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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Zafir[edit]

Anton Zafir (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:MMANOT by having only 2 fights in top tier promotions. Also fails WP:GNG fights are only routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 23:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another fighter who doesn't have the necessary fights to meet WP:NMMA. Coverage consists only of routine sports reporting.Sandals1 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons listed in the nom. It doesn't look like this has participated in enough high profile fights or had sufficient coverage. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 3 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. – bradv^🍁 23:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living presidents of the United States[edit]

Living presidents of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Living vice presidents of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is nothing but non-encyclopedic statistical trivia; and also very likely WP:OR for the most of it. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of India. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding VP page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The presidents who are still with us can be readily found in List of presidents of the United States by age. The rest is trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the reason given just above. Yes, there are probably plenty of people who want to know who are the living ex-presidents but it's extremely easy to find out without needing a page like this. Athel cb (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per last afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States. Especially the reason given by user:Edison. Christian75 (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per last afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States. Especially the reason given by Edison --Marbe166 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vast majority of keep arguments in that previous AfD are of the very dubious (WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:BIGNUMBER of page views, ...) kind. The sources given by Eddie also don't all seem relevant. Checking at random, the first one is just a trivial mention ("Would the republic have benefited if Lincoln had been compelled by some mechanism of state to listen to listen to the advice of the five living ex-presidents - [names them]"); the third one only has one actual, trivial, mention ("As the only living ex-president, ...",), the sixth one only namechecks former presidents without discussing the topic ("President Barack Obama and former presidents George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and their spouses"...). That WP:CITEBOMB wouldn't be enough to meet notability guidelines, since none of the sources show "significant: coverage.
  • Disregarding the supposed LISTN issue, the arguments of the previous discussion also don't adequately address why this needs a separate page full of silly statistical tables when this is trivia information which you don't need to be particularly bright to deduce from a simple look at List of presidents of the United States. I'm also not convinced that this article really has a topic that is notable to the broader world. At best, it's just the typical example of WP:BIAS, covering a topic of interest only to a limited Western audience. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for the reasons set forth in the prior afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States, particularly those given by User:Edison. It is a useful article on an important topic that is of interest to many readers, and, as Edison succinctly put it, it "performs an encyclopedic function by presenting the reliably sourced information in a useful form." The only information in the article that could be gleaned from the Wikipedia article that lists U.S. presidents is who the current living presidents are, but that is a small part of the information provided by the article. And all of this is just as true for the article listing living vice presidents of the United States. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AuH2ORepublican: Have you somehow failed to parse my comment? "It's useful", "it's an important topic", ... are not reasons to have an article on something; nor are they reasons to have a separate article for something that could just as well be covered (with less of the annoying WP:NOTSTATS) at the existing one. Nor does it address how this is not really encyclopedic information but rather a prime example of WP:BIAS - compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of presidents of India by longevity. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RandomCanadian: Is it WP:BIAS to acknowledge that presidents of the United States play a more important role in the world, and attract more interest, than do prime ministers of Luxembourg? Reality isn't a form of bias. In fact, trying to enforce some strange form of "equity" in which presidents of the United States are not given any more prominence than are presidents of Nauru could be categorized as (anti-American) bias. There are hundreds of articles on English nobles and relatively few on Bulgarian nobility, but it is not because of pro-English (or anti-Bulgarian) bias, but because English nobles have had more influence in world events than have Bulgarian nobles, and that leads to there being more public and academic interest in English nobles than in Bulgarian nobles; I don't know what it would be called to slough off articles on English nobles to ensure that they aren't given any more prominence than to Bulgarian nobles, but the right term certainly would not be "NPOV."
    • You state that the information in this article--and, presumably, in every other article involving the U.S. presidency that does not have a corresponding article for the Malawi or Paraguayan presidencies--"could just as well be covered ... at the existing one" (by which I believe you mean the general article on the U.S. presidency or maybe the one listing U.S. presidents). This fails to consider that it would make the "existing" article on the U.S. presidency even longer than it currently is, and that it is one of the main reasons that there are so many separate articles on different aspects of the U.S. presidency. (This is also the reason why the Discography section of the article on Saga lists the band's entire discography, whereas the Discography section of the article on Rush includes a link to a separate article on the band's discography; not all rock bands merit having a separate article on discography, and having the full discography in the article on Rush would make the article unwieldy.) Now, personally, what I care about is that the information be available in a convenient format, and if the consensus is that the article's information should be moved to a hidden section of the "List of presidents of the United States" article (with "Living presidents of the United States" redirecting there), then I don't think that it would result in a loss of information currently available to readers. However, before going down the road of consolidating all articles on the presidency into one or two articles, one must consider the effect that having a ridiculously large article on the presidency would have on the accessibility of the information. That is something that requires far more analysis than can be provided in this AfD. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as listcruft and synthesis of trivia. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is just redundant listcruff Aircorn (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Before I weigh in on this particular AfD, could you please clarify why you'd like to revisit this question, given the strong "keep" consensus at the previous AfD? I'm aware of WP:CCC, but is there anything different today that wasn't considered in 2017?

Furthermore, it's worth noting that there have been multiple AfDs addressing similar issues (but arriving at different outcomes):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living Prime Ministers of Sweden (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of New Zealand (no consensus)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of Australia (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (no consensus)

Edge3 (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Because, as already shown, that keep consensus is based on bogus arguments. As for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, the simple solution is to go ahead and nominate the rest, since they all pretty much appear to fail the very basic requirements of WP:NOR... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't raising an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument because the four AfDs I cited above resulted in opposite conclusions. (Two "delete" and two "no consensus".) I've just edited my previous comment to include those outcomes next to the wikilinks for their respective AfDs. Edge3 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR #6 ("Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations"). I agree with nom that the consensus at the prior AfD should be overturned. Edge3 (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am very confused by the idea that "Barack Obama is currently alive" could be considered a statement of original research, or synthesis. Surely, this is an objective fact, which we can be reasonably certain in saying is true or false. Our article on him does not couch itself by saying "believed to be alive"; what is being talked about here? jp×g 06:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, he could have been kidnapped by the Vampire Spiders of Aldebaran III and had his DNA extracted (fatally) to create a clone under their nefarious control. No crazier than some of the looney tunes conspiracy theories out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  Something being "obvious" does not mean it's acceptable for us to have a whole article based on such original synthesis (the "Timeline" table is clearly such a case); nor does it mean that we should have a whole article which only provides statistical trivia, when this is mundane information which could be briefly mentioned in the actual list of US presidents. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Firstly, the list of currently living presidents is unencyclopedic per WP:NOTTEMPORARY: a directory that grows and shrinks over time is better suited for an almanac than an encyclopedia. Secondly, the timeline of living presidents at any given time is WP:NONNOTABLE, as reliable sources don't discuss this. Historians may occasionally note that previous presidents were living at the time of some crisis, but I've seen no evidence that reliable sources have attempted to produce comprehensive timelines like the ones on these pages. Regarding WP:OTHERSTUFF, I support deleting almost everything in Category:Lists of living people for similar reasons. pburka (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That would probably require a separate request.2601:241:300:B610:ED19:73A5:40E:5FA8 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Five pillars says we are an almanac. With your definition of WP:NOTTEMPORARY we could not have many lists i.e. e.g. List of countries and dependencies by area. WP:NOTTEMPORARY is a shortcut to "Notability is not temporary", not that information is not temporary. Christian75 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "a directory that grows and shrinks over time is better suited for an almanac than an encyclopedia": But that's not what the article does; it presents the living presidents of the United States *for each historical period*, not merely list the ones who are currently alive. Plus, as noted above, the Wikipedia:five pillars provide that it is an almanac in addition to an encyclopedia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My preference for this page (and similar pages) is a site wide RFC. It would be strange for some of these lists to be kept for some countries but not for others. --Enos733 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. There is currently a New Zealand prime minister deletion request for four articles, and I suggested there two days ago that, "Rather than this batch nomination by country, it would be better have batch nominations by type of list". This would help to avoid country bias, which is one type of systemic bias. Nurg (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems too far out in terms of encyclopedicality. Nurg (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Merge, or Rename. This page presents information that isn't really accessible like this in other places on Wikipedia, and I don't think that its existence as a topic hurts the site. That said, I do agree that, as it currently exists, it doesn't really add much more than a list of trivia. I would love to see this article either fleshed out with more information and historical context to make it a proper article, or at least to have the contents somehow included elsewhere, maybe as part of a larger article on former presidents and the Post-Presidency in general? Peribirb (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this not "readily accessible in other places on Wikipedia"? The only thing this has is WP:OR deductions, a useless WP:NOTSTATS table, and a trivial cross-categorisation. It's also useless as a redirect. There's nothing encyclopedic here that isn't already covered in the whole list of US presidents. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:48, 4 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. – bradv^🍁 23:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf football in Spain[edit]

Deaf football in Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Largely unsourced content, does not seem to be notable, fails WP:GNG, orphaned article. So many problems with this article. Plus, it's too specific; perhaps "deaf football" could have an article, but "deaf football in spain" is way too specific and should be deleted (or maybe redirected.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. We don't even have an article on deaf football (yet!) GiantSnowman 11:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sounds like a reasonable title and subject, is there a redirect article for this? Govvy (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Govvy, No there isn't one now but I found and restored Draft:Deaf football that got G13ed some time ago. It contains only a few tables of tournament results. I'll need some help getting it mainspace-ready before this AFD closes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but... We do actually need a Deaf football article, it is certainly a notable topic. I found several apparently good sources about the sport, mostly from the UK. Perhaps some of the content and/or sources of this article could be reused for it. Unfortunately WP:WikiProject Deaf seems to be inactive, perhaps the Football project might assist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:12, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skylar McKeith-Magaziner[edit]

Skylar McKeith-Magaziner (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 lawyer that fails WP:GNG. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nominator; there are no sources that would show subject's notability.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – her legal career doesn't seem to have attracted significant coverage, and being mentioned in a few tabloids because of your notable mother certainly doesn't confer notability. See WP:INVALIDBIO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG upcoming lawyer as of now a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 3 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 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. – bradv^🍁 23:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karbala paradigm[edit]

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

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

Original research Ladsgroup^overleg 22:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 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. – bradv^🍁 23:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PGi[edit]

PGi (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 was going to stub this to remove the G11 material, but a search revealed nothing more than Yahoo Finance and PR Newswire. I am unable to find independent, reliable sources coverage to meet WP:ORG. So rather than leave it as an A7, bringing it here for discussion Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nom, nearly every reference is PR. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 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. – bradv^🍁 23:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erzalmaniq Fawy Rawi[edit]

Erzalmaniq Fawy Rawi (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'm not sure if the shared bronze at the SEA Games in 2005 technically makes him meet WP:NTRACK, but even if it does, I think here any presumption of notability would be rebutted by the complete lack of any coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Article has sourcing issues going back to 2007, and doesn't even source the medal (although I'm guessing that bit is true based on Athletics at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games... although the sourcing there isn't good enough to be sure either). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I haven't managed to find anything that can verify that he won a bronze medal at the 2005 SEA Games, it's not listed on any of his profiles that aren't Wikipedia mirrors e.g. worldathletics.org. The closest I got was this interview about a completely different athlete that ran with him in the 4x100 relay at the 2002 World Junior Championships in Athletics – they set a national record but didn't finish in the top 3. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:14, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David D. Hamlar Jr.[edit]

David D. Hamlar Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Came to this article through CCI work. Made to seem more notable than he is by the repeated references, but in terms of anything substantial and independent, all I can find is this from Minnesota Public Radio. Since WP:NSOLDIER is no longer, I think the subject is a clear failure of WP:NBIO. — GhostRiver 19:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — GhostRiver 19:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — GhostRiver 19:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — GhostRiver 19:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BASIC. Most of the reliable sourcing relates to his relatives rather than him, while the rest (largely National Guard) do not establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASIC. Intothatdarkness 19:08, 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 and redirect to McMaster University. – bradv^🍁 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McMaster Integrated Science[edit]

McMaster Integrated Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per the AfD in January 2010, the article was redirected to McMaster University. In February 2012, User:Caboose The Vehicle Destroyer restored the article, as far as I can see without acquiring consensus. Per the arguments on the previous AfD, the article should be redirected. intforce (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No proper independent sourcing, and it reads like a college prospectus. Individual university courses aren't usually notable enough for stand alone articles about them, and nothing indicates that this one is exceptional. The king of the sun (talk) 19:22, 3 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Reynolds[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are scant and plenty have been awarded the OBE. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BASIC. MBE doesn't satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even the OBE, the MBE. Sources inadequate to meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. JeepersClub (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked as sockmaster. Geschichte (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've done a bit of search and I agree with the nominator. Acrols (talk) 05:13, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle McRae[edit]

Danielle McRae (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:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Largely content is sourced to her website, fansites or interviews thus fail WP:INDY and was unable to find any in-depth coverage. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not realize this is a 2nd nomination but the first occurred in 2016, WP:Articles for deletion/Danielle McRae S0091 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree this person is not notable. While they do have several convention appearances and were nominated for an award, the award is not notable and I am not of the opinion that convention appearances alone is enough to warrant an article, and looking through the roles, most are minor characters. Additionally, the creator has been given a COI warning, which was a large problem in the previous AfD. Link20XX (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteas per nom fails WP:ANYBIO.JeepersClub (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked as sockmaster. Geschichte (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Creator of article is now part of an SPI. S0091 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Berghoef[edit]

Bryan Berghoef (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:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate - coverage is fairly routine for this sort of situation. StAnselm (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Edge3 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this suggests neither any preexisting notability for other reasons independent of a candidacy, nor any compelling reason his candidacy would pass the ten year test as a topic of greater and more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:20, 3 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 23:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koo Ntakra[edit]

Koo Ntakra (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 an WP:ADMASQ seems to be connected to an undisclosed COI due to the nature of the article. Secondly, the subject of the article doesn’t fulfill any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO nor do they satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Finally, a review of all the sources used in the article shows they are very much unreliable and are promotional, references are all in connection to promotions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep, some of the sources are unreliable and very promotional but subject does seem to meet #8nominated for a major award and #9winning a major competition of WP:MUSICBIO. -Xclusivzik (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Xclusivzik. The promotional sources can always be cleaned up. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:25, 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 23:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Today (website)[edit]

Radio Today (website) (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 an obviously notable website. Very few non-primary sources (most of the article is sourced from items on the website itself) and little or no coverage in reputable news outlets or academic sources. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The website isn't just UK. There are Australian, American, and other versions. I suspect it's notable, but it's a very hard search term. @Neutralhomer and Sammi Brie: do you know where to find sources here? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There seem to be a lot of references to it, some outside the UK (such as Sydney Morning Herald) (see here), but nothing in-depth. As I understand it, Radio Today is a notable industry website at least. I agree it's a difficult search term; Googling the term "Radio Today" produces mainly links to the website, though the same thing happens if you Google other news outlets. I had slightly better luck with "Radio Today website". This is Paul (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think adding to the confusion here is the fact that there's a completely unrelated site in Australia, also called Radio Today. This makes it even harder to find sources and citations for the article relating to the .co.uk site. Flip Format (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A couple replies:
  • Rhododendrites, I wasn't even aware they did coverage in other countries. Their UK and Ireland sites generally seem to be the most developed and cited; the rest is generally an aggregator of a number of other good radio sources.
  • It's a tough search term, and I do see founder Roy Martin quoted in a couple of places on radio topics (e.g. [1] [2]), but I'm also not seeing in-depth coverage of the site itself. It's accepted as an RS in the radio projects for UK and Ireland topics, but we don't have an article on RadioInsight, which is similarly very densely cited for US radio happenings of the last 10 years, and NMEDIA gave me a real appreciation for the role of the GNG in this realm. I have to lean weak delete on the availability of sources about the site itself. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: At first, I thought this had to do with the branding "Radio2Day" or "2Day FM". But when I looked at it, I realized it was a radio news information site....and not a good one. It's not all radio station news. On the American side of the site these three articles just today and their entire "news" section is nothing related to radio station news. On top of that, I hadn't even heard of it...which is bad. If I haven't heard of a website related to radio, it's not that notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutralhomer, I ran across RadioToday a lot last year when I had to sort out the Greatest Hits Radio mess. It's probably about as common a citation for our UK pages as RadioInsight is stateside. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sammi Brie: That's probably why I've never seen Weak Delete !vote, since it does have uses in the UK. I still feel the non-radio station information (and lack of backing sources) really do it a disservice. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A well known, and frequently used website on Wikipedia, detailing developments in the UK and worldwide radio industry and therefore notable It could do with more references and these can always be added as and when they are found. Rillington (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Setting aside the international versions of the website (which seem to be less well maintained and more of a news aggregator), it is certainly notable enough from a UK perspective. Sadly the lack of references lets the article down, but as mentioned above its founder is referenced in other media. Also seems to be well known in the industry, and appears to have been active since at least 2004 (here's one of their articles from back then). Perhaps a solution could be to move this to draft space for the time being. This is Paul (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That seems like a decent solution. The putative printed magazine that makes up much of the current article's content appears to have never actually happened, and if there are other notable things about this site, then those should be the focus of the article. If not a deletion, it needs a rewrite to assert notability. Flip Format (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem with relegating it to draft space means that it is far less likely to get the improvements the articles does need. Therefore, I feel that a better outcome would be the keep the article on Wikipedia but add the additional verifications tag to the top of the article. Rillington (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Radio Today is frequently cited, and generally considered a reliable source here. I think it is beneficial to keep this article. They have been quoted in The Guardian too. NemesisAT (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG per above argument. SBKSPP (talk) 03:35, 4 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 merge to Ice Age (franchise). – bradv^🍁 23:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age: Adventures of Buck Wild[edit]

Ice Age: Adventures of Buck Wild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Future film that may be cancelled, notable production info should be merged to the franchise page. There is already an active draft of this topic at Draft:Ice Age: The Adventures of Buck Wild. A majority of this text was already located at the franchise page before it was copy-pasted here. BOVINEBOY2008 18:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Ice Age (franchise) per nom, and redirect current title to Ice Age (franchise)#Ice Age: Adventures of Buck Wild (2022) or smth like that lol. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:23, 3 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 18:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Insurance[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Username of main contributor indicates coi. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The articles I did find on L.A. Insurance were from Crain's Detroit and basically talking about its regulatory fight for selling short-term insurance. Nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:21, 3 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 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. – bradv^🍁 23:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gyaldem Tish[edit]

Gyaldem Tish (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 an WP:ADMASQ seems to be connected to an undisclosed COI due to the nature of the article. Secondly, the subject of the article doesn’t fulfill any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO nor do they satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Finally, a review of all the sources used in the article shows they are very much unreliable and are promotional. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Ampimd (talk) 16:40, 21 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 World Series of Poker. – bradv^🍁 23:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Christenson[edit]

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

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

Lacks in-depth coverage. Most coverage mentions him only as a television executive. Tulkijasi (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to World Series of Poker, where there is a minor mention, is probably better than outright deletion. I went through every ref link that worked in the article and see a bunch of passing mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Does not appear to meet GNG. MB 00:58, 23 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. – bradv^🍁 23:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Olly Stephens[edit]

Murder of Olly Stephens (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 had it in my mind to create this article when I first heard about the crime, because I figured that after the legal restrictions were lifted, there would be significant media frenzy about the murder of a child by three other children - particularly as it wasn't a gang related incident like most of that age are. However, even since the verdict, there has been very little commentary on this case. The perpetrators and anonymised due to their age, but such perpetrators can still be written about in the media in a non-identifying way - I remember the Edlington attacks by children being the subject of much media and political debate. The Murder of James Bulger is among the most well-documented in British history. But there is very little media, political or legal commentary on the murder of Stephens, nor are there books, TV shows or films about the crime. Nothing against an innocent young man who should never have died, but I don't see WP:SIGCOV covered in sources (where I've looked on Google) apart from documenting the process from arrest to courtroom. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 21 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 12:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living presidents of Bolivia[edit]

Living presidents of Bolivia (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 contravenes WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy and WP:GNG guideline. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of information; there is no context for the information found in this article. There are no sources indicating that this topic is of interest to scholars. I am fairly certain that no reliable source discusses just how many former presidents of Bolivia were alive between 4 September 1884 and 15 August 1888. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this article or Living presidents of India are being considered for deletion while Living presidents of the United States is not. If the living presidents of the U.S. merit an article than why shouldn't the exact same list for other countries not? Four of the seven sources on that article simply posit on the fact that the U.S. was experiencing a record number of living presidents. Further, the Bolivian article in question cites Presidentes de Bolivia: entre urnas y fusiles. This is one of the most reliable and foremost sources on Bolivian presidents with the specific pages cited referring to a literal table of dates of birth and death of each president of Bolivia. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in concurrence with regards to the first two sentences by Krisgabwoosh. All of these must be considered in tandem. Curbon7 (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different topics receive different amounts of coverage in reliable sources. It may well be that "living presidents of the United States" is a topic that receives "significant coverage in reliable sources". It does not mean that this topic does too. If you believe Living presidents of the United States should be deleted too, feel free to propose it. Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of all conceiveable information. Geschichte (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my arguments at the AfDs for the same lists for the USA (1) and India (2). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR #6 ("Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations"). Edge3 (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of India, this is to my eye an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statistics without context or explanation of significance, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. I don't see anything worth merging to List of presidents of Bolivia, and I don't think this title would make for a useful redirect. If we want to, we can add the year of birth and death below each president's name to List of presidents of Bolivia (as is currently done at List of presidents of India) and/or create a graphical illustration akin to Template:Lifespan of each President of India, but those things can be discussed separately. TompaDompa (talk) 16:28, 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 23:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turncoat[edit]

Turncoat (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 looks like someone took a WP:DICTDEF and beefed it up with WP:OR. I don't think this can be salvaged, at best, I'd recommend redirecting this to Treason (probably more relevant than Betrayal and Defection). There is little if anything for merging, given that what little is referenced is either trivial or the references don't seem very reliable (or both). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination does not propose deletion. And it makes it clear that that there are plenty of other pages about similar topics including treason, defection, betrayal, party switching, crossing the floor and so on. Those are all distinct and separate pages and the nomination fails to make a good case why this particular one should be singled out for attention. The topic has some significance in its historical and literal meaning and here's an entire book about the topic to prove it. The usual policies apply: WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for proposing keeping this. Cited policies, particularly OR, is enough to warrant deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A vague wave to a policy is not an adequate reason to delete. You have to explain why the supposed issue cannot be resolved by ordinary editing per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • DICTDEF and OR are quite relevant here. And WP:GNG is not met, either. And I will add WP:CONTENTFORK to the articles mentioned in lead. A vague wave to ATD and such is not helpful. But I am sure nothing will make you change your "vote", no worries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, DICTDEF and OR are not met because this is not a dictionary edit, because the concept is not original. And WP:GNG is easily met, as I have evidenced. Using substantial sources such as the book, I cited, it would be easy to expand and improve the current article. This is the point of the polict WP:ATD which therefore applies. As my position is based upon evidence and policy, my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is clear there is enough content to substantiate more than just a dictionary definition. I'm not sure why Traitor redirects to Treason and not to this article (or vice versa). Traitor and Turncoat are far more synonymous than Traitor and Treason. Regardless, this term used to describe traitors has been in use since 1557 so I don't thinking WP:LASTING is in doubt. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but there are plenty of reasons to include important words and phrases beyond simple etymology. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ironically, the term in its original form was used to describe the act of pretending to be an enemy so as to avoid the attention of said enemy; literally turning your coat inside out. It is now synonymous with treachery and defection, but that wasn't always so, certainly not originally so. That sort of detail - to my mind - moves this beyond the sort of thing a dictionary would cover, into encyclopedic territory. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The only "tiny" problem is that we need sources for this. Otherwise we have a not so tiny problem with OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, yeah, and plenty of the current article needs to go (as unsourced OR) but there are plenty of sources for verifying the basics, like the one above and this one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody is disputing that the word is used, but we need WP:SIGCOV (which is not shown in either sorurce). And in general, 19th century sources are not very useful. Otherwise, all we have is OR based on expanding a DICTDEF. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not very useful? They both seem fine to me. They each independently confirm the genesis of the term and there are plenty of sources to define the way in which the term is used now. Factually covering its history and then its current use isn't original research; we're allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion. But a solid paragraph from each about the history of the subject is pretty significant coverage for a word, I'd say. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I beg to differ. One sentence about the origins of the word is not WP:SIGCOV enough to warrant it having a stand-alone article. Am I missing anything else in the sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If it were one sentence in one publication I don't think we'd be having this discussion. But its a detailed paragraph (7 sentences by my count) in one source, and a shorter (2 sentences) explanation in another. And, as above, these are coverage of the word in one particular historical context; one which is different to those included in the article (for which there are additional sources). In fact, despite agreement from these reliable sources about the origin of the term, there is no reference to that origin in the article itself. So the article absolutely needs work, but that's a fix-the-problem sort of problem. St★lwart¹¹¹

• Fair enough, not one sentence (but WP:SIGCOV gives the example of a proper treatment as a book... granted, I think it's too much to ask for). Anyway. Here we have the two sentences, about an otherwise unnamed Duke of Saxony who is claimed to be the origins of the story of the word origins. The paragraph in the 19th century work [3] instead attributes this story to a Duke of Savoy, and doesn't give any more usable details. It is an interesting story, but I am afraid that to argue that the word "turncoat" is notable because we have a short paragraph (at best, easily summarizable in a single sentence...) story about its origins, is IMHO, a major stretch. I'd be fine with this story being preserved, for example in the article on traitor or such, although honestly I have to ask - isn't this WP:TRIVIA? If we could identify that Duke by name, then this story might be best incorporated into their biography "his life also gave raise the English word "turncoat"). But since we have two stories that mix titles and neither gives names, it's probably just a "tall tale"... Ps. I noted that the 19th century source also gives us the Duke's first name, Emmanuel. That might refer to Charles Emmanuel II, Duke of Savoy. Although it is unfortunate the first (more modern) source seems to have the error(?) with Saxony instead of Savoy. Anyway, I'd suggest we add this story to the article about Emmanuel (although it would be good to verify it with more sources...). But I still don't see the need for this entry to remain as a stand-alone article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a solid suggestion, but as I said in my original comment, we don't have an article at Traitor. Strangely, it redirects to Treason. If we had a stand-alone article at Traitor I think it would have the possibility of being far more substantive than anything we could manage at Turncoat and could easily include turncoat-related material (yes, "trivia" perhaps). But these etymological articles are being nominated for deletion at a rate of knots, so I don't think anyone is going to be encouraged to undertake that in the current climate. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - example of WP:DICTDEF with an overgrown etymology and usage through WP:OR. Do not believe it can be any more than this as most sources dealing with this word are just dictionaries/etymologies. A perfectly good entry already exists for this over on Wiktionary. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (1) Undoubtedly it's possible to find references for a proper, historical and enyclopaedic article on the concept of the turncoat. It might be best to do a combined article on all sorts of traitor, and mention the history of the term 'turncoat' as part of that article. But current lack of references is not grounds for deletion; it's grounds for improvement. (2) We're over-using the dictionary excuse for deleting things. Lots of nouns fall in a cross-over zone where a dictionary might become slightly encyclopaedic as it discusses the origin of a term, and an encyclopaedia can sound slightly like a dictionary as it defines a concept whose historical and social contexts it's about to discuss. This is fine. The two sorts of reference work do overlap, and the encyclopaedia-article will ultimately handle things in a different way, with more depth. But the basic problem (Stalwart111 is right) is that no one in their right mind is going to try to write that sort of article, because the Avenging Angels of Antidictionarianism will pounce on it in its most embryonic state and tear it limb from limb before it's had a chance to breathe. You might as well move your article straight from draft-space to AfD and forget the bit in between. Elemimele (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do think the subject meets WP:GNG, by the sources identified in this discussion. WP:NOTDIC doesn't seem to apply here: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. .... such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." It seems clear to me that the sourcing exists beyond dictionary information to provide social and historical context, as a good encyclopedia entry should. Additional background from historian Andrew Hopper (see quotes).^[1][2] Suriname0 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, but brief examples of use IMHO still merit but a merger to a larger topic (treason/traitor). Encyclopedia does not need dictionary-entries for synonyms of what is, essentially, a single concept. No information needs to be lost, of course, such an article can totally host a short paragraph on the history and use of a more widely used synonym (for some food for thought, I just finished an article on space travel in science fiction, and while the concept of hyperspace is arguably notable enough for stand-alone articles, words like subspace, overspace and nulspace don't need anything but a redirect and a brief mention in that article... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 4 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 merge to Ira Aldridge. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Gill[edit]

Margaret Gill (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 says that this person is wife of someone known. But it doesn't tell why else she is notable. Also talks about children but still can't say what she did to have a page on Wikipedia. Should be deleted according to me. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Unless more details can be found on Margaret Gill, I suggest the additional background presented here should be included in Ira Aldridge.--Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, preserving her categories. PamD 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded on her brief unsourced mention in Ira's article. PamD 14:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect, but improve the references. --Bduke (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - I do think you might be able to cobble together an article for Gill that meets WP:GNG, although you would have issues finding historical treatment of her from other than Lindfors. However, the clear editing decision based on the sources I found is that she *isn't* independently notable, so a redirect is most appropriate. Ref added to article, thanks PamD for the expanded mention. Suriname0 (talk) 20:21, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Badshah[edit]

Vicky Badshah (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 singer page has no other proper news apart from news about his demise. All of that news also kind of say the same thing. I don't think this subject is notable. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing notable found in news sources, no articles in other Wiki languages. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC) either.[reply]
• Delete No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non notable singer, fails GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked as sockmaster. Geschichte (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non notable singer Nitesh003(TALK) 03:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable singer, Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Bapinghosh (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:22, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lingireddy Muralikrishna Reddy, Ph.D[edit]

Lingireddy Muralikrishna Reddy, Ph.D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A promotional article with no reliable sources. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NOTABLE Article reads like a promo. Style aside, the references provided are sketchy. Most are to company personnel websites. A few are to local news articles that are actually not about Dr Reddy, but other topics, and Dr Reddy's name doesn't even appear. There are some links to the some books and articles that Dr Reddy wore. Gaff (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete non notable personality as he fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.Dixiku (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 3 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 draftify. As there were no other suggestions on what do with this article, MiracleCloud is free to continue to work on this in draft space. – bradv^🍁 23:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental-friendly Production (South Korea)[edit]

Environmental-friendly Production (South Korea) (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 very good essay and would make an excellent magazine article, but that is the second problem with it. The first problem is that it carries insufficient referencing to remain here.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

It has been self moved to main space from WP:AFC, which is something the creating editor is entitled to do. I was in two minds about draftification, something that can turn into move warring, or about AfD to get community consensus one way or the other. AfD won Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment: the article has been draftified. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the page back to main space while this AFD is proceeding. That seems to be how these situations have been handled recently. I've seen other subjects of AFD discussions moved to Draft space in the past few months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Liz Fine with me but I do think this invalidates this AfD. Draftify is an AfD outcome, I don't object to it being boldly done, but even the XfD template in the article notes it is in the wrong place (should be at MfD not AfD now). Technicalities, I know, just saying. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 22 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ventoura[edit]

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

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

Unsourced article about an app that is not notable. 162 etc. (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It already had one reference, and I added a newspaper reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - actually it had zero sources, as both are bad links. So now it has one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of sources show this is non-notable app.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 22:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't yet meet WP:GNG. One source is a dead link. Another is produced by the subject of the article, so lacks independence. So only one source remains, and that isn't significant enough coverage in my view. Meticulo (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. The app is long gone now, and the article is mostly sourced to the company's own website, which is dead by now. Looking at the article history, a large portion of it consists of personal insults towards one of the employees, some of which were apparently severe enough to be hidden even from administrators. JIP | Talk 03:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not significant, there are 100,000s of dead apps out there. Article body reads as if the app is still available. Teraplane (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Two references from reliable sources (one a news site, the other a newspaper). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ardern, Lucy (2015-04-15). "Students strike gold with travel app". Gold Coast Bulletin. Retrieved 2021-08-28.
  • "Weekly App Pick: Ventoura 'Tinder for travelers' | News". DailyHive. December 19, 2017. Retrieved 2021-08-29. The old Vancity Buzz article about Ventoura has been moved to DailyHive.
• Keep per WP:HEY. I agree with Eastmain, and further, I have significantly expanded the page, cleaned up and added numerous IRS sources. In my view the page now well satisfies WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost al the sources discuss it only in context of other similar apps. The ones discussing it specifically are PR-style reviews, e.g. "The European summer is a really important opportunity for us, " DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 4 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. – bradv^🍁 23:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Er Beshi Bhalobasha Jay Na[edit]

Er Beshi Bhalobasha Jay Na (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previously deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Er Beshi Bhalobasha Jay Na, some new sources appear to be have added, but I still can't find evidence that this film is notable. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Zakir Hossain Raju#Filmography, as an ATD. Not enough in-depth sourcing to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage or review about this film. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:05, 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 delete. – bradv^🍁 23:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of spouses of presidents of Croatia[edit]

List of spouses of presidents of Croatia (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 not a thing; this topic receives virtually no coverage, let alone "significant coverage in reliable sources". Hardly any citizen of Croatia could name the spouse of their president. The article fails WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that this is not really a thing, but I'm surprised at the claim that "Hardly any citizen of Croatia could name the spouse of their president." Unfortunately I don't know any Croatians I can ask, but most citizens of France know that the President's wife is Brigitte Macron; most citizens of the USA know that the President's wife is Jill Biden; most citizens of the UK know that the Prime Minister's wife is Carrie Symonds. Is it really so different in Croatia? Athel cb (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jill Biden, Birgitte Macron and Carrie Symonds are regularly covered in mainstream media. The spouse of the president of Croatia has no societal role. They do their own thing. I have, of course, not conducted a survey, but anecdotal evidence from everyday life and the fact that any mention of the spouses in the media requires an explanatory apposition suggest to me that the vast majority could not name them and would not recognize them by their name alone. But what matters to this discussion is the lack of published sources exploring the marital ties of the Croatian presidents. Surtsicna (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Would it be accurate to say that this is WP:NOTATHING (one day we'll have to turn that redlink blue...), and that the arguments presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spouse of the Prime Minister of Singapore (which resulted in deletion) apply here as well? TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it appears so, since neither position entails any role in society and neither is discussed as such in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a relatively minor social distinction, but that does not mean it doesn't get regular coverage in the mainstream press. I agree with removing the whole lineage stuff from the infoboxes, but anyone who follows politics in Croatia has heard of a lot of these people. I'd actually argue that having this list might alleviate the need for individual articles for some of the lesser known ones. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing of them is one thing, but being able to recognize them or name them is another. What matters is that there is, to my knowledge, no in-depth coverage of the position of the spouse. My concern is that the existence of the list rests on the presumption that the position is notable in itself, which would make editors further assume that those who are married to the presidents are inherently notable. Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that first statement is just not right, because a huge number of people could easily name Ankica Tuđman, Mirjana Sanader, probably others - whoever had a fair bit of mainstream press coverage. The list is fundamentally political trivia, but that doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist or is entirely not worth describing. Like I said earlier, if we remove the list, then we have nowhere to merge/redirect less notable entries later; watching one list seems preferable to having to watch N stubs. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As you can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Spouses_of_national_leaders there are a lot of such lists. There is no reason to delete only one of them. We should delete all of them (from USA to Uzbekistan) or keep all of them. - GorgonaJS (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We did already delete Spouse of the Prime Minister of Singapore though, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spouse of the Prime Minister of Singapore. TompaDompa (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:LISTN. That other similar pages exist (in countries where the circumstances might be different) is not an argument for keeping this page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 4 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GauTV[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Going by this Instagram post, the last time the network was active was June 21, 2019. Website is still a ghost site with a 2017 copyright date, and its channel position was bought out by a pastor, Ebenezer Ndlovu, to show his programming.This seems like a network that had big promises, but failed to broadcast all that long. Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That’s not true, just checked DSTV Channel 265 and the network exists and broadcasts 24/7 TapticInfo (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accotrding to the official DStv guide, there is no channel name on 265, and I see none of the GauTV programming talked about on their website. If they're still on the air at all, they've just decided to collect tele-preacher money and call it a day as long as DStv keeps them on the air. As mentioned before, their social presence was last updated in 2019, and their Twitter and Facebook accounts were actually suspended for suspicious activity, suggesting a network on auto-pilot with no actual programming. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Network is Still active on DSTV should be kept because of its prevalence on the DSTV platform. TapticInfo (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The channel appears to fail GNG, and no specific standards exist with WP:ORG that would allow us to keep it based on its prevalence within a given platform. However, if sources with significant coverage of the channel can be found, I would have no issue with changing my !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom the channel does not satisfy WP:GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked as sockmaster. Geschichte (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing the GNG. This channel seems minor, and while being on DStv makes notability likely for a good number of services, it is not a certainty. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:46, 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 no consensus. – bradv^🍁 00:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnyman 2[edit]

Bunnyman 2 (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) 22:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep because a number of reviews alreadt exist (albeit under various subtitles). There's articles about the film in Starburst,[4] Dread Central,[5] and The Independent Critic (doesn't have a Wikipedia page but is used by Rotten Tomatoes),[6]. Part of the problem is that the film was alternately billed as Bunnyman 2, The Bunnyman Massacre, and Bunnyman Resurrection depending on country. There's also other reviews in smaller magazines that can be added. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this film included in India-related deletion discussions? It doesn't look like any aspect of production was completed in India, and it's an American movie filmed in California. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. Thanks for the heads up. I was doing some deletion discussions on Indian films and forgot to switch it. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't worry about it! BuySomeApples (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bunnyman (film) (and redirect) – probably the best solution here is to cover both sequel films at the article on the original film in the series, Bunnyman (film). It is unlikely that either sequel got enough coverage for standalone articles, but as per WP:NOPAGE, there's no reason not to cover both sequels at the article on the original film. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 13 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 14:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaijaan[edit]

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

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

Filming has not begun per every citation in the article, per WP:NFF this should not have a mainspace article, there is already an exact copy of this at Draft:Bhaijhaan BOVINEBOY2008 13:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Bapinghosh (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NFF, creator (Leofrancis355) needs to SLOW DOWN and stop creating mainspace articles when it's been moved to draft and declined, this is starting to get disruptive. Ravensfire (talk) 14:07, 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. ✗plicit 14:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Houston Bed and Breakfast[edit]

Philip Houston Bed and Breakfast (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 sources mentioned are unequivocal adverts and a page of the Kansas Bed&Breakfast Association. Independent coverage, and hence notability, is not established. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It isn't notable as a bed and breakfast, but it is notable as an historic building. It is listed in the Kansas Register of Historic Places, but not in the National Register of Historic Places. Designation as a notable place counts as independent coverage. Once the AFD is finished, the article should be moved to the building name rather than the BnB name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first three sources are not advertisements. Those references are to listings at the Kansas Historical Society, an organization that has long been considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Articles on such historical locations are normally kept.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Eastmain's comments. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. but rename to its proper historic name on the Reigister: John Housten Housen. the "bed and breakfast" poart is a modern promotional addition--I see Eastmain came to the same conclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • comment good idea on the rename.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per above .It is notable as a historic building but not as a Bed and Breakfast.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:26, 3 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 00:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Soler (gymnast)[edit]

Jorge Soler (gymnast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Though he meets WP:NOLY (which presumes notability) by participating in the 1948 Olympics, there are no sources besides a ref to a stats database. Does not meet GNG. Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All Olympians are notable, even in the absence of in-depth coverage. Given how newspapers and magazines provide blanket coverage of the Olympics and Pan-American Games, it's almost certain that Argentinian newspapers and magazines of the 1948-1951 period have lots of coverage of Jorge Soler. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per User:Eastmain - all Olympians are notable. Ingratis (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above and he won a medal at the Pan American Games too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. Also, no indication that nominator even looked for sources. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per current policy. WP:NOLY is under discussion, but it hasn't been changed yet. Gildir (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is this discussion for changing WP:NOLY? Natg 19 (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  At the moment this is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Notability_of_Paralympic_Athletes. Simeon (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable sports person per WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:NOLY. Di xiku 21:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the keep !votes have rebutted the lack of GNG sources. Claims that all Olympians are notable are completely at odds with the governing guideline (NSPORT), which reiterates multiple times in the FAQs at the top of the page that sport-specific rules-of-thumb do not replace the GNG and that in fact all articles must demonstrate GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 3 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 keep. – bradv^🍁 00:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamatami[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Nothing significant has been written about this group in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Automatically notable because one of its songs charted. I added some references that appear in the corresponding German Wikipedia article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes the music band notability WP:NBAND. Di xiku 21:50, 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. Nom is a sockpuppet (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub) and no other editors have !voted delete. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ameed Zaghal[edit]

Ameed Zaghal (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 artist fails WP:GNG. References are not siginificant i.e. no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. DJRSD (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the singer is famous and has 4 albums and his notice is very strong in Palestine, but there are no independent links. The number of his followers on Facebook is 1 million people. The number of views on YouTube exceeded 50 million, please reconsider the deletion (User:DJRSDJakelonaes (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCdBfyZaRCqjQVGK8U3ygCew/ Auto genrated by youtube https://www.facebook.com/ameedabdalazeezzaghalofficial 2 milion followers The artist is very noticeable in Palestine, but I could not find independent sources because of the lack of media coverage in Palestine. This is the idea, but he is a very popular and noticeable artist, and I can prove that Jakelonaes (talk) 07:57, 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. – bradv^🍁 23:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YNW BSlime[edit]

YNW BSlime (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 rapper. May be WP:TOOSOON. Most of the resources are from non-reliable websites. fails WP:GNG DJRSD (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, more charitably, Merge with his more notable older brother, YNW Melly. The feeble RS coverage exists only because of WP:INHERIT, which is not acceptable criteria for wikipedia. Other coverage is run of the mill promo announcements in mostly non-RS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:14, 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 23:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karuna Medical College[edit]

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. I couldn't see a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I couldn't find a good ATD either when I cleaned it up. The program it's affiliated with (Kerala University of Health Sciences) doensn't mention it and the relationship isn't clear in English sourcing to merge. Star Mississippi 16:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although a redirect to the Kerala page would be appropriate, if someone added a sentence there about this institution. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Un-referenced article that fails WP:NORG.JeepersClub (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked as sockmaster. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Deletion Multi7001 (talk) 18:22, 3 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 keep -- withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Coolperson177 (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Camile (restaurant chain)[edit]

Camile (restaurant chain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Restaurant chain does not meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. With only one delete !vote, there is little chance of this succeeding. And I'd prefer this didn't get dragged further into Stalwart111's crusade against HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In a very quick WP:BEFORE exercise, I found (and have added) sources from multiple independent reliable sources. Which would seem to support WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV requirements. Including in Irish and UK national newspapers. And some international outlets. Like Forbes. See for example coverage in: Irish Times ([7] [8] [9]), Irish Independent ([10] [11] [12] [13]), RTÉ News ([14] [15] [16]), Sunday Times (UK) ([17] [18] [19]), and elsewhere ([20] [21] [22]). I'm not sure if the nominator's own WP:BEFORE exercise identified these sources but, while all the sources in the article/stub itself were primary, there would seem to be more than sufficient coverage elsewhere to demonstrate notability. Guliolopez (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple reliable sources, per Guliolopez. Alan Islas (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Some sources likely derive from press releases, but not necessarily all. Plus, the articles are bylined and published by reliable sources. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH overall. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

I note that none of the Keep !voters have mentioned WP:ORGIND in their !votes. This is important as ORGIND rules out (for the purposes of establishing notability) anything that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references meet the criteria. They are either repeating information on the website or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company and their published financial details - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.

While Northamerica1000 admits that some sources likely derive from press releases, none have been specifically identified as meeting CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND as required. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - that some editors interpret WP:NCORP in such as way as to exclude basically every form of common-practice business journalism doesn't make it sensible to do so. For the record, WP:ORGIND says nothing about interviews, and there's no reason it would; an interview of a subject by an independent journalist is made independent by the independence of that journalist. The person didn't interview themselves, decide what information to include, and exclude anything critical. They were asked questions, answered them, and then an independent person decided what that coverage would include. What WP:NCORP does say about interviews it says in the section about secondary sources (further into the guideline) and it simply says that interviews are frequently encountered as primary sources. It doesn't say that they cannot also be encountered as secondary, independent sources but of course they can. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer This user is making their !vote in bad faith and has only made this !vote because they disagree with the interpretation of NCORP and are trying to make a point. See the following debate. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, it was in the AFD log and I contribute to AFD all the time. You should probably address your disruptive behaviour before trying to bludgeon more discussions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The history of your edits and personal attacks over the past two days will show the true picture. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 3 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 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 23:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. William Karlins[edit]

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

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

Indications of notability, but I couldn't find evidence he meets WP:PROF, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:26, 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 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. – bradv^🍁 23:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melikian-Ouzounian School[edit]

Melikian-Ouzounian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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