< December 13	December 15 >

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. Fails WP:GNG. Passing mentions, listacles and a few localized publications doesn't meet GNG.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Tart[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. No sources provided and searches find no support from any RS.

The original creator notes on their Userpage that "promoting the "Liverpool Tart" confection which he discovered in a village web-site" which clearly suggests a non-notable recipe.

A mention on a National Trust site and an inclusion in a recipe blog site both appear to be almost direct copies of this article. Without evidence of dates for the external sites, it is possible that the copying may be from those sites to Wikipedia in which case it would also be a copy-vio.

Even if this is an accepted recipe in some other sources, there is nothing here to indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've revamped the article and found significant coverage in reliable sources. Mujinga (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not notable. Wikipedia is not a recipe archive!!! Nwhyte (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wondering whether this is Citogenesis. Is there any published mention of "liverpool tart" prior to the appearance of the 2009 English Wikipedia article? (Edit: the sole original "source" appears to be the photo in a 2006 news article).Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I do not even know where to begin. Suffice to say this dish barely rates a mention on Google. No idea why it would be on Wikipedia. Does not meet WP:GNG, should definitely be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources added are either passing mentions, list articles, or recipes . Hardly the significant coverage required for WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Johnson Summer Tour 2022[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. My rationale: These are just tour dates, based on a few web pages that announce the announcements and on the subject's own website. Tours are notable per WP:NTOUR, and that is not met here--not even remotely. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jack Johnson (musician)#2019–present: This Warm December and Global Citizen: fails WP:NTOUR. Just an announcement of the tour taking place in the future, and then a whole list of dates sourced to the artist's website. Richard3120 (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NTOUR and in these Covid times we are not sure the 2022 will go ahead.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, way too early for this to be an article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why would an encyclopaedia contain information about a tour that has not yet happened? (Unless exceptionally notable, which this is not) Too early, insufficient verifiable information to include, too early to be included Such-change47 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NTOUR. --Devokewater ^(talk) 15:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primacy of mind[edit]

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

Non-notable. Term used once in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition, in the entry on Léon Brunschvicg. Web search also yielded only results that use the term, rather than define it. Paradoctor (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing presented here convinces me this subject passes WP:GNG. Fails GNG.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

152 (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus, with No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. Still believe it fails WP:NFILM. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't find any reliable source through google search. Mommmyy (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm neutral on this, but I will note that if the article is deleted now because the minor notices in local news articles, etc. that were presumably enough for it to be snow-kept in 2008 have since disappeared from the web, that could, that could have serious implications for WP:NTEMP. Yeah, it wouldn't be implicated if the 2008 !votes were problematically ignoring the lack of any in-depth coverage that would be of long-term relevance, but if that can happen in a case like this, we really should think about the value of "it's notable -- I found a bunch of sources on Google"-type arguments in general going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Borderline, seems to have been at two festivals, one of them international. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kansai International Film Festival article was recently deleted. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan, "international" film festivals organized by western ex-pats seem to be mostly vanity projects showcasing films made by "international" people who all happen to live in Japan and who aren't exactly big names in the international film community. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kansai International Film Festival was exactly that, and run by the creator of this film. So the film and festival were run by the same person. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Libstar that inclusion in a film festival run by the same person who created this film does not indicate notability. The other cited source is apparently dead and has been for a while; not sure it was a reliable source to begin with. 2 reviews at two fansites are not indicators of notability. No current other mentions in reliable sources found. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Cleo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established with significant sources for specific name-brand product. Links are where to buy it and a short listicle item among 50 other lures; fails WP:NPRODUCT. Reywas92^Talk 23:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I am only saying neutral cause the article is very notable throughout the internet but the article is disorganized and not much reliable sources are present. HelpingWorld (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A vague "very notable throughout the internet" does not connect with the lack of substantive sources here or found in my searches. Reywas92^Talk 15:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 15:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a spoon with a treble hook, they make zillions of these. It's certainly well-known, not sure if it's wiki-worthy. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, not a right fit for Wikipedia - Such-change47 (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Yes, as per nom doesn't meet WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Merwin, John (2003-04-16). "Classic Lures: Put 764 years of successful angling in your tackle box". Field & Stream. Archived from the original on 2021-12-19. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
  The article notes: "1) Little Cleo. She was a hootchie-kootchie girl who for 43 years had her dancer’s image stamped on the back of a fishing lure. A New York City songwriter named Charlie Clark saw Little Cleo perform during the 1930s; when he developed this popular spoon with its wiggling, dancing action in 1953, she became its namesake. In 1996 a female employee of a major retailer took offense at the dancer’s image on the lure, and for the sake of newfound political correctness, the image was removed by Acme Tackle of Rhode Island, the current manufacturer. Little Cleo spoons are thick in proportion to their surface area, so they fish relatively deep. This makes them a favorite trout spoon, but in sizes ranging from 1/16 to 11/4 ounce, they’re suitable for everything from panfish to steelhead and stripers."
2. Godfrey, Ed (2018-05-19). "My Little Cleos: How a wiggling spoon became my favorite lure". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2021-12-19. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
  The article notes: "For 43 years, Little Cleo spoons had the image of an exotic dancer stamped on the back. The spoons were first introduced in 1953 by the Seneca Tackle Co. in New York, which was started two years earlier by a songwriter and music publisher named C.V. “Charlie” Clark. He named the spoons the “Little Cleo” after a woman he watched perform in the 1930s. Clark believed the wiggling and dancing of the lure would bewitch the fish much like Little Cleo’s dance had mesmerized him."
3. Merwin, John (2006-04-01). "John Merwin Picks the 50 Best Lures of All Time". Field & Stream. Archived from the original on 2021-12-19. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
  The article notes: "18 Little Cleo. This is a great all-around spoon that I find myself using most often forcasting in a trout pond or lake. The comparatively thick body means it fisheswell at medium depths. Most important, though, my favorite ¼-ounce, hammered brass-and-red version sinks quickly as I wait and then wait some more before retrieving. It’s a deadly secret for deep-dwelling brook trout in early summer.acmetackle.com. SPECIES: [TROUT] [SALMON] [STEELHEAD] [SALTWATER]"
4. Frazee, Brent (2019-10-06). "Brent Frazee: Lures designed to get the fisherman first". The Joplin Globe. Archived from the original on 2021-12-19. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
  The article notes: "• Little Cleo: When Charlie Clark, a songwriter and producer, introduced this lure in 1953, he named it after an exotic dancer he had watched perform. He thought the spoon had the same mesmerizing moves as the dancer. A likeness of a scantily clad dancer was even printed on the back of the original spoons. It was removed years later after Clark’s company was sold to Acme and the latter business received complaints from a female employee of a major retailer."
5. Godfrey, Ed (2005-01-16). "Little Cleo: A spoon with sex appeal". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2021-12-19. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
  The article notes: "The Little Cleo is considered a classic and still being sold, but no longer with the dancing girl's image stamped on the back, except in a collector's edition kit."
6. "Top 10 Classic Lures". The Oklahoman. 2005-02-27. Archived from the original on 2021-12-19. Retrieved 2021-12-18.
  The article notes: "1. LITTLE CLEO: A spoon first made in 1953. A favorite trout spoon, but suitable for everything from panfish to striped bass. For 43 years, the spoon had an image of a dancing girl stamped on the back before it was removed in 1996 when a retailer complained." The article says Field & Stream is the source.
7. Griffin, Steven A. (1996). The Fishing Sourcebook: Your One-Stop Resource for Everything You Need to Feed Your Fishing Habit. Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 50. ISBN 1-56440-752-7. Retrieved 2021-12-18 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Acme's Little Cleo quickly became a favorite when salmon fishing ignited in the Great Lakes almost 30 years ago, and it remains a favorite of many trout and salmon fans there. Its hump-back shape makes it wiggle through the water like a fat bait fish—a meal big fish just can't resist."
8. Giessuebel, Rich (1989) [1986]. Great Fishing in Lake Ontario & Tributaries. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books. pp. 198, 200. ISBN 0-942990-08-0. Retrieved 2021-12-18 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 198: "Salmon not only strike bait, but also on occasion lures. Two of the most popular ones in this region are the Hotshot and Little Cleo. The book notes on page 200, "As for the Little Cleos, you will see them fished where anglers have a large concentration of salmon swimming around in a pocket of water in a non-snatching section (such as beneath the power plant in the Oswego River). Here, fishermen cast Cleos with rather low expectations of a salmon actually chasing and striking the lure. ..."
9. Hall, James (February 2014). "The Super Six". Outdoor Life. Vol. 221, no. 2. p. 42. Archived from the original on 2021-12-19. Retrieved 2021-12-18 – via EBSCO Information Services.
  The article notes: "These baits come in a crazy number of shapes, but we’ll narrow our selection to one of the most popular choices: the Acme Little Cleo. ♦ CONSTRUCTION: Although the paint will become chipped and the hook will need to be replaced from time to time, this bait is basically indestructible."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Little Cleo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article with these sources. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the evidence links above, and per DYK check says this article was 5X expanded on December 19, 2021. When nominated here on December 7, it was just one small paragraph with one source, that seemed somewhat non-notable. I think it's notable enough now to keep. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources above are significant. I would not have assumed that different types of fishing lures would need their own pages, but this one looks informative and well sourced. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WaterRace[edit]

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

Non notable game, website links dont work (even though it says archive) and the only proof i could find of it's existence is https://github.com/swisspol/WaterRace. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 23:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references do work when inputted into the Wayback Machine, so technically it would only need one more reference to pass WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in addition to the reviews already listed in the article, there's magazine coverage including reviews that can be found on Archive.org.--Alexandra^IDV 10:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the review from MacWorld magazine found by Alexandra seals the deal that this page is notable, per WP:NEXIST it should remain._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get any of the links in the article to work and can't see an actual review from the link provided above. Can anyone provide links to the reviews in question? Hobit (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit: I don't know if you mean that Archive.org is having trouble loading (which may happen at times due to maintenance), but here are the specific links: MacWorld review, A Vos Mac feature, A Vos Mac feature, A Vos Mac feature about development, Inside Mac Games review, Mac OS Journal review--Alexandra^IDV 09:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I was able to access some of these. Yes, it's probably enough for a keep, good rescue! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Things seemed a bit of a vague wave. Again, the sources in the article all appear to no longer exist, so it would be ideal if those were updated. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. Agree that review from MacWorld magazine found by Alexandra seals the deal per WP:NEXIST. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are enough reviews to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Turkmenistan relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article is largely based on Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. No embassies, agreements, level of trade is very low. Article states "There are no relevant development aid flows". LibStar (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Yilloslime (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete I would love to have this information somewhere but cannot identify a merge-target. Otherwise, I am in agreement with the nominator. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for redirecting the article fell flat. ✗plicit 23:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia at the 2018 Winter Paralympics[edit]

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

Estonia did not participate in the 2018 Winter Paralympics. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I think we can redirect it to Estonia at the Paralympics. Simeon (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, something that does not exist shouldn't be a search term. Geschichte (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Estonia at the Paralympics. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Estonia at the Paralympics.--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Estonia did not participate at the 2018 Paralympics, so if we retarget it's retargeting to a place that does not cover the information from the title. If this were the only year Estonia had not participated in the winter paralympics, I'd argue possibly for keep, but they also did not participate in 2006, 2010, and 2014, so I think that this would not even been a commonly used redirect. The article was created when it seemed as if Kardo Ploomipuu would compete, but that ended up not happening.^[1]. If retargeted it should be retargeted to Kardo Ploomipuu with a section added on the page about the 2018 Winter Paralympics, but seeing that is not there, I !vote delete. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 04:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should not redirect to the paralympics page if Estonia did not compete there. Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Snood, this is something that did not happen, and Estonia doesn't seem like a frequent participant at the Winter Paralympics, so no point keeping this. AryKun (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Paraolümpia pronksimees Kardo Ploomipuu suusasprindis tänavu veel paralümpiale ei pääsenud | Eesti Paralümpiakomitee". paralympic.ee (in Estonian). Retrieved 19 December 2021.

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 Handbook for Mortals. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lani Sarem[edit]

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

While the book and associated gaming of the bestseller list is Notable, the author is not. Notability is not inherited. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Handbook for Mortals. Clear WP:BLP1E. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Handbook for Mortals per nom. The work, and the associated kerfuffle, is notable but the author is not independently so. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A redirect as suggested seems the best option. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The Handbook for Mortals article covers this once incident plenty. Pikavoom (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Handbook for Mortals. A search on NewsBank for sources prior to 2017 found only one article of substance, a human interest story profiling Sarem as part of the publicity team for 100 Monkeys (Sarem finds entertainment makes people's lives better. The Daily Citizen, January 31, 2011) Other pre-2017 sources were trivial mentions or quotes related to music industry, often based on press releases. While the Daily Citizen article has some biographical information worth including in an encyclopedia, it does not demonstrate significant coverage from multiple independent sources, and it is most appropriate to discuss the author and controversy in the article dedicated to the controversial book. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Handbook for Mortals. In hindsight, I agree with everyone here. The Handbook for Mortals scandal is really the only thing notable about Lani Sarem by Wikipedia's standards, and it's already been covered on its own page. I had trouble also finding any sources (aside from IMDb and her own book) that back up her claim that she's been an actress in multiple movies. If anything, she just seems to be an uncredited cast extra. Not to dump on her as a person or anything, but without sources, it would be difficult to create a full biographical page for her. I couldn't even find her birth date or anything about her early life before the book scandal. ~ PetSematary182 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetSematary182 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Handbook for Mortals, agree with above voters. Brayan ocaner (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Handbook for Mortals per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as WP:TOOSOON. Could be recreated if there is additional coverage to establish notability in the future. RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilien Guadalupe Tolteca[edit]

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

Extremely WP:TOOSOON article of an emerging artist; the notability claim is that they "promoted vaccination through coloring books" (the website credits them by Instagram handle, not by name). Sources are local news and their high school website. They're probably going places! But they have't got there, yet.

Relevant article history, for full disclosure: I put a PROD on this, which was reverted by the original editor, who gave this as the reason: "Deletion is not accepted since the artist has credible sources to support her journey as an artist. The artist is seen in her local newspaper and performing arts center." Alas, I don't think either of those count significantly towards notability. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nom): article used incorrect pronouns, which I just noticed (pronouns given on artist's instagram); I've edited this AfD and I'll get to the article in a second.

Comment: Newspapers are credible and artists are difficult to be seen as notability without books but online resources are just as reliable. If the artist did not have newspapers about her it would not be credible but it does. This artist deserves to be recognized on Wikipedia for being involved not only in her community but school. CSUCI's reports on her are credible since it is a real school and the local newspaper is seen by over one million residents which is reliable. The local newspaper is credible to keep this artist on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxnardgirl (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability criteria for WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST, WP:BASIC nor WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing is very weak and none of the sources count towards establishing notability - 1st source: interview with no editorial content; 2nd: announcement of her candidacy for a student government position; 3rd: student award; 4: download site; 5: trivial - name check. It is way WP:TOOSOON for this person to be considered for a biographic encyclopedia article. (An aside: This is yet another WikiEdu article of a non-notable artist - I find it somewhat heartbreaking that the teachers are not assigning notable topics for their students to work on. This can result in their students' work being deleted which does not cultivate enthusiam and continued productivity on the part of student editors. It also wastes other editors time.) Netherzone (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: I've seen an instructor for a WikiEdu course (not this one) tell a student that their article on a non-notable person had "enough secondary sources" to confer notability. I don't know why this communication breakdown is happening but it looks to me like the teachers themselves can't solve the problem and WikiEdu needs to be a lot more clear when they're working with an instructor who isn't already a Wikipedia editor themselves. Heartbreaking is right. -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oxnardgirl: Thank you for providing an explanation of your perspective here! What we're looking for isn't whether the artist is "credible" - they certainly are an artist, who exists, and who has done the things that have been described in the article. The issue isn't that those sources aren't real or can't be believed. Instead, what we're trying to establish here is "notability". Specifically, you can see the relevant guideline for artists at WP:ARTIST. This is a guideline, not an outright rule, but you can understand from this the level of notability that Wikipedia is looking for: basically, that an artist is well-known for their art, and/or has attracted significant critical attention. The simplest way to demonstrate this is that an artist's art is in the permanent collections of several notable art galleries. As far as I can tell, this artist isn't at that stage of their career yet. What happens now is that other editors will chime in with additional supporting evidence, or they will argue, as I have, that this artist shouldn't have a sole-subject Wikipedia page (yet).

I was about to write something to your talk page when I noticed you'd replied here; I'll be by in a minute. To the regular AfD crowd: this is a WikiEdu student editor. Please take care to be as unbitey as possible if arguing for deletion. Thank you! -- asilvering (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Undoubtedly too soon. Seems like an excellent person and an editor with the best of intentions, but with the best will in the world it still doesn't make for notability yet. If there is a good chance of more and better sources being found or generated and more notable accomplishments, then I would be content for this to be draftified with the intention of an amplified version going for review in a few months. At present it just doesn't cut the mustard. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an artist to be of encyclopedic interest, we need to see that the body of work they have created has received sustained critical attention. That usually takes (many) years, sometimes a lifetime. This is much too soon. Vexations (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits in GNews or newspaper search. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. None of the sources cited helps to establish notability. I failed to find anything better. Reluctant, because I admire what Tolteca has done. Maproom (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does seem like it's WP:TOOSOON - maybe will warrant an article in a few years. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the above, too soon - possibly further along in this person's career, an article may be warranted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 23, 2017 star sign prophecy[edit]

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

What if they had an apocalypse and nobody came? That seems to be the issue here: I can't read the Boston Globe article, but it seems to be dismissive, judging from the headline. Everything else seems to be a mixture of references to buttress uncontroversial statements and in-world fringe publications. Unlike some of these end-of-the-world prophecies it looks as though this one never caught the attention of the outside world. So I'm seeing notability issues on top of the too-much-fringe-detail issues. Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It did receive some attention from the outside world - see the Washington Post article. There are a lot of unreliable sources here that should be removed, but AfD is not cleanup. St Anselm (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly notable, and WP:TNT applies. XOR'easter (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this was a notable topic, we would see some sustained coverage, but this is just a flash in the pan, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage in RS. No reason why this rises above the general background noise of Christian Apocalypse predictions unlike, say, Harold Camping's failed predictions which received widespread and longer-term coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If the coverage in the Washington Post and Boston Globe references is sufficient for an entry in the List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events, it can get a row there between John Hagee/Mark Biltz and David Meade (author). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- One in a long line of failed predictions of the End, based on some person's theory as to how scripture should be interpreted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breast physics[edit]

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

This is a big mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Almost all of the citations are opinion pieces, and the ones that aren't tend to mention specific games, in which case any controversy about said boob physics could be covered on the relevant pages. Jtrainor (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. This is a very ... wobbly ... nomination. It does not make clear, and it is also not apparent, which statements in the article are supposed to be original research (by synthesis or otherwise), in that they are not properly sourced. Quite the opposite is true. Almost all statements in the article are attributed to WP:VGRS-compliant sources, which are also not "opinion pieces". For instance, the most-cited source is a descriptive Kotaku article which covers breast physics in various games and the technology behind it; it is neither labeled nor written as an "opinion piece". Even if there were instances of OR in the article, the nomination does not establish why that could not be fixed by appropriate editing. Covering the breast-bouncing in the individual game articles would be beside the point: this is an article about an, er, stylistic aspect of an array of video games, covered as such by the sources, that would be out of place in an article about any particular game. I note also that the nomination (appropriately) does not contest the topic's notability. Sandstein 20:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the problems alleged could be fixed by editing and are not a reason to delete. Notability has not been challenged. Jehochman ^Talk 23:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extension of Male gaze. Panda619 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even the Guardian has deigned to notice this topic. (Leonard, Raj and especially Howard approve. Sheldon is on the fence.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sandstein and Jehochman, both of whom have pointed out that the nomination rationale does not actually challenge the topic's notability. A "big mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR", besides the fact that it is a statement of subjective opinion and the impression I get that the nominator is confusing editorialized opinions published by reliable secondary sources with Wikipedia's definition of original research, is not a ground for deletion under any existing guideline or policy. Haleth (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and trout the nom for repeatedly doing drive-by AfD nominations without any attempt at a WP:BEFORE or to assert any valid deletion rationale. And I say this as someone who tends to lean deletionist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gender representation in video games#Sexualization as I have previously proposed. The problem with this article is that breast physics are only notable in the context of being used to oversexualize female game characters. There isn't an argument for deletion here at all, but whether it needs a standalone article is dubious._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was already discussed at Talk:Gender_representation_in_video_games#Proposed_merge_of_Breast_physics_into_Gender_representation_in_video_games#Sexualization. "Breast physics" is a discrete and notable subtopic that merits a subarticle per WP:SS. The current content would be undue detail in Gender representation in video games, especially as concerns the technical aspects of the topic. I disagree with a merger. Sandstein 11:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When the major sources of an article directly address the topic in general (not a specific instance) then the claim of SYNTH is ridiculous. No explanation of what other WP:OR is supposed to be in the article was given, so presumably that is just a restatemnet of SYNTH. In the absence of a challenge to the reliability of the sources, I can't see that this nomination has a case at all. SpinningSpark 12:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep a quick lookup of sources suggest some relatively high quality sources and an abundance of “pop media” ones. Juxlos (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - High-quality, well-sourced article relevant to and independently notable from the topic of sexuality in video games. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 22:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Uzochukwu[edit]

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

This was the first revision of the article prior I removed all promotional material. The subject of the article is a Nigerian businessman / entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search shows me user generated sources, some sources in reputable media but the byline reads “editor” which is indicative of a sponsored post, a before also shows press releases and mere announcements. For example see this a sponsored post, see this note the byline says “editor” indicative of a guest editor which invariably means it is sponsored. An untrained new page reviewer might not catch this, but this article is a blatant ADMASQ on a non notable businessman who is trying to get a Wikipedia presence. Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Before Celestina007 stripped this down there was more biographical detail but no claim of notability, just non notable awards. Mccapra (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus against deletion. Discussion to merge with utility room can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry room[edit]

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

This lacks so much noteability that most wikis don't even have a page for it. It hasn't had any kind of notability references pretty much since it's creation, and has sat in it's current condition for pretty much a decade. Time for it to go. Jtrainor (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a concept that doesn't exist in all societies that benefits from explanation. McPhail (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with utility room. They are virtually the same thing, and the latter actually has sources within the article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems clear to me that the nominator has neglected to do any sort of WP:BEFORE check and is nominating this solely because "it's sat in its current condition for pretty much a decade" which is not a valid deletion rationale. Whether or not other wikis have a page for an entry has zero bearing on if it is notable or not. I have a current GA that only exists on enwiki, that doesn't mean it fails notability! If not kept, a merge to utility room would not be terrible. Outright deletion would be stupid, this is a very common term in the United States. As for notability, there's a million articles out there, including many books that include the words "Laundry room" in their titles, but to name some specific examples of coverage, see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. The assertion that laundry room "lacks notability" is hilariously incorrect, this obviously clears GNG by a landslide. The only real rationale here would be, again, a potential merge with utility room, but an argument can be made that a laundry room and a utility room are different topics, with the laundry room being primarily a North American topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: Does it pass WP:NOT though? ––FormalDude ^talk 02:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't it? SportingFlyer T·C 16:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to mention that Laundry room is listed as a level 5 vital article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it probably isn't a vital topic. ––FormalDude ^talk 06:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with utility room. No need for two articles about essentially the same thing. Utility room is the more generic term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge I'm not sure I'd favour a merge as I've never heard the term "utility room" before, at least not one where utility room would be the page we keep over laundry room. However merge discussions can take place elsewhere, and there's absolutely no reason to delete this. The idea it's non-notable is laughable - a quick scholar search shows research into laundry rooms and real estate which would be enough to pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. This article focuses on private homes. Many many apartment complexes and apartment buildings (especially in older urban areas) have Laundry#Shared laundry rooms, which is NOT the utility room. (https://mla-online.com/MLAOnline/Resources/Laundry_Room_Guide/MLAOnline/Laundry_Room_Guide.aspx?hkey=1cc449e8-788f-4cdc-9ae2-4e4cd97f0204) Interesting in NYC they're in the basement, in Rome, they're on the roof. It can be a cultural phenonmena. (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/the-rules-of-my-apartment-buildings-laundry-room).Djflem (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Malone (writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Author. Cookbook and advice column author with next to zero coverage. Per LOC, just one of many 'Prudence Penny' authors. Cause for no consensus in 2010 (nominated by page creator) was having ~50 copies of a cookbook being catalogued in WorldCat. Star Garnet (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. An keep argument made last time was that a book is notable if reviewed by the NYT, and an author of multiple notable books is notable. I think that argument stands in theory but these are very marginal and there's no information available beyond the short reviews, so I don't think the books would survive AfD if there were articles on them. Hence nor should the author. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my delete !vote; the profile is an excellent source, though the only significant one so far. That plus the brief mentions in academic sources found by pburka are enough to make me strike. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The name disambiguation on this one is quite difficult. I located a profile of Malone published when How Mama Cooks was released. Some or all of her other works were released as "Prudence Penny" or "Elsie Barton". The LoC authority entry cites this article as a reason for associating the name "Dorothy Malone" with "Prudence Penny", and I don't see anything in VIAF that looks like Dorothy Malone, 1901–. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting soft-delete close per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the profile found by AP above, her books were reviewed in reliable sources, indicating that she's the author of a notable body of work per WP:NAUTHOR: Publishers Weekly, New York Times, Kirkus, Kirkus. Her books are also discussed briefly in academic texts such as A Taste of Power: Food and American Identities (pp. 115-116), Dethroning the Deceitful Pork Chop: Rethinking African American Foodways (p. 247), Barbecue: The History of an American Institution (p. 190), Cooking Lessons: The Politics of Gender and Food (p. 101) and Manly Meals and Mom's Home Cooking. I believe that Prudence Penny was a house name at the New York American which Malone inherited when she took over that paper's women's page, but she does appear to have written as Penny for quite some time. Given that the subject was active in the 1930s and 1940s, it's reasonable to assume that even more sources exist on paper. pburka (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — pburka's analysis demonstrates that the subject satisfies NAUTHOR (in particular criteria number 3) and BASIC. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A writer is known for their work, subject specific guideline for authors has been met. Dream Focus 22:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as her books have received more than enough coverage for her to pass WP:NAUTHOR.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barely Blind[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unable to find evidence they meet any elements of N:MUSIC. Star Mississippi 14:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable unsigned band. I would say they haven't been active for a decade, based on what little evidence I can find. But the only stuff online about them is Facebook and other primary sources. Unlikely to ever be notable. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My attempts to find sources turned up nothing as well-- Whpq (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newell Sparks[edit]

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

An individual that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. His only claim to notability in the article is for a position that was uncredited. The only source being used is IMDB which, on top of not being a reliable source, also lists all but one of his positions as also being "uncredited". I searched for any additional sources using the names "Newell Sparks", "William Newell Sparks" and "William Sparks" and was unable to find any kind of reliable sources discussing the individual. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I did mange to find this on shotonwhat.com but looking at reliable sources discussions I'm empty handed for that source. Sorry Newell. Chumpih. (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Wasn't even credited at the time. Verifying that he was the sound engineer is difficult and there is no significant coverage. Pikavoom (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to the seeming view of some, not everyone who worked in some way on the production of The Wizard of Oz is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems the article only exists to say he had an unaccredited production role on The Wizard of Oz which is not a justification for having an article as others have noted. The article makes no other claims of notability and I cannot see any evidence that there is material that could be added which would demonstrate notability, so I think this is a fairly clear cut case. Dunarc (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no sources to establish his role as the sound engineer in the film.Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wael Elrifai[edit]

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

The article makes no claim of any significant impact the individual has had, and there are only passing mentions in reliable sources — failing BASIC. I cannot find any in-depth coverage of the book he co-authored, apart from a review from insideBIGDATA — does not meet NAUTHOR. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails GNG. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, for lack of significant coverage.Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wheals[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search returns a few WP:ROUTINE mentions in statistical databases and a few forum posts, but no significant coverage whatsoever. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see how this meets WP:GNG. Chumpih. (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I was also unable to find anything resembling substantial coverage. I was considering suggesting a redirect to his son's article Jay Wheals (which I have tidied up a bit) but that article probably should be deleted too. A7V2 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mentions that I can find are surface-level, not significant coverage. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cupcake Digital[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct minor company. No independent sources. This is not encyclopedic. Marquardtika (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three quarters of the space taken up is a list of stuff they published. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom and others. Fails WP:NCORP. - Hatchens (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I note that while participation each time has been low, five different editors (including nominators and commenters) in three AFDs have argued that this subject is not notable, and no one has argued that it is. RL0919 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Fusion Open Air[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft delete, restored after request at WP:REFUND (courtesy @Muboshgu:, will manually notify IP). No issue with any of that. However, there is still no reliable source, independent coverage to establish notability. If it comes back in spring as per IP's note and if it garners coverage, it can be restored then. I would normally draftify, and not at all against that, but this seems contested so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources, and no claim made in the article that would attract significant coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's practically no coverage of this. Most of the links on the page fail. I'm sure great memories were made the concerts there, but without some reliable sources to back this up it will be full of WP:PRIMARY at best. Chumpih. (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Wonder Woman supporting characters. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Constantinas[edit]

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

Trivial fictional character that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Was prodded twice, and deprodded each time with no actual explanation of why this article should stay. Avilich (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Wonder Woman supporting characters. There is nothing suggesting the article meets GNG but if we AGF that the reference for the lead supports the facts, it can be copied to the linked list, where currently she is mentioned but her entry is shorter than the lead here, and unreferenced. Ping User:BOZ. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Wonder Woman supporting characters. Agree with above. Essentially replace the entry on the list with the lead of this article (with the reference, perhaps also mentioning her first appearance issue) and that is a good alternative to deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yola (singer). Redirect

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Limb (band)[edit]

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

Article was created in 2008 with a "this band exists" vibe and has been flagged for better sources since 2010. From then until about 2019, their works were only visible in the typical streaming and social media services. It turns out that since 2019, one member has become far more notable on her own: Yola (singer). Now the band is occasionally mentioned in reliable media sources, but only ever as an early stop for Yola, and their works are still not gaining any notice in their own right. Meanwhile I plan to add some info about this band to Yola's article, and I think that will be sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Doomsdayer520:, do you think a redirect to Yolo's article would be valid, as they are briefly mentioned there now? Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: I was thinking that if anyone votes "Merge", I have already done it so a simple redirect would work in that case. Policy would dictate whether the article title should be fully deleted, which I recommend but I wouldn't object to a simple redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Paragraph #3 is worth bringing over to Yola (singer) if you can find a source for it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yola (singer). Doesn't appear to be independently notable. Lacks significant independent coverage for WP:NBAND. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists Warning Europe[edit]

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

BEFORE yielded no significant coverage in reliable sources, outside of passing mentions about their letter (supported by only 20 scientists) in relation to COP26. It seems to fail NORG and GNG. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The few quotes from the managing director in various articles do not constitute enough coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to identify independent reliable sources or a merge target. Star Mississippi 02:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only few sources from reliable outlets rely too much on self-publicity/PR of newsworthy events. More reliable sources are needed. Multi7001 (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Colonestarrice (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adolphson–Falk[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NMUSIC. The article has a single source which appears to not mention the subject at all. The only things I found on the internet, were a ticket sales site, several pages that trivially mention the subject, and a paywalled article that may provide significant coverage. But I'm afraid even if it does, that's just not enough; NMUSIC required "multiple, non-trivial, published works" and GNG "stipulates that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article".

According to the article's own lead, the band might satisfy a view NMUSIC criteria but I couldn't find any sources that back this up. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many sources in Gnews in Swedish, there's an Aftonbladet newspaper article about their 50 yrs in music and a few others. One by Svierges Radio also. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets several trivially sourceable WP:NMUSIC criteria, including 2: Single on national chart, 10: participated in Melodifestivalen, and the persistent popularity of their Christmas song in Sweden is hard to understate (although I couldn't fit it into anything from NMUSIC) EditorInTheRye (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an observation also - you were preparing this AfD while it was still under the name Adolphson–Falk - the correct sylisation is actually Adolphson & Falk (since corrected). Would this explain why you were unable to find coverage? EditorInTheRye (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I can't find any more sources now than before the move. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @EditorInTheRye and Oaktree b: can you please link to these sources or reference them on the article. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with an admitted weakness) - Under the name Adolphson & Falk, a standard Google search in English brings up few useful results, probably because Google decided to give me (and everyone above) English only. However a search in Google News brings up a lot of hits in Swedish media, and here are just a few examples: [8], [9], [10], [11]. This shows me that they are well-known in their country, but I admit that I'm unsure of the reliability of some of those Swedish sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel C. Woodruff Jr.[edit]

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

The article is just 1 paragraph that is basically a biography of what seems like a random person. Obviously fails WP:N. Philosophy2 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge to Woodruff Park (Olympia). Geschichte (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the park notable, though? Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure why he has an article to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing even close to notability, and the sources are not even remotely close to showing he is notable. I have my doubts the park is notable, but donating land to create a park does not make one notable. Yes, in my own city of Detroit we have Palmer Park (Detroit) which comes in at 296 acres, and Thomas W. Palmer who donated the first 140 acres for the park has an article. However Palmer has an article firstly because he was a US Senator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Lizzie Pitts Merrill Palmer who co-donated the land for Palmer Park with her husband, is more the level of the type of person who does in large part become notable for philanthropic donations. However her park donation was far larger than Woodruff's, and she donated to multiple others causes, set up institutions, and is included in a 1970s multi-volume biographical dictionary of American women. Even at that she seems to have been involved with the movement to extend the vote to women, although the article does not give us any clear indication of what positions she may have held in that movement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Baby Tape[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no sources. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. The albums should probably be deleted also. SL93 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Only passing mentions in Russian. I also took the liberty of nominating his song for deletion. You can find that, here. Missvain (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus among !votes grounded in policy is that Rudyi does not meet the standards for notability (yet?). If someone wants to work on this in draft space, just ping me. Star Mississippi 22:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Rudyi[edit]

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

I don't believe the subject passes GNG - the coverage is only abut him being assigned as a head of a commission (which I suppose is not a major governing body) and as a participant of sport competition. I don't think this is enough. Less Unless (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suppose Ivan Rudyi is quite notable as he is the first chairman of the newly created Ukrainian Commission for Regulation of Gambling and Lotteries. He is also the captain of Ukrainian team of Invictus Games, and he also served in Russian-Ukrainian war as a platoon leader. There are really not so many sources about him, but his position is without a doubt significant. The article is short and only contains referenced checked facts. Nothing more. --IgorTurzh (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable; fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources provided give generally limited coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSPORT as a captain of national Ukraine's team at international sporting event for wounded, injured and sick servicemen and women, both serving and veterans The Invictus Games. 195.200.245.23 (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Invictus Games does not lend itself to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any sourcing that helps this subject pass WP:GNG for English Wikipedia at this time. Missvain (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of his position as the head of a government agency.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jackattack1597, Heads of government agencies are not inherently notable. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One editor found some coverage in one local newspaper, but most participants did not find this sufficient to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Bowser[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources. Acting career does not appear to be notable either. ... discospinster _talk 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I tried and failed to find any decent coverage of this individual. Does not meet WP:GNG and notability isn't inherited. W C M_email 13:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For what it's worth, here are the WP:THREE best sources I could find about her: [12][13][14]. It seems she popped up in newspapers from 2001-2007 (mainly 2004-2006), and after that, I can't really find her. Here are some passing mentions on her, in theatre reviews: [15][16][17], and one semi-interview/article with her and other cast members: [18]. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The three sources provided by Whisperjames are good enough, IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She had a major reoccuring role in Fries with That? and the coverage presented is either passing mentions or localized coverage. Not enough to convince me she passes WP:NACTOR. Missvain (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Northwestern College (Iowa). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeValois Stadium[edit]

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

Generic campus athletic field does not show notability with substantive independent sources. Virtually every high school, junior high school, college, and in this case university with <2,000 students playing in NAIA has a field where they play football. Automatic notability for stadiums does not exist, as implied by deprodder. Reywas92^Talk 01:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple issues here: (1) Nominator is posting statements that are not true and this seems to be getting worse through several AFDs. I was the editor that de-prodded the article and stated Plenty of sources available online, just have to click the "google" link provided by Wikipedia. I'll add them over time. Generally colelge football stadiums are considered notable, see discussion at WP:CFBSTADIUM -- while I regret mis-spelling the word "college" it's clear I did not state nor imply any automatic notabily, only that discussion about why college stadiums are normally kept are listed for review. Feel free to validate the comments at Talk:DeValois Stadium and revision history of the article itself. (2) The comments about junior high schools and high schools do not apply and are a WP:STRAWMAN (that's not notable, therefore this one's not notable) (3) The comment about the school being an NAIA school is not a reason to delete. (4) The comment about the school being small violates WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. (5) The only argument that actually applies to AFD is the independent sources, and some quick research produced a large amount--I added a couple to show that the subject passes WP:GNG which fixes that issue. Therefore, the article is a clear keep as the standard has been met. It's my hope that the other comments are sipmly misunderstandings.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- One source says "The Red Raiders came into the contest ranked fifth nationally in passing offense, but struggled to find a rhythm at De Valois Stadium." and the other says "the Red Raider Athletic Band will host the first annual Red Raider Marching Clinic and Preview Show on Saturday, Sept. 11, at Korver Field in De Valois Stadium." The third is some random coach's blog, not a reliable source. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of GNG if you think this establishes notability. Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Northwestern College (Iowa), per WP:ATD. There is entirely insufficient content to justify a standalone article. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage – all I'm seeing are standard passing mentions that you would expect for any WP:MILL sports facility. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Northewestern College (Iowa) as it's not indepedendently notable. I did some digging beyond the sources above, and am not able to identify SIGNIFICANT, independent sourcing. Name / score drops are nowhere near enough. Star Mississippi 03:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Northwestern College (Iowa) per wjemather. This is the football stadium for an NAIA program (i.e, the lowest level of college football other than junior colleges). There is no presumption of notability (see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Sports venues) and thus DeValois Stadium would need to satisfy WP:GNG. Two of the sources cited in the article currently do rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. The coaches' blog is published by the NAIA and thus is not independent. My searches also failed to turn up SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Second Before...[edit]

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

Russian / Ukrainian TV series with no real coverage in reliable sources.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nebraska Wesleyan University. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Stadium[edit]

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

Generic campus athletic field does not show notability with substantive independent sources. Virtually every high school, junior high school, college, and in this case university with 2,000 students playing in Division III has a field where they play football. Automatic notability for stadiums does not exist, as implied by deprodder. Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I did not imply that "automatic nomination" exists. At Talk:Abel Stadium please read that I provided a reason to de-prod as "established locations such as college football stadiums are widely considered notable. The article is a stub, but stubs are valid articles. Will add more sources and the article could be better, but PROD is not cleanup." And a reason does not have to be provided at all to de-prod.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "established locations such as college football stadiums are widely considered notable" has no basis in any notability guideline and is clearly a suggestion of automatic notability. What is widely considered notable is places with multiple independent sources of significant coverage, which are not present.
Keep Article is a stub, stubs are good. Meets ~~WP:BASIC~~. WP:NOTBIGENOUGH is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Please do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a statement based in any guideline and will be disregarded by any competent administrator. The issue is not that it is a stub, the issue is that there are zero independent significant sources. BASIC is the people guideline and irrelevant here. Reywas92^Talk 03:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nominator is correct that I improperly applied WP:BASIC to a location and it should be retracted. I apologize for mis-applying the shortcut, I should have used WP:NBUILD. I'm starting to lose focus since it's late at night and the nominator has hit five seperate historic college football articles that I either originated or helped originate with AFDs.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but are you now saying this passes NBUILD. If so, perhaps you could show us the "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources" to support that claim. I'm certainly not finding any - the article found by Cbl62 (below) comes closest, but it's nowhere near enough. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the football stadium for Nebraska Wesleyan, an NCAA Division III program. There is no presumption of notability (see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Sports venues) and thus Abel Stadium would need to satisfy WP:GNG. My searches did turn up some WP:SIGCOV in the Lincoln Journal Star. See, e.g., this and maybe this. Cbl62 (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nebraska Wesleyan University, per WP:ATD. There is entirely insufficient content to justify a standalone article. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage – only the first of the two sources listed by Cbl62 (above) has sigcov, giing us a bit of history, but it's fairly light on details and on its own is not enough; the second source says almost nothing about the facility. Other than that, all I'm seeing are further standard passing mentions that you would expect for any WP:MILL sports facility. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "stubs are good", but there's nowhere near the sourcing required to maintain this article, at any length. A merge to Nebraska Wesleyan makes complete sense as it's a piece of the school. Star Mississippi 03:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I don't see any evidence of this field being notable enough on its own. The article has no substantive info and little chance of expansion, so would be better merged with its parent school. JonnyDKeen (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article, per above. Not independently notable. Nigej (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wingate, New Zealand[edit]

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

Proposed deletion from lack of notability. This is not a suburb as defined by Hutt City Council and it is unclear why this area is notable enough for a separate article, especially when the article has only one reference which does not appear to support the statements made in the article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, it has an entry by LINZ as a "place" and that entry gives some context (it's named after Orde Wingate). Schwede 66 19:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hutt City Council profiles the area on its website. Stuff refers to the area of a suburb of Lower Hutt [19]. Paora (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the post-nom expansion that has been done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Space Activities Participants[edit]

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

An empty article. There is no evidence of significance. One link to the official website of the organization.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)--[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not convinced either way at this point. Please note, AfD is not a place for clean up. If there is a BLP violation please handle it through PROD or speedy.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Oscar of Prussia (born 1959)[edit]

Prince Oscar of Prussia (born 1959) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

No references for a BLP article _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The two works listed under "Further reading" in the article appear to be partly about Prince Oscar and may be enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Searching for the German form of his name may yield better results such as https://www.lvz.de/Region/Altenburg/Prinz-von-Preussen-besucht-Altenburger-Kinderhaus and https://www.lvz.de/Region/Altenburg/Prinz-von-Preussen-besucht-am-Dienstag-Altenburger-Johanniter and https://www.haz.de/Hannover/Aus-der-Stadt/Uebersicht/Johanniter-feiern-60.-Geburtstag This reference (Erbstößer, Elizza. Oskar Prinz von Preußen: Kaisersohn, Soldat und Johanniter. E. Erbstößer, 2010.) appears to be to a different person. The German version of the article says that he was awarded a decoration by the Hungarian government, but I don't know how important it is. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is the Order of Merit of the Kingdom of Hungary, which looks like a notable award to me. --Kbabej (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As with similar orders in other countries, such as the Order of the British Empire and the Légion d'honneur, whether membership grants notability depends completely on what level the membership is. It's not the order that matters, but the rank. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's coverage in the newspaper Leipziger Volkszeitung about his visits to the city (refs here and here); and coverage of leading the 900-year-old Bailiwick of Brandenburg of the Chivalric Order of Saint John of the Hospital at Jerusalemin in Der Tagesspiegel (ref here). Combining the press coverage with the fact he is leading a historic organization, I think it's reasonable to keep this subject. --Kbabej (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the discussion corelates to WP:GNG when the prime reason for WP:XFD is cause of the lack of references for a WP:BLP article. _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 16:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ^(talk) 19:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kbabej. Could use some touching up, though. ~Junedude433 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither LVZ article provides encyclopedic SIGCOV of the subject, and the first is just a refactored press release from Johanniter ("Johanniter announced this in a press release"). The second (which seems to be in the subsublocal section of "Altenburg/Volunteer work and royals") is giving a play-by-play of his visit/the event (the bulk of it is trivial details like "His Royal Highness has to record a reminder video with his smartphone"), complete with literal dialogue between him and a coordinator (my favorite is "“Anyone who plays samba cannot be a Nazi,” he says simply.") It's neither substantial coverage of him nor encyclopedic material in the first place. The Der Tagesspiegel piece is an interview of him, so cannot be used for notability considerations since it is not independent secondary coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones are "enough to satisfy GNG"? How are the LVZ articles remotely substantial coverage of him? JoelleJay (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree as Kbabej said above, there is enough to meet WP:GNG. I've deleted many deposed monarchy crufts but this one is different. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@VocalIndia: Like I asked of Necrothesp, which sources indicate he meets GNG? What encyclopedic, biographical information can be extracted from the second LVZ article? Attending a super-local non-notable event tied to his own organization is decidedly not Wikipedia-worthy material. And the DT article is an interview, which has long been considered unacceptable for meeting GNG because it is primary and not independent commentary on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: JoelleJay's argument still hasn't been responded to or addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kbabej. Looking at the articles the prince is the reason for the news coverage, if he wasn't notable the media wouldn't report on him. Had a quick look and also covered in Braunschweiger Zeitung [20], Die Welt [21]. Passes GNG but agree with other comments that the article needs improvement. - dwc lr (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
if he wasn't notable the media wouldn't report on him. Except the mere fact that someone "gets reported on" is not one of our notability criteria, and moreover, the media doesn't report on him with any degree of depth. Can you please explain how the LVZ(*) articles above, the un-bylined BZ blurb announcing Dr. Oskar Prince of Prussia spoke to readers about the Johanniter, the nobility in the 21st century and their great family role model and giving a bare-bones "bio", or the Die Welt announcement that has all of this to say about him: Oskar Prince of Prussia will succeed ex-Federal Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who died in the spring of 2016. The 59-year-old is Lord Master of the Order of St. John, as the festival organizers announced on Wednesday in Gardelegen. contain significant coverage? A handful of news reports providing the same routine biographical details and nothing else is neither evidence of SIGCOV nor of BASIC.

(*)I should note that my earlier description of the longer LVZ article is really generous in how much coverage he receives. The only sentences that even obliquely mention him are:
His Royal Highness Oskar Prince of Prussia himself paid a visit to the establishment of his order on Tuesday afternoon as part of a tour through Central Germany.
And the acoustic and visual image that presents itself to him on the very royal, slow approach through Liebermannstrasse is a very special one: the samba group “Como vento” (Portuguese for “like the wind”) stands up in a multi-row formation the meadow opposite the facility and welcomes the Hohenzollern Prince with rhythms that defied the unusual cool July.
Under the direction of Janek Rochner-Günther, responsible for street work in Altenburg-Nord and facility manager, the percussion enthusiasts carry both the prince and his companion with them. His Royal Highness has to record a reminder video with his smartphone.
How is any of that encyclopedic? JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet GNG due to insufficient coverage in independent sources, as JoelleJay, with characteristic diligence, has shown. The reports only show trivial details with no evidence of notability. Avilich (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The media coverage may be slight, but it isn't nonexistent; and the subject will be of note to anyone interested in European royalty and dynastic families. Ficaia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try familiarizing yourself with WP:SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it all depends how you define "significant coverage". There are the two articles mentioned above about the subject's connection with the Order of St John, the oldest chivalric order in Europe. There is also this article about his media career.[1]. The subject belongs to an ancient dynastic family and holds an historic office. I don't think these are "trivial details". I think the information is significant and the 3 articles mentioned should be enough to save this article. Ficaia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem of JoelleJay is WP:IDONTLIKE, imv. VocalIndia (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei VR Glass[edit]

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

There is no indication that this particular product is important, much less that it would pass WP:GNG. If it were particularly important, then it could be covered at Huawei and the article could be redirected in accordance with WP:NPRODUCT. Otherwise, the article should be deleted as non-notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Huawei#Wearables as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 04:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, I believe the product is notable, article does need more sources but finding English-language sources for a product only released in China is understandably difficult. I do have to disagree with "If it were particularly important, then it could be covered at Huawei", as by that logic no article for any other VR headset would exist. Doublah (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "华为VR Glass二代或本月发布，市场上还有它的位置吗？" [The second generation of Huawei VR Glass may be released this month. Does it have a place in the market?] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2021-11-12. Archived from the original on 2021-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "As for products such as Huawei's VR Glass, more of them occupy the market of light VR users who mainly watch movies. However, considering that the price of Huawei’s first-generation VR glasses is as high as 2,999 yuan (Oculus quest 2 is priced at $299), the second-generation VR glasses are likely to be sold at a price higher than this price, which is 2,000 yuan at home and abroad. Among price-priced all-in-one headsets, Huawei VR Glass is not outstanding in terms of cost performance. That is to say, but from the product level, Huawei is now holding votes in the VR industry at best. Even compared with domestic hardware manufacturers such as PICO, its market share is still at a disadvantage."
2. "HUAWEI VR Glass体验：从此我拥有了随身IMAX影院" [HUAWEI VR Glass experience: Since then I have a portable IMAX theater] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2019-12-13. Archived from the original on 2021-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  The review notes from Google Translate: "Thanks to the split design, HUAWEI VR Glass gets rid of the battery and processor, and bid farewell to the heavy and inconvenient impression of traditional VR headsets. The weight of 166g will not feel tired even if worn for a long time. The breakthrough innovation in the optical display has greatly reduced the volume of the fuselage, and combined with the folding storage, the VR glasses can also be carried with you."
3. 陈志杰, ed. (2021-11-17). "VR游戏套装、折叠屏手机、"口红"耳机……华为又上新了！这次又将引爆哪些风口？" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2021-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Compared with the previous generation of VR products, Huawei's VR Glass 6DoF game set adopts a new and upgraded 6DoF positioning interaction method. The resources cover a variety of boutique mobile VR games and thousands of PC VR games on the Steam platform, bringing an immersive gaming experience and realistic Visual screen. At the same time, the weight of only 188g is no burden to wear, and it also allows users to enjoy the fun of the virtual world in reality."
4. "You can also watch big-screen movies at home, HUAWEI VR Glass experience" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2020-06-12. Archived from the original on 2021-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  The article notes: "The overall structure of HUAWEI VR Glass is very simple, with a VR glasses body, a handle, and a special connection for mobile phones. It can be perfectly integrated with popular models such as P40 series, P30 series, Mate 30 series, Mate 20 series, Mate XS, Mate X, etc. It only needs a simple connection to bring users into the world of VR. As mentioned earlier, because the entire field of view is covered by a huge screen, this experience can truly be called "immersion"."
5. 余至浩 (2019-10-04). "AR‧VR雙周報第37期：AR眼鏡將有新選擇！臉書證實將推自有品牌AR眼鏡" [AR‧VR Bi-weekly Report No. 37: AR glasses will have new options! Facebook confirms that it will push its own brand AR glasses]. zh:IT之家 (in Chinese). Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  The article notes: "Huawei released a new virtual reality glasses called Huawei VR Glass on the 26th. This is also the company's third-generation VR glasses launched in 2016 and 2017. The appearance of the new generation of VR glasses is similar to sunglasses. Not only is the frame thinner, but the weight is also very light, only 166 grams. In addition, the lens on the glasses is equipped with two independent Fast LCD screens, which can provide up to 3K resolution images. And can support dynamic rendering technology to improve the screen image and reduce dizziness. Users can also adjust the wearing degree of AR glasses according to their own myopia degree."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huawei VR Glass to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be significant scope for expansion as there are sources available, article should be expanded, not deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing presented by the keeps, nor any sourcing in this debate, convinces me that this subject merits inclusion at this time.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Party of Labor[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This article concerns a tiny political party, for which the only sources given are outlets directly affiliated with the party and two personal blogs. Searching for additional information, I was only able to find the party's official website, a facebook page with around 4,200 followers, a twitter account with 1497 followers, a student newspaper article from 2016 and a few mentions of the wikipedia article itself. Other than that, nothing.

It appears that the overwhelming majority of attention to this party comes from the wikipedia article itself rather than any actions taken by the party, with the page receiving an average of 2330 monthly pageviews in the past year

In light of all of this, I do not believe this meets notability guidelines.

Thereppy (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep For a small Communist/Hoxhaist party, its article is better sourced than those of similar organizations. I count five not affiliated with the party itself: [22][23][24][25][26]. EDIT: revising vote based on Unrequestedsillything's observations below. I failed to consider the APL's membership with the ICMLPO, which further establishes notability.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of the five pieces you linked, a potential case for notability can made with the first article, which is a full length interview conducted by Evrensel Daily. This coverage is undoubtedly independent and significant, but reliability is harder to assess. The English language site does not give information on editorial standards (or even give the name of the interviewer(s)!), and as I can not read Turkish, I can't determine if this information is available on its parent site either. That said, if this wiki article is to be believed (I can't assess the reliability of the Turkish language source this table is based on), Evrensel's circulation within Turkey is substantial: Over 2% that of Turkey's largest daily newspaper, which is very impressive for a Marxist-Leninist newspaper in a country with negligible Marxist-Leninist political popularity or influence. If reliability can be established, it makes a solid case against deletion. However, the other four pieces linked definitely cannot be used to describe the American Party of Labor as notable. The Worker's World article (2nd link) does not offer significant coverage, listing it in a single sentence alongside several other groups as being involved in a small street protest (for which I could find no other news coverage). 'Fight Back! News' (3rd link) is an online newspaper, but I can find no mention of any editorial policies on the site, nor anything else to assess the reliability of its coverage. Either way, its coverage of the American Party of Labor is not significant, consisting of a one-sentence mention of the group as one of three groups that organized a counter-protest which, like the protest described in the Worker's World article, is apparently not reported on by any other sources. The Spanish-language source (4th link) is a translation of [this article] published by the American Party of Labor itself while the 'New Jersey Anti-War Agenda' (5th link) is a personal blog. Thereppy (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I was incorrect about the fourth source, but it appears even though it was originally published by the APL, it was subsequently translated and republished by a third party. So I believe my original point still stands: it is better sourced than other Wikipedia pages for smaller communist parties. At least one strong source with some weaker sources, along with their membership with the ICMLPO that Unrequestedsillything mentioned below, establishes notability IMO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a source from the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, a fairly large national organization—the party in question signed the refounding document. Jpalameda1865 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As C.J. Griffin has pointed out, it already has more independent sources than similar pages which have been deemed notable. Its official status with the ICMLPO, another notable organization, also helps here. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC) — Unrequestedsillything (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Thank you for mentioning this. I have revised my vote accordingly.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inherited notability isn't an argument. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 23:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C.J. Griffin. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is adequately sourced. Deletion nomination seems frivolous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visigoth500 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC) — Visigoth500 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion or finding of sources. Thereppy makes a good rebuttal of the sources, which have not been answered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How often is this going to be re-listed? The majority of comments are "Keep," and as has been noted several times, it is better sourced than other similar articles. Visigoth500 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Visigoth500: A quorum is usually seeked when an item is relisted. The AfD would be treated as an expired PROD. – The Grid (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The keep !voters are making questionable non-policy based arguments. You can't just say "For a small Communist/Hoxhaist party, its article is better sourced than those of similar organizations."; that's blatantly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. None of the sources CJ Griffin mentioned satisfy WP:SIRS. The first is an interview with one of the members by a fellow traveller; comprised mostly of the interview itself. This doesn't qualify as "completely independent" nor is it a secondary source. The second and third sources are single-sentence mentions. The fourth and fifth sources are fucking blogspot pages. It's shocking Visigoth500 accuses the nom of "frivolous" behaviour when the !voters here are ignoring policy to push what is essentially socialist fancruft/spam onto this encyclopedia.

Unrequestedsillything's argument is laughable. It's just a rehashing of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that this article has "more sources" and should be kept. They ignore the garbage quality of said sources and then goes onto say that this organization inherits notability because it's a part of the larger organization. WP:NORG very explicitly says in WP:INHERITORG that organizations do not inherit notability from being part of or affiliated with a larger organization. Then the other two !votes are just "per nom" trash. I can see why this was relisted twice; the "keep" arguments are meme-tier and Thereppy is right. This party is non-notable.

I would ask the closing admin here to do what we always do for non-notable organizations whose fans show up to !vote keep while disregarding our notability policies. Close as "delete", because AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. This ~~tankie~~ stalinist fanclub of an Albanian dictator is non-notable and should be treated as such, regardless of the stature of the people !voting keep. I'm going to go post this on WP:Wikiproject Politics to see if we can get some more people. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This tankie fanclub of an Albanian dictator" -- Politically motivated bias Visigoth500 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be firstly noted that "fellow travelers" are not against policy, especially considering in the interview it isn't the APL recursively reporting on itself, but rather an outside source doing so. In addition, I have also added a source documenting the actions of the party. Notably they don't even seem to be a "fellow traveler", or associated with the party after a cursory glance.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It should be also noted that the new source added is from Rutger's official student newspaper. Student newspapers, while not as desirable for notability as mainstream media, can sometimes be considered reliable enough depending on how well established they are. Given that The Daily Targum is the official newspaper of a major university, and even has its own Wikipedia article, there is arguably a case here. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're just ignoring SIRS, you're ignoring NORG, and you're ignoring pretty much all of our global consensus. The interview is not completely independent or a secondary source. You're deliberately ignoring our policies to push an obviously non notable fanclub onto this encyclopedia. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 17:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "fanclub" -- Again, you are demonstrating your own bias and prejudice. Perhaps this encyclopedia would benefit from less snide remarks and vulgar language ("fucking blogspot") and more professionalism. If you deem the article to not be notable, fine that is your right; but snark, attitude and vulgarity are not helpful.Visigoth500 (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A random Blogger/blogspot blog is not a reliable source. It's ludicrous that people are saying that it is. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists 21 different discussions in which editors have said that blogspot is generally unreliable as a WP:Self published source. Deeming it reliable here would be equivalent to just ignoring pretty much the endless discussions among editors for years that no, blogspot sources are not reliable and cannot be used to establish notability. It's illogical and flies in the face of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

And yes, I'm calling this political party a fanclub. On a fundamental level, political parties are fan clubs of ideologies and ideologues. If we treat this entity like any other fan club (which we judge by quality sourcing regardless of how much turnout their fans provide) rather than discussing its political importance in the realm of communist parties, it becomes clear what needs to be done with this page. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are quite correct that "whataboutism" is a not response to notability. The article must stand or fall on it's own merits. However, the question of "selective enforcement has been raised and is a valid concern. Visigoth500 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple new and indendent, notable sources with their own pages have been added to the sources with new information elucidating the activity of this party with again, its own independent source that in no way violates policy. As seen with the comments above, the repetitive motion to delete this page is politically motivated, not honestly founded in the desires to strengthen content on wikipedia. On those grounds alone, on top of the new sources, of their validity, there is no reason this idea of deletion should be at all entertained, once again.— Evann31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment This is the first (and thusfar only) contribution to Wikipedia made by this account. I struggle to believe this is anything but either canvassing or sockpuppetry. Thereppy (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Irrelevant. What matters are the sources, not who provides them.Visigoth500 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Going to start an SPI. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 22:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do. A brand new account making arguments identical (nearly verbatim) to a user in a heated deletion discussion sends off way too many alarm bells, especially when that user is so quick to defend the new account. Thereppy (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thereppy: The checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unrequestedsillything says that Unrequestedsillything, Evann31, AxderWraith Crimson are unrelated in terms of IPs, and there's not that much evidence aside from that. It'd be inappropriate at this post to continue discussing alleged socking here. I'm leaving this note here so it's clear what happened on SPI case given that the accusation was also made here. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 04:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Chess: I'm not concerned about either of those users, really just Visigoth500. Nothing strikes me as odd about the other accounts' behavior-just two people with similar interests and (per user profiles) similar ideological dispositions. (by the way Visigoth, I sincerely apologize if that isn't whats happening here. I hope you understand the reasons we are suspicious) Thereppy (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a WP:SIRS table that examines every source currently included in the article. None of the sources currently satisfy WP:SIRS despite the WP:SPAs showing up in droves claiming that they do. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 21:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The daily Targum article clearly fits the criteria of " significant coverage in a reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject. "

comment((reply to|Chess))

In regard specifically to the daily Targum article; Significant: The entire article is about an event organized and operated by the American Party of Labor and its student wing. It is clearly significant coverage.

Reliable: The daily Targum has won the Columbia Scholastic Press Association's Gold Crown Award multiple times, it established a separate publishing company to ensure independent coverage from Rutgers. It also has its own wikipedia page. If ever a student newspaper is reliable it is now.

Secondary: While there are brief snippets and direct quotes from members, the author reports on the protest as well as giving additional context with regards to the Dakota Access pipeline in general as well as other protests regarding the pipeline. This is a secondary source with regards to the Party

Independent: The daily Targum has no association with the American party of labor nor does the author as far as I can tell. There is no reason to believe this journalism isn't independent of the American Party of Labor.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You and Visigoth500 keep saying that the "All Marxist-Leninist Union" is the APL's "student wing", yet I'm not really seeing a source on that. It's not mentioned in any of the links you've posted and Binging for "All Marxist-Leninist Union rutgers" provides nothing. Even if it is true, it's not relevant since WP:INHERITORG says that entities do not "inherit" notability if a sub-entity or parent entity is notable. Even if the AMLU is notable due to coverage in that article (which I doubt it is), that does not mean that the APL is notable. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 03:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Chess
Our history	Published by the party itself	~ A WP:Self published source, but affiliated with the party and so may qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF		✘ No
"American Party of Labor (U.S.)"		It's a self published blog that covers flags in the world		✘ No
"Here in the very belly of imperialism, you have comrades:' Alfonso Casal, National Spokesperson for the American Party of Labor, spoke to Evrensel about the APL and the U.S. policies"	Not independent, is mostly an interview with a spokesperson for the party and the vast majority of the content is provided by the interviewee. Interviews are not considered to be independent sources. Additionally, per WP:NORG, "interviews with executives" are not considered secondary sources and do not satisfy WP:SIRS.	? Unsure of the reliability of Evrensel		✘ No
The American Party of Labor Has Been Granted Observer Status in the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations	Not independent as it's published by the party newspaper	~ See WP:ABOUTSELF	WP:ROUTINE coverage of it joining a larger organization	✘ No
"Chicago protesters say ‘No’ to Greek fascists"		? Highly biased source from within the movement	Mentions the American Party of Labor in a list of organizations that participated at this rally. No actual coverage of the party.	✘ No
"Chicago forum on U.S. role in Ukraine: fascists attempt disruption"		? Highly biased source from within the movement	Briefly mentions a speaker's affiliation to the American Party of Labor. Single sentence.	✘ No
"Support grows for “Dump Trump” protest planned for day one of Republican National Convention"		? Highly biased source from within the movement	Briefly mentions the party in a listing of attendees at the rally.	✘ No
"Communist group at Rutgers protests Standing Rock with Brower rally"		? Student newspaper	Mentions the party in the first paragraph, but mostly covers the "All Marxists-Leninists Union" on campus. Final section covers a speaker affiliated with the party but not the party itself.	✘ No Comment The All Marxist-Leninist Union IS the APL student wing at Rutgers.Visigoth500 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El ascenso del neofascismo americano: Apuntes sobre la presidencia de Donald Trump."	? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Perhaps the author is saying that is the source for the post? Site is the official blog of the Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, see: [27] That party belongs to the same umbrella org (ICMLPO (US) as the APL.	Self published blog.	Does not actually cover the party in the text of the blog post.	✘ No
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El legado de Karl Marx en la revitalización del movimiento obrero estadounidense"	? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Same issue as previous source. Appears to be the same self published blog as the previous and has the same issues of affiliation	Self published blog.	? Dead link	✘ No
"Revolution is the Solution: Presentation of the American Party of Labor to the 23rd Seminar on the Problems of the Revolution in Latin America"	Party newspaper of the APL	~ Possibly under WP:ABOUTSELF	Doesn't actually cover the party itself	✘ No
"Booker on Blast: Hands Off Venezuela"		Some random person's blog. Is obviously a WP:Self published source.	Briefly mentions a person affiliated with the party and does not cover the party in a significant manner.	✘ No
https://naarpr.org/updates/call-to-refound/ "Call to Refound the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression"]	~ Petition signed by the APL	It's a WP:Self published source and isn't reliable since it isn't published by the APL	value not understood The extent of the sources coverage of the APL is that the APL signed this petition.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete User:Chess' analysis is convincing, there is nothing that meets WP:RS. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now there are accusations of sock puppetry, I created this account specifically to challenge the baseless and desperate attempts to repress this party and the desperation, beyond hiding behind subjectivity of "notability" of direct and independent sources, they now accuse the multitude of opponents, Axder Wraith, Unrequestedsillythings and myself, who knows who else of not even existing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evann31 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Evann31, You probably aren't doing yourself any favors by admitting to creating a new account for the sole purpose of challenging others arguments in one particular topic. That's the definition of WP:SPA. Chess makes a very convincing argument in this case, and though I'm not voting in this regard, you'd be better off just providing your rebuttal of Chess's argument. Just my viewpoint, take it for what it's worth. Spf121188 (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply A "particular topic" so repetitively brought up on flimsy and subjective bases. A topic founded in political motivation and not in ethics or "rules". It stands that the charges of sockpuppetry further prove the desperation of the handful of editors who are grasping at straws to save their subjective arguments of "notability" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evann31 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the references are not independent or notable. It won't pass WP:GNG However, I would like to thank User:Chess for his thorough work on the references. Mommmyy (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am going to vote, and vote to delete. Chess has a masterful argument for this based on their thorough table assessing validity/reliability of articles. It simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. in reply to Evann31, you're still not helping yourself. Spf121188 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just doesn't pass the test. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the detailed source assessment. No evidence of notability (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the source assessment, and thanks to Chess for putting it together. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If the article could be provided with sources, it might be kept to show that it is insignificant. These left wing groups are prone to splintering. I was looking at articles on white supremacist groups with a few hundred members and these had articles, so why not these neo-Marxist ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, that is the definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Can’t use that as a reason for notability. Spf121188 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spf121188, No. But that raises the question of "selective enforcement." Which is a valid concern.Visigoth500 (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Visigoth500, I understand your point, but if there are other articles out there that shouldn't be, nominate them for deletion and discuss there. It doesn't have bearing over this decision. Spf121188 (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel better I'm going to go around and nominate other non notable communist parties for deletion. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Chess, Just can't resist the snark, eh? Well, good luck on your crusade to save "our encyclopedia" from "socialist fancruft/spam" Translation -- From mentioning the existence of somehting you don't like.Visigoth500 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Visigoth500, You won't do any favors for yourself or the article with those kinds of remarks. Spf121188 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spf121188, Not asking for any favors. I thought that articles stand or fall on their own merit, not on what comments are made here. Interesting that Chess' "fucking blogspots," "Tankie fanclub," saving "our encyclopedia" from "socialist fancruft/spam," and "If it makes you feel better I'm going to go around and nominate other non notable communist parties for deletion" gets a pass; but calling them out for vulgarity, snark, and unprofessionalism elicits your disapproval. Visigoth500 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Visigoth500, My disapproval carries zero weight. Chess took the time to analyze every source provided, and gave a very well worded argument in regards to the articles merits, and created a table for everyone to easily understand. I understand that this is a passion-filled topic, but Chess' comments notwithstanding, they at least took the time and effort to make an argument based on merit. Spf121188 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Visigoth500: I spend much time PRODing and AfDing or rejecting at AfC other kinds of fancruft, like miscellaneous student clubs, dream SMP micronations, or most recently non notable subparts of universities. Generally within a certain topic there's often quite a lot of accumulation of articles of questionable notability as time goes on and nobody notices. This seems to be what is happening here. Fans of a topic come on and create articles that don't have good sourcing on non notable topics. When something is fancruft, it's fancruft. That seems to be what's happened with communist parties. What's shocking to me is that I didn't see how it's possible to honestly see blogspot blogs as reliable sources. It's the prototypical example of a self published source.

Since you were raised the question about "selective enforcement" given that there are other communist parties in existence that are less notable and still have articles, I've gone ahead and answered by nominating others for deletion. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right microparties get a lot more mainstream attention due to their memberships' tendency to accumulate criminal convictions. Infamy will get you a wikipedia article just as easily as fame. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What harm is it doing? Left parties, even large ones, often don't get mainstream coverage and I think it is legitimate to use left sources for these niche topics. I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't list small parties. Delete arguments of the "~~tankie~~ stalinist fanclub of an Albanian dictator" variety are not convincing: it's not our job to only list parties we like. If deleted, should redirect to International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle). BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bobfrombrockley, Your !vote is clearly against WP:HARMLESS, and not a valid reason for keep. However, your suggestion for a redirect is a good alternative, since redirects are cheap. Spf121188 (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spf121188. Wasn't aware of that policy. I guess what I mean is that having a page on this topic, even if only a stub, means that people looking for information on left parties will find something of use, and future editors can build on it if it becomes more notable, and the sources, while not particularly strong, are mostly reliable for reporting on niche left topics, so I am not convinced of a need to purge the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Bobfrombrockley, I can understand that viewpoint, and that's a well-reasoned argument. IMO, a re-direct like you mentioned above may actually make it easier for people looking for information, especially being all in one place. An admin or closer will determine if the article stands, whether or not the nomination was made in good faith. Spf121188 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Bobfrombrockley said: "...and the sources, while not particularly strong, are mostly reliable for reporting on niche left topics..." A google books search found some sources that mention the party and its newspaper/blog: [28] [29] [30]. These seem reliable enough. I'll leave it to other editors as to whether or not these should be incorporated into the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. In fact, ORGDEPTH explicitly says that "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" aren't WP:SIGCOV. The first two hyperlinked sources are just quotes from the Red Phoenix. The third source is a list of communist parties in America. ORGDEPTH explicitly says that "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" does not satisfy the significant coverage requirements. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley and Spf121188: Just pointing out that WP:HARMLESS is not Wikipedia policy, as stated at the top of that essay. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it is not a ‘’policy’’, just an argument that should generally be avoided for rationale to keep/delete on its own. Spf121188 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Chess's excellent source analysis showcases that the party has not yet gained the necessary media coverage to pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pop cumbia[edit]

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

No reliable sources talk about this as a genre. The cited sources don't support the preceding statements. The word "pop" doesn't even appear in the CMTV source, and the El Diario source only says that the cumbia under discussion has electronic elements making two bands more popular. I looked hard for more sources and found nothing. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both sources are about a specific artist, not a genre. The closet I can get to pop cumbia is "Vida de Rico" by Camilo, but that's not enough. Erick (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even the sources provided call it "cumbia pop" rather than "pop cumbia", so it means it's an unlikely search term. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more about traditional spelling in Spanish. I see that both are used in sources, but "cumbia pop" is a bit more common. Solidest (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jebel Ali Village[edit]

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

It's not a town, but a housing development. They're almost never notable. promotional refs, part of a promotional campaign for the copany's projects DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Simply does not satisfy WP:GNG and does not belong here. Not useful, notable, or of interest, just appears like a company promo - Such-change47 (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Govind[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage. Minor award. scope_creep^Talk 19:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kerala State Film Award is no more minor than, say, a Polish Film Award or an AACTA Award. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala state film award is the official award by the Government of Kerala, India for the best work from state. Its not a minor award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.46.113.185 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the other coverage for this BLP. scope_creep^Talk 15:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Backup4all[edit]

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

Non-notable software. I was going to prod the article, but it was already deleted that way previously and by speedy deletion after that. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the PROD and speedy where in 2006 and 2007 respectively, so cannot really be relevant in 2021. Looking at this, while I have never heard about it myself, there are some reviews from various sources over a period spanning from around 2014, such as Softpedia, PC World and Techradar as a recommended or suggested solution. I can't say if this qualifies the notability guidelines or not, though they're independent, third-party reviews over a period of time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The softpedia article includes download links and a license key deal for Backup4all Lite, so I would not consider it independent. The techradar link is a brief, incidental mention at the end of the article, not a thorough review.Dialectric (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting this satisfies any notability criteria, hence a comment and not a !vote. I happen to think on balance the article may not have sufficient in-depth secondary sources, but it doesn't harm to discuss what is found, relevant or not. What I posted is by no means exhaustive. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've found references from Tech Radar, ghacks, and many other tech magazines about this software through Google search. It seems like a good backup software. Mommmyy (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mommmyy: The techradar link is the exact same one I posted above and the other link has nothing to do with backup4all. Are you sure you meant that one? I remain on the fence regarding notability though. A number of reasonable length, independent reviews would be useful. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle:, I mistaken Ghack as a tech magazine and found it is a blog. Sorry for that. But what about PCWorld? It seems to be a good reference. I can see that you've recommended this one too. I don't know if Capterra is trustworthy or not. I would like to leave it up to your' consideration. Mommmyy (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add one more thing. I found another source from Tech Radar. Please check. Mommmyy (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of all the sources posted, only the PC World one seems to be a completely independent reliable source with significant coverage, which is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Further attempts at finding quality sources came up empty. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are two independent sources that talk about this software in some detail. It just squeaks by the notability requirements. 80.247.89.52 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Backup software is very very common software and it would need to quite special to get an article. I don't see why it is notable. scope_creep^Talk 20:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Hilda's Church, Georgeville[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCHURCH. All I could find is coverage for St Hilda's Churches elsewhere in the world. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Pili Hernandez[edit]

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

First off its an orphan article, so its already a bad sign. Secondly, apart from hanging a banner saying "RESIST" near the White House along with other 6 activists, Nancy doesn't have any other notable event, as evidence of that, all of the references (except the ones regarding the banner) are either from her Linkedln profile, local newspapers and organizations and a episode from a small podcast.

About the banner, there's 6 references from 5 different newspapers, the only significant being the Los Angeles Times, and all the 6 news reports just briefly mention her name. Additionally the occurrence that brought her some media attention doesn't even have its own article. SadAttorney613 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would seem to be a bit-player in the activist activities. Oaktree b (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: alas. I was hoping someone would turn up something that would establish her notability, but no one has. The one piece in the Smithsonian can't hold up the whole thing. -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the current news sources are not significant and I could not find any other info in Google. Caphadouk (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom with no opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Study of Social Problems[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, total lack of secondary coverage. Article appears to have been created and extensively edited by someone associated with the org. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw / Keep per sources found to support notability. COI issue has been resolved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: ~~No reliable, independent sources listed. Must have additional sources to be of inclusion in the articlespace.~~ Multi7001 (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Multi7001: You have altered your comment without heeding WP:REDACT, which is a problem. From the sources added since your first edit, do you consider the OUP Dictionary of Sociology and Julia Wrigley's article[31] to be not "independent"? Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, that is an incorrect assertion. The guidelines state: "so long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes." There was an edit made to increase clarification and prevent misinterpretation of the comment, as no one had commented on it yet. With regards to the sources, it has been marked for deletion by another user for a reason; I could not confirm whether the sources were both independent and reliable to the subject and contained SIGCOV. In some cases, low-level organizations with no media presence tend to have press releases published in academic journals and subscription databases as articles. I am skeptical that just these three academic articles are the subject's only indication of notability, as notable organizations that meet WP:GNG and WP:NORG tend to have multiple articles in mass media outlets, of which there is no presence in the media, from what I saw - in addition to mentions on academic journals. That is just my opinion, as all users are subject to their own opinion, respectfully. Multi7001 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More sources were added after my nom was posted. I redacted the deletion nom but will decide to stay impartial given that some of the content in the sources cannot be accessed in full due to a paywall. Multi7001 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever problems the current article has, this looks like a viable topic with decent (if difficult-to-find/get) secondary sources available, e.g.

A Dictionary of Sociology (OUP)[32]
RS published accounts from the (ex-) president.[33]
Historial overview from 1976.[34]

Alexbrn (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, here is an example of what I was referring to: [35]. Sometimes, academic publications tend to mask subtle mentions or entire articles in their print/online publications as genuine coverage, but it is actually PR paid for by the subject. Sometimes disclosed, and other times not; similar to editorial newsrooms and companies wanting intricate PR. As you can see, the publisher is the University of California Press, and this one, compared to others that don't follow this process, discloses the following: "University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems." Organizations that do this are usually the ones with no media presence and a lack of notability, but with direct access to editorial tools within the academic publications. Multi7001 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What has that source got to do with this article? You said there were "no reliable sources"[36] But now they've emerged, such as this, then that statement is incorrect. Will you respond to new evidence or double down? There are more sources of course (did you look?) Alexbrn (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just enough independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another (quite critical) source is:

→ Leedham CS, Eitzen DS (1994). "Advocacy and the SSSP: An Analysis of Research Articles in Social Problems". American Sociologist. 25 (Fall): 66–73.

This cites several other sources on the Society, which I shall try and track down. There's quite a bit of (older) stuff out there. Alexbrn (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing such articles is always difficult, as anyone who tried knows: even the Modern Language Association suffers from a dearth of secondary sourcing, but there is no denying that within its area it's the most important organization there is. Anyway, it seems to me that Alexbrn has done enough to prove this outfit deserves an article, though the article has a clear COI origin (and I'm going to block Tomhoodster, who did not participate in the COIN discussion and hasn't responded to messages, from editing the article) and needs some hard work. BTW funny--my office used to be in the same building. McClung Tower might deserve a Brutalist article. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hah, didn't realise this was at COIN. That'll learn me to take anything off my watchlist, be it ever-so-tedious. Alexbrn (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alexbrn, I don't use my watchlist at all, but the obvious COI flavor of the article made me look for the main editor in the history, and thus their talk page, and so I found User:MB's notification. It's the old rabbit hole--but with an administrative edict at the end. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources that have already been provided, I found it straightforward to find independent sources describing this organization in at least some depth just by paging through google scholar results for "Society for the Study of Social Problems". - Astrophobe (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Astrophobe, if it really was so easy for you, please improve the article--you seem to have the skills and the information, and I'd appreciate your efforts. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies: thanks for the suggestion, but I've barely even had time to look at my watchlist recently. The existence of sources is the criterion by which articles are judged at AfD per WP:NEXIST, and actually fixing an article is much harder than just assessing whether or not an article subject meets notability criteria. There's a place for SODOIT but it's not relevant to my !vote. But if the issue is actually that you doubt that I saw sources then please do say so and I'll be happy to go back and find them, I just thought plastering this AfD with more sources wasn't really relevant after several have been supplied above. But I'll add this article to my mental list of pages to come back to, and please feel free to follow up any time at my talk page. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Astrophobe, I hear you. I know it's easier to prove notability than to write decent articles--one wishes that these COI editors would acquaint themselves with our guidelines and would take us seriously. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can be hard to document an organization like this, because sources about them get lost among the sources published by them. But we seem to have crossed that bar. XOR'easter (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was me that initially suggested on WP:COI/N that the article didn't provide independent sourcing to demonstrate 'notability', but I think what has been found since is sufficient now to meet the criteria, and to write a better article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Oved[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, references are all passing mentions and a WP:BEFORE search shows up much the same + standard PR profiles. Also has WP:COI issues, and was previously deleted after discussion. Melcous (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Lack of indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable/independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater ^(talk) 15:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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