemesisAT, AdoTang, Sagotreespirit, Lilporchy, and Jackattack1597. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdraw. The user who made that article has since expanded it, providing more info. (non-admin closure) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Rundell[edit]

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

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

After a brief Google Search, the only other things I'm finding about him besides him signing the role is him being on a stamp. Definitely not notable just because he signed the roll. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Thomas Larkin[edit]

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

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

This article is supported by one blog entry, which is also just a list of events in his life with no explanatory text. This is light years away from meeting any prong of GNG, it is not substantial coverage, it is not reliable, it is questionable that a blog that exists to track all bishops of the Catholic Church could be indepdent in a meaningful way, not one part of GNG is met. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A perusal of the sources shows a directory of the ordination of bishops in the US, which dirtectory listing is clearly not enough to pass GNG. It also shows one source that is probably about this Larkin, but is actually about his predecessor in one of his positions of a parish rector who demanded that he be appointed as the next rector, but that coverage does not meet the indepth requirement of GNG. All the other mentions are false positives about other people. I see no indication of Larkin passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not voting now and may not vote on this one, but I want to point out that some and maybe a substantial amount of the article is lifted from a website (try copy-paste Googling). Does it therefore qualify for speedy deletion? I'm not too familiar with speedy criteria. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and gave the article a copy edit to address the copy-pasting concern expressed by DiamondRemley39. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep per WP:GNG and per guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide. One of the most important figures in the Catholic church in Florida in the last half of the 20th century and a close associate of Pope John Paul II. Larkin oversaw the creation of 19 new parishes and a diocesan radio station. He is also the namesake of the Bishop Larkin School in Port Richey (see here and here). An in-depth front page biographical profile was published by the Tampa Bay Times and can be found (1) here (part 1) and here (part 2). Additional SIGCOV can be found (2) here (part 1/part 2), (3) here part 1/part 2, (4) here, (5) here, (6) here, (7)here, (8) here, (9) here, and (10) here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Johnpacklambert: In light of the sourcing above, please consider withdrawing this nom. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I will not withdraw this nomination based on a bunch of obscure hyper local sources. Especially considering that absolutely zero sources have been added to the article. The article is still only sourced to a blog style list source that is not reliable, and nothing changes that until someone actually adds sources to the article, and I remain unconvinced that coverage in a local paper is enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have here SIGCOV in The Tampa Tribune, the Tampa Bay Times, The Orlando Sentinel, and the Sun-Sentinel. These are major metropolitan dailies; there is nothing "obscure" or "hyper local" about such sourcing. And such sourcing has now been added to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. gnu57 04:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. gnu57 04:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BISHOPS. StAnselm (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which actually says that bishops are not notable by default and that more than just church records are needed, which is absolutely all we had when I started this nomination. Did you even read what you linked to, because it does not actually support that bishops are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG is met by the sources listed above. The demand that newspaper coverage be national to count towards notability is not part of the GNG, but the nominator (or any editor) is welcome to start an RFC to suggest such a policy update. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Being a diocesan bishop in the Catholic church is enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per all above comments, especially Cbl62 for doing a basic google search - which per WP:BEFORE is the responsibility of the nominator. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a reasonable before search and came up with absolutely nothing. The above is an unfair and unjustified attack on my actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were advised a couple of days ago that not withdrawing this was going to make you look bad. It's now in SNOW territory: even if you did a BEFORE search, it failed to find extensive newspaper coverage which every participant but you appears to have found compelling. What, exactly, is the point of leaving this open and un-withdrawn? I simply do not get it. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm conscious that local coverage can still be considered local coverage, even when a subject's local newspaper happens to be a national daily. In fact, policies include specific examples of exactly that. However, in this instance, the combination of coverage and SNG criteria is enough to get us there, I think. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - given the nominator has now been blocked for sock-puppetry and disruption, and is the only person here advocating for deletion, this can probably be closed per WP:SNOW. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Bernie Mac Show. Less Unless (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda "Baby" McCullough[edit]

Wanda "Baby" McCullough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable character. Sahaib3005 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the characters section for The Bernie Mac Show. Pahiy (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete, no evidence this meets any criteria outlined in GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete. The topic does not have sufficient sources needed to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Not a particularly likely search term for a redirect. Avilich (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Half (2006 British film)[edit]

The Other Half (2006 British film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find any coverage of this movie, despite name actors being in it. It doesn't seem very notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hired Heart[edit]

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

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I wasn't able to find any coverage of the film either. It doesn't seem to have made much of an impact when it first came out, or in the years since. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The article has already been soft-deleted as a result of this simultaneous AfD. If the article is REFUNDed, it may be renominated. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RONGETZ[edit]

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

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

No notable international coverage, no verifiable sources for their work. Subject has never earned any major awards or professional distinctions. Seems to be a vanity article for the subject, who may possibly be among the main contributors of the article (or is employing others connected to them to edit). A little confused because according to this, the article had been up for AfD in 2016; the result was delete. Yet here it is five years later. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryTime7-24: no, the redirect RONGETZ ( aka Stephane RONGET) was deleted because of the parentheses, but this article was never put up for AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. See the external links section for several credits on the BBC (which is international) and France Musique, the radio network of France Radio. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC playlists show the song was only played once, not playlisted or put on rotation as WP:NMUSIC states. The French sources look better. Richard3120 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravana Brahma[edit]

Ravana Brahma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilla Zamindar (1980 film)[edit]

Pilla Zamindar (1980 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Can't find RS for this. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mosagadu[edit]

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

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep / withdrawn (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major Chandrakanth (1993 film)[edit]

Major Chandrakanth (1993 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Two full length reviews found at Sivaranjani magazine^[1] Zamin Ryot (Telugu newspaper).^[2] -- Ab207 (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: passes WP:NFILM -- DaxServer (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• With those sources - definitely a Keep. Awesome work guys! Withdrawing my nomination. --Filmomusico (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ksheera Sagara (film)[edit]

Ksheera Sagara (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources found, nominator withdrew nomination. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Chowdary[edit]

Justice Chowdary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NFO. Two full length reviews at Andhra Patrika^[1] and Sitara Magazine.^[2] -- Ab207 (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: passes WP:NFILM -- DaxServer (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Now it does. Withdrawing my nomination.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flashpoint (politics)[edit]

Flashpoint (politics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article has not been improved in years. It should be deleted.Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of politics related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the WP:NOTDICT policy. There used to be more details in the article but they were deleted (cards on table, by myself) as they had never been sourced. The article had been tagged as unsourced since 2009 (yes 2009) and no one was ever able to provide even a single source to back up an example. It's clear at this point that no one cared enough about that, so all we have now is a dictionary entry, and not a very good one at that. We're an encyclopaedia, Wiktionary can be found elsewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 22:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, an unnecessary dictionary entry. Geschichte (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amara Deepam (1977 film)[edit]

Amara Deepam (1977 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Expanded with sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: passes WP:NFO — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per WP:NFO; the film is an award winner. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• With sources added - I am pleased to withdraw my nomination.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Chemical Technology[edit]

Faculty of Chemical Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article has been entirely uncited for 9 years, which is a problem in itself, though when searching for this I don't believe this meets notability guidelines. This is simply a departmental section of University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague (which is a valid page) and is the only one from that page that has its own article.

The article itself sounds like it's just lifted from a web page and is rather uncyclopedicly written because of it. If this page is voted for keeps it should be improved and cited. I considered proposing merging, but given the information on the main university page it already has enough relevant information. Maybe a sentence or two could be added.

Sometimes, a department page for a major university is warranted if there is very significant research there historically, major history, etc that makes it noteworthy. For this though, I was not able to find sufficient sources to validate its keeping --Tautomers_{(T C)} 21:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague. No independent notability is asserted, and no sourced information to merge. Jdcooper (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague. And that is de nice version of my opinion about this piece of advertising. The Banner talk 16:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Blank and Redirect to University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague and mention at target. Likely not notable. A redirect will preserve page history and alert searchers to which university this is associated. No content that is obviously worth merging, but the department should be mentioned if redirected there. Alternatively, delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, already mentioned at target. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jibon Theke Paoya[edit]

Jibon Theke Paoya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable short film, no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing to help pass GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Scholnick[edit]

Joseph Scholnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Successful, but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not satisfy required criteria. Google search offers almost no useful references, most of the existing being wikipedia connected.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Altoz[edit]

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

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

Non-notable manufacturer of equipment. PROD was declined, but no additional sources were supplied. I've looked and only found more of the same press release/equipment catalog style coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, this article has all the hallmarks of a promotional piece. NemesisAT said "I'm finding additional sources in a search and, combined with what is here, should be enough to establish notability" when they deprodded--well, without serious coverage this needs to be deleted. This looks like a PR piece, and so does this--it seems like Turf Magazine is just another industry mouthpiece, and this "local business leader" bit is no better. The rest of the sources aren't really worth discussing either. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I blocked the most recent editor per UPE: it is obvious what they were doing. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article creator probably was a COI/UPE, but they haven't made any edits since creating the article years ago, so probably not worth bothering with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 23:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks more like a product guide. Kablammo (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)D[reply]
• Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2021 United States Capitol attack or to a related, more spefici article. There is clear consensus that a standalone is not warranted at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. 3325 (117th Congress)[edit]

H.R. 3325 (117th Congress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article consists of only WP:PRIMARY sources, and I could find no secondary ones in my WP:BEFORE search. That leads me to conclude the article's subject does not meet WP:N.

Of course, this wouldn't be an issue if we were on WikiLaw because I think the article is otherwise well written. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stumbled upon this article myself just a short bit ago and have tried to do what I can cleanup-wise, but I agree, this really isn't all that notable – just procedural stuff. Would probably support a merge to one of the many 1/6-related articles over a delete, but I agree, alone this act hasn't received major coverage. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2021 United States Capitol attack or a related article. Few readers are going to know this law by its number so few would want to look it up that way. However, some readers who are interested in the aftermath of the Capitol attack might be interested in Congress honoring the Capitol police as a result and would expect to find this information in a Capitol attack-related article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment there are no secondary sources will be fixed. There are now copious news stories about the bill and awarding it in a Rose Garden Ceremony. As the public law awards the Congressional Gold Medal, this is hugely warranted as an article. The award has been granted less than 200 times in our nation's history, which makes it notable in and of itself, even if it was not for the circumstances in which it was awarded. Esvabird (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now added secondary sources as requested. Esvabird (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sourcing is not an issue; it had four non-primary sources at the time of nomination, and has six now. It's sufficiently distinct from 2021 United States Capitol attack that it deserves separate coverage; and in fact, merging it could likely lead to sacrificing worthy information on the alter of WP:UNDUE.

I agree that H.R. 3325 (117th Congress) is a lousy name, but not because of its numeric nature. Many bills/statutes have short names, whether named descriptively (e.g., the Copyright Act of 1976), after its major proponent (e.g., the Lanham Act), or to be clever or to market it (e.g., the TREAD Act or the USAPATRIOT Act); but many have either long boring summarizing names (e.g. "an Act to Protect the Commerce of the United States and Punish the Crime of Piracy" or occasionally name at all. (This one is technically named An Act to award four congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol Police and those who protected the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, but that's too long for a Wikipedia article name.) The naming of a statute has little bearing on whether the statute is notable.

However, this article is misnamed because it's named for the unenacted bill (and only as considered in the House of Representatives); because the bill was enacted into law (which is part of the reason it's notable), it should be named for the statute. It is the enacted law (Public Law 117-32) that is the notable; not the proposed bill that led to the law. (As a side benefit, naming for the law itself avoids the need for the "(117th Congress)" disambiguity; the congressional identification "117" is baked into the public law designation itself.) TJRC (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @TJRC: it had four non-primary sources at the time of nomination Excuse me, but what? Which one of these sources were not primary. We have congress.gov, govinfo.gov, whitehouse.gov, c-span.org, and youtube.com (where the video is uploaded by the official White House YouTube channel). None of those qualify as anything but primary sources. Now you are saying there is six, but all I see is two: [1][2] (which were not present at the time of nomination nor could I find them in my WP:BEFORE because they don't actually mention the bill number). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  TJRC May I introduce you to The Fable of the Kid Who Shifted His Ideals to Golf and Finally Became a Baseball Fan and Took the Only Known Cure Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable but I agree that an article name change is probably in order Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm more persuaded by the Merge arguments. Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:ATD-M. Article is short and unlikely to be expanded. An ideal (best conceivable) merge target already exists: Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Posthumous awards bill. The content has been copied there (it's needed there, and fits there naturally; which is not to say that the style of prose is perfect). As an independent article, this brings nothing to Wikipedia. At this point it's just duplicate content. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AllegedlyHuman and Metropolitan90: Since you mentioned merging as a possibility -- please comment on the proposed end state of the merger (already up): Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Posthumous awards bill — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how the merge would look, I wouldn't object. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject of the parent article is itself non-notable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack, so it follows that the subject of this article is non-notable. Another reason to delete is mentioned by the nominator, the article is based mainly on primary sources and not secondary sources. 05:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

• Merge per Alalch Emis. Love of Corey (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs from Sesame Street[edit]

List of songs from Sesame Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:FAN. "The songs on the list do not gain notability from happening to have been heard" on the show. AldezD (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Salvage/prune as List of singers who have performed on Sesame Street or List of musicians who have performed on Sesame Street, e.g. Johnny Cash, Celine Dion. From People magazine, "Kelsea Ballerini is joining an illustrious list of music greats who've paid a visit to Sesame Street in the beloved children's show's 50+ year history." A lot of work has gone into this list, and it would be a shame for all of it to go to waste. Also, Music of Sesame Street would apparently be a fine article to create: How 'Sesame Street' Started a Musical Revolution (New York Times), 50 Years Young: How The Music Of 'Sesame Street' Keeps Up With The Times (NPR). (Oops, that article already exists.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, a much shorter list of original songs written for the show could make a list or be added to Music of Sesame Street. Billboard magazine has its own list of 12 best Sesame Street songs (no. 1 is "Bein' Green").[3] Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I second the above notion that setting up inclusion criteria of sorts may prune this down to a more manageable/notable list. I'd try that before deleting outright. Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source. The list topic is notable, so each element need not be, but each should be sourced to the primary source, e.g. an episode in which each appeared. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, see WP:CSC for discussion of lists made up primarily of NN items. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:FANCRUFT and no clear notability of the list in general. These are all bare mentions and the few list entries with articles are there because Sesame Street did their own take on them. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just list the ones that have a link to their own articles. Makes it a valid grouping. Dream Focus 15:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Update: I created a table. Listing everything, not just the ones with their own articles, seems fine for this. This is like the article List of guest stars on Sesame Street which ended in Keep. Or perhaps list those with their own article or that were sung by a famous person who got reviewed for being on the show. Dream Focus 16:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Did the famous people singing these other songs get media coverage for appearing on the show and singing a song there? Dream Focus 15:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The Many Musical Guest Stars of 'Sesame Street': Destiny's Child, Johnny Cash & More (Billboard magazine), 10 Best ‘Sesame Street’ Musical Guests (Rolling Stone), Top 10 Celebrity Sesame Street Songs (Time magazine), The 20 Best Sesame Street Musical Guests (Paste magazine). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Clarityfiend's sourcing above. High level reliable sources document the subject of this list. The list just needs clear inclusion criteria to be developed, not deletion. Cleanup can fix the cruft issues. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note that the sources I've dug up emphasize the performer first, not the song they sing. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There appears to be ample sourcing on songs in Sesame Street and thus I feel this list should be cleaned up and sourcing improved. NemesisAT (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Clarityfiend. Article needs a lot of clean-up by categorizing every song into title, performer and episode (if necessary). Other than that, it easily passes WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but clean up, as the topic is clearly notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miraheze[edit]

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

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

A7 was declined, article 100% relies on primary sources. WP:BEFORE shows nothing to verify notability. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are from Miraheze and other primary sources. There aren't many other secondary sources online mentioning Miraheze despite it being a popular wiki hosting platform, so it is unlikely this article can be improved to Wikipedia's standards. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 00:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I researched it and this seems like a pretty big topic, but unfortunately it hasn't been covered much by reliable sources at this point. We should make it a section of another article instead, like Wiki farm. Dunutubble (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kairaoa[edit]

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

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

This article is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall ^talk 19:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarakarawa[edit]

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

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

This article is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall ^talk 19:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umauma[edit]

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

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

This article is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall ^talk 19:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Google and Google Maps do not indicate the presence of these places on Nonouti. I'm not going to comment on all ten of these, they should have been bundled. Arorae, I can tell this is mass-produced junk, but you can clarify in what way they are really fictitious? Reywas92^Talk 19:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:. I have no idea from which list those places where found and why their creator did a so bad work in 2008. But there is no such village or settlement in Nonouti. Uma means church in Gilbertese language, and Umauma is Church-Church. Non sense only.--Arorae (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the same goes for other connected settlements in Afd procces. I agree that google search does not back up all those settlements.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nanibaba[edit]

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

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

This article is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall ^talk 19:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Failed verification, could not locate any sourcing beyond the typical bot-generated sites about weather, time zones, distance calculators etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing visible at the coordinates provided and I can't find any information on this settlement through an internet search. No references in the article as of writing. NemesisAT (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While it seems clear this isn't a fictitious location, no evidence has been presented that this topic meets WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tetake[edit]

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

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

Tetake is not a village or settlement in Nonouti. This article was created in 2008 appears to be fictitious. --Arorae (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ths discussion page was not created with the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article. --Finngall ^talk 19:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Listed with a different spelling as "35 Tetaake private residence at risk from erosion S0 38 02.9 E174 25 00.2" (possibly not the same - coords are different) in http://www.climate.gov.ki/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Nonouti-Social-and-Economic-Report-2007-2-of-3.pdf page 32 (folio), page 2 (PDF). Listed on GeoNames as Tetake 00° 43' 00" S, 174° 28' 00" E (-0.716667, 174.466667), MGRS 60MTE1803320709 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain:: still some confusion between a real settlement (like a small village) and a private residence...--Arorae (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

te taake (also written te take) is a tropical bird with red feathers.--Arorae (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The place mentioned above could also be a sort of neighborhood or street name, but I see no basis to keep as a distinct and notable community. Reywas92^Talk 15:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• there are no street names in Kiribati (never) even in the the only large town of South Tarawa. So it must be a residence.--Arorae (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even if this is indeed a settlement, it would fall under populated places without legal recognition which need to meet GNG per WP:GEOLAND #2. Simply providing evidence that it exists or that people have lived there is insufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 17:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kunnamangalam Police station[edit]

Kunnamangalam Police station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Speedy was removed by an editor, PROD and PROD endorsement were declined by an admin another editor, I'm talking this to AFD, because I believe there is a legitimate discussion that needs to take place regarding this article to whether it should be kept or not. It was originally tagged as a copyright violation, and then eventually all of the alleged copied content was removed, however, this article still has many problems. It still looks like an advertisement or news article and I genuinely don't think this regular police station justifies its own article on Wikipedia, and it would make better sense if it was a section within an existing relevant article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction: User:NemesisAT is not an administrator. The PROD was removed with the argument "something doesn't have to be special to pass GNG", so here we are. The police station does not pass the GNG: there's a couple of articles from The Hindu that say it was opened, that it has surveillance cameras, and that's it. It's just routine news coverage. Delete. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obviously does not pass GNG criteria.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Definetly failing GNG. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 01:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete subject does not pass WP:GNG. --Sreeram Dilak (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aristopharma Ltd.[edit]

Aristopharma Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is currently based on sources that are not sufficient to demonstrate notability: two are non-independent, one hardly amounts to significant coverage. In my search, I've not been able to find any significant, independent coverage. The subject appears to be non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above.-- Dewritech (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nominator, not notable for now.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268#Aircraft. There is clear consensus to not keep the article. What little extra content there was I've added to the Metrojet article. I've also left a redirect just based on this event being noted in specialist industry sources. Seddon ^talk 22:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Airlines Flight 304[edit]

Middle East Airlines Flight 304 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This aviation accident has a rather high value towards Metrojet Flight 9268. Readers may as well be interested in reading it. Username006 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Username006, a merge would not be appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is wrong speculation (Speculation about causes happens after almost every disaster today. Go check this article for some of it surrounding something that happened about 60 miles from my home) after a disaster happens. Here is an example[4] from a 2001 plane crash. That was the basis for a very wrong WP article that tried to blame a crash on cellphones when the accident report said no. The article even got good article status with this shameful disinformation and a lie[5] about a separate investigation[6]. This was a minor incident and the news media speculation was dead wrong. Why are we giving voice to it?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment I say the whole thing connecting to Metrojet should be removed per WP:UNDUE which reads 'If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.' The accident reports on Metroject are quite clear why it crashed and this was I wrong above, wrong speculation by the media....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: This was not a minority. A major theory of the Metrojet crash was a possible way if the improper tail strike repair may have weakened the Airbus. It also did come on Mayday disasters in one short episode. In every documentary I have seen on Metrojet Flight 9268, they have mentioned this Left, Right and Center. The cellphone accident had nothing to do with another article and could easily be merged with Crossair Flight 498 as there was not much to say about. However, in the page of Flight 9268, I can't exactly see much information about the tailstrike accident. Here, as said by @Martinevans123:, you can't exactly merge the two topics together. The only way to give information is by creating a separate page. Username006 (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Whether a tail strike played any part in the later loss of the aircraft is a matter for the Metrojet Flight 9268 article, but a stand-alone article on what is essentially a non-event, from an encyclopedic point of view, does not make any sense. The Aircraft section − a big chunk of this article − is also largely a duplicate of the one in the Metrojet article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deeday-UK: I mean, it's the same aircraft. So isnt it expected to be similiar? Username006 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the FSB said they found traces of explosive, but that was never independently verified? Also the article says this (emphasis added): "In March 2020 an Egyptian appeals court ruled the crash was not an act of terrorism, and it dismissed lawsuits against government officials, Metrojet and Ingosstrakh." As far as I know, that is still the legal position. So if it was not caused by a bomb, what was it caused by? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The important elements of this incident are included in the Metrojet Flight 9268 article. No notability for a stand-alone article about a very minor event that is unlikely to have had anything to do with the later crash of the aircraft. (Note that the Metrojet article's statement that the Egyptian appeals court had ruled that the crash was not an act of terrorism is inaccurate. The court actually said that the investigation into the crash wasn't complete, so it was not possible for the victims to sue the airliner for allowing a bomb aboard the aircraft, and that there was no official determination that the passengers on that aircraft had died until the report was complete.). RecycledPixels (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268 Non-notable incident, and there is precedent on not having separate articles for tailstrike incidents on planes that eventually crash (Talk:Japan Airlines Flight 123#Merger_discussion). Jumpytoo Talk 21:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a merge does not seem to work and there is little information about the tailstrike incident unlike the one in Japan Airlines Flight 123. That's why a separate page is required. There are exceptions to it. It would be rather appropriate if this is included separately. Username006 (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

".. there is precedent on not having separate articles." Not sure I understand that. There are some articles which are unique. It could be argued that all articles are unique. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268 per Jumpytoo, Deeday-UK and RecycledPixels. This incident is only notable in the context of the Metrojet crash. It would barely even rate a single paragraph on page 6 of a typical newspaper otherwise. Carguychris (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is very little going on in this article and it is unlikely to be able to be expanded anymore than its current state. It certainly currently does not meet WP:GNG, of the four references given two are simple descriptions of the incident, one seems irrelevant and the last is from a source not generally considered relaible. There is nothing to suggest any continuing notability. If, and it is a big if, there is interest in this incident because of the subsequent bombing (?) of the aircraft years later, then that detail can and should be dealt with in the later article. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Metrojet Flight 9268, from which it derives its scant glimmer of importance. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Redirecting doesn't make sense, because the target article (the Metrojet crash one) will not naturally contain any reference to Middle East Airlines Flight 304 (although it will of course mention the core information about that flight, i.e. the tail strike event). Given the paucity of sources about Flight 304, readers are very unlikely to have even heard about it, let alone search for it here, which makes the redirect pointless. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There was a conspiracy about Metrojet Flight 9268 as you can clearly see in the page itself. Not sure if we should keep it as it is not that notable but there isn't that much info about it on the Metrojet page either so that kind of evens it out. KlientNo.1 (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep, for lack of a rationale based in either policy or reality for deletion of this article. The subject is clearly notable, and AfD is not the place to litigate content disputes. BD2412 T 03:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter A. McCullough[edit]

Peter A. McCullough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of an editor who is unable to currently post. With permission, their rationale has been copied verbatim from ticket:2021081510003236:

I nominate the Wikipedia page for Peter A. McCullough, American Cardiologist, to be deleted because I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and that I want the article to be deleted. Wikipedia has published this page on Dr. Peter A. McCullough without his approval. By this act, Wikipedia on Dr. McCullough has published 1) false statements purporting to be facts; 2) statements to third persons with this Wikipedia page; 3) committed fault amounting to negligence; and 4) damages to Dr. Peter A. McCullough who is the subject of the statement page.

In other words, this is a BLPREQUESTDELETE situation. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: no valid deletion rationale given. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not that I am necessarily advocating for them, but he does say that he feels he is a non-notable individual. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point. Consider my !vote amended to "no reasonable deletion rational given". As KidAd says, McCullough definitely meets GNG. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Speedy Keep Based on a review of the sources, it appears that McCullough meets WP:GNG. It also seems like the nomination rationale is written like a a veiled legal threat. KidAd • SPEAK 18:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Unsurprising, since Pmccull975 (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for making legal threats. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia articles can be created for anyone without consent as long as they're notable and there's independent, reliable sources regarding them. As for his misinformation, it's stated in the article and complies with WP:NPOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject of the article most certainly meets notability criteria, and I do not see any breaches of the WP:BLP or WP:NPOV policies (at least none that could not be fixed through editing and would warrant deletion). The thinly-veiled legal threat is also disconcerting. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article meets every aspect of WP:GNG: the subject has received significant coverage, the subject is notable, and the sources used are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject. That the subject apparently doesn't like reliably-sourced facts about their public activities does not signify with respect to Wikipedia policy. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per above. Notability can be seen.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that he is notable. It might be worthwhile to ask him what exactly in the article he thinks is false. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Eastmain, I think this should answer your question. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep under criterion 2 (editor nominating blocked for posting the same legal threat and for having previously disrupted the page in question); and also per WP:SNOW, per the above, since it is beyond doubt that this person is indeed notable (this suggests criterion 3 as well)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:SNOW and because... that's... not how Wikipedia works. Don't want your Wikipedia biography to say you said controversial things? Don't say controversial things. I don't even think we could justify deletion under WP:BLP1E given the multiple things he's said that have received coverage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If Dr. McCullough is reading this, I would like to direct him here. KidAd • SPEAK 01:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Most assuredly so, KidAd. Absolutely right. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As Stalwart111 said, that's not how Wikipedia works. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article states "misinformation". Let readers decide for themselves. If this is removed, it is a disservice to those who are able to think critically and an assault on freedom of speech. I suggest that the article be edited to be a more balanced discussion rather than a biased piece of propaganda. He is respected by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:a420:e02::2 (talk • contribs)
• Keep as "I regard myself as non-notable..." makes this completely dead-on-arrival. The subject's personal whims do not dictate encyclopedia policy. Zaathras (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exploitation colonialism[edit]

Exploitation colonialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Reason Mirkyton (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this AFD notice, I didn't understand the process of merging.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to AFC Eskilstuna. Appropriately sourced content should be merged into the target article then redirected to it as per consensus. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic FC[edit]

Athletic FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Never played in the cup or higher than the Swedish fifth tier, so fails our soccer guidelines. It is a part of AFC Eskilstuna's history, though. Geschichte (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into AFC Eskilstuna. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into AFC Eskilstuna. GiantSnowman 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into AFC Eskilstuna#AFC United. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into AFC Eskilstuna. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If they played in the Swedish Cup, then keep, otherwise merge.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. sockpuppet ST47 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trupti Rajput[edit]

Trupti Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable Indian actress, fails WP:NACTOR. The available references are not significant also fails WP:GNG DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. No notable films to meet NACTOR and lacks coverage for GNG. Ab207 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify The page creator just created this article and moved it into Draft space. I moved it back to main space during this AFD discussion but I think the best solution is to allow the editor to work on this article as a Draft since I think they were in the process of developing it when it was tagged for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Please move it to Draft back because it is not ready to be in Mainspace. I will work on it and move to Mainspace once its done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amjad4life (talk • contribs)
• Drafity, Speedy based on the creator's request. A long discussion seems unnecessary rn. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to draft. ( Draft:Maaligai ) Seddon ^talk 23:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maaligai[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFILM and, in particular, WP:NFF. I find no sources that say that principal photography has begun, and there is almost no coverage of it at all – certainly nothing to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It can always be recreated if a film actually develops. BD2412 T 15:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. It is WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone mainspace article. Incubation in draft space would be an option to save what has been created until there is more coverage, if that happens. BOVINEBOY2008 01:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per Bovineboy Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophoria[edit]

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

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

I propose that Zoophoria should be deleted primarily because after searching I could not find Reliable Sources.

I could certainly find nothing that would justify the level of detail the page is written in. After searching I did find two Dice Tower video reviews (albeit by different people). The first of these was very helpful in giving an overview of the game play but disclosed that it was a paid for review.[7] The second was a mildly positive review, though it did criticize the art style and said that the game dragged.[8] Both of these videos featured in the failed Kickstarter campaign. That's it. Everything else seems to link back to either the game designer or Wikipedia.

It does not do terribly well on notability given the above comments. There is a BGG page but there is absolutely no activity there. The kickstarter campaign failed. It was not picked up by a publisher other than the self-publishing website Gamecrafter.

I did wonder if there was an element of self-promotion. However I could find no obvious evidence of that since the failed kickstarter campaign predates the Wikipedia page by about two years. Slimy asparagus (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*delete I put some work into nominating this for deletion, and I can't see it surviving on reliable sources grounds alone.Slimy asparagus (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This AfD was not transcluded to the log, I have done that. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 14:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am finding no coverage or reviews on this board game in reliable sources at all. According to Board Game Geek, the game was self-published, and I can't even find any listings for the game to be bought or sold anywhere. I did find a failed Kickstarter for the game, though. With all of this, combined with the fact that this article was created by an WP:SPA right around the time the game is said to have been released, leads me to believe that this was nothing more than an attempt to promote what wound up being a failed, self-published product that gained no coverage or notability at all. Rorshacma (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with the timing. The Kickstarter was in 2014. The article was created in 2016. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Kickstarter failed in 2014, but the actual game wound up being self-published in the latter half of 2015, according to its page on the Game Crafter website that was ultimately used to self-publish. Regardless, though, its kind of a moot point given how no coverage of the game exists either way. Rorshacma (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah I missed that. Did you find the two Dice Tower reviews? One was paid for. Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. What is significant is either not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12; Unambiguous copyright infringement ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London On Foot[edit]

London On Foot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I see that the creator has done a lot of work but, unfortunately, this article does not belong here. It is either original research, or, if not original research, likely to be a copyvio due to the detailed nature of the instructions. May belong on WikiVoyage. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I can confirm that I've copied and pasted this from my YouTube channel, as all the walks were created by myself.

  Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTfDbwDlWJp2nU1xPMGj6sA/ Mjvdz98 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case Speedy delete because your videos suggest you claim copyright on this content. Why did you think it was a good idea to spam the encyclopedia with your own travel guides??????? Seriously, you appear to have been here a couple years, do you see anything else like this here??? Reywas92^Talk 16:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Divorce[edit]

Hollywood Divorce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG; been in CAT:NN hence the nomination. – DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the song: [9], [10] and [11]; and a few which briefly talk about the song: [12], [13] and [14]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, enough new sources, especially book sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holland (band)[edit]

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

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

Do not appear to satisfy WP:NBAND. Minor mentions in a couple of sources, but no significant coverage. No charting songs or albums. – DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Michael_Angelo_Batio#Holland,_the_Michael_Angelo_Band_and_Nitro_(1984–1993). Geschichte (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think the redirect suggested by the previous voter is necessary. For this band, since they were active in the 1980s it's possible they were covered in old hard copy publications, but I can find nothing via a Google Books search. They are discussed sometimes by 80s metal fans in social media, but otherwise they are only ever mentioned as an early endeavor for the one member who was in a different notable band later. There's just not enough on this band to justify an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujan Kranti Morcha[edit]

Bahujan Kranti Morcha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Bahujan Kranti Morcha

Organization which has no references and does not establish organizational notability. Article was already moved to draft space once, and has been moved back to article space, so that another move to draft space would be move warring. This stub does not speak for itself, and neither do its references (because they aren't there). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom. unreferenced and little indication of notability; 'basic' search reveals little if any, SIGCOV. In addition to everything noted by Robert, has already been deleted as CSD A7 in April 2021; Deletion log seen here. Eagleash (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, created by a seemingly blocked editor. Eagleash (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom, no indication of notability. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet the notability guidelines required by WP:ORG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. - Aoidh (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stephens (musician)[edit]

Jack Stephens (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable session musician/sound engineer, fails WP:MUSICBIO, all sources are trivial, simple credit lists, or unrelated to the subject. Question-mark promotional, subject is barely mentioned in any of the articles about bands he has been in. Was previously nominated by User:Instawisdom in January 2012 but closed with no comments. No independent sources have emerged since then. Jdcooper (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to EMF (band). KidAd • SPEAK 21:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he is a member of a late-period nostalgia version of EMF, having joined about 20 years after their last album. Joining that operation is not particularly notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unfortunately this process is tough for this type of journeyman musician, who has played for/with a whole bunch of notable bands but has never received reliable music media coverage in his own right, and is only ever briefly mentioned as present for whatever band he's with that week. Not enough for a standalone article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Triffids discography. ✗plicit 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]