< December 14	December 16 >

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 06:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwaiti Canadians[edit]

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

Per this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. Geschichte (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a couple of statistical references in the article and no evidence of any significant coverage of this combination of nationalities has been studied or identified as a group that is more than just a subset of Arab Canadians. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 09:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Theres 2000+, that seems significant.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2000 of 38 million is significant? Geschichte (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte yes.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. No evidence of Kuwaitis with notable achievements. LibStar (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO RS here to indicate notability of this article content. Minor migrant community Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant information to pass WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with only 2,240 people that could be considered Kuwaiti Canadians, this is not notable enough to be an article. Safyrr 22:03, 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 speedy delete. G5, created by User:CalebHughes Favonian (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas–Rice football rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Though it would take a lot of time to dig for the older reporting, there appears to be some coverage of this series as a historic Southwest Conference rivalry. E.g., [1], [2]. The teams met every year from 1930 to 1991. Where a rivalry ceases being active, that does not take away from its historic notability. Cbl62 (talk) 13:52, 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. Fails WP:NCORP.

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) 17:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boinx Software[edit]

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

This article is a product of suspected UPE. I cleaned it up a bit but it still cannot really be salvaged. I'm guessing the editor put their best sources forward, but the ones in the article don't meet WP:GNG nevermind WP:NCORP. Also did a search and cannot find NCORP-meeting coverage. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very reluctant keep. I 100% agree with the reasons given by ProcrastinatingReader. This article seems to be a promotional effort by either a paid editor or someone connected to the company. It's a low quality listing of products verging on linkspam, and lacks objectivity. And it has been this way for a long time, without anyone really caring to fix it, which in itself suggests a lack of notability. However, philosophically I believe that if someone encounters a company and visits Wikipdia looking for information they should get a page. The article does cite some verifiable sources although it doesn't use them to any great benefit. I would prefer to keep the unpaid banner, which alerts people to the lack of objectivity.Oblivy (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your opinion that "philosophically" articles about companies should be kept makes a mockery of our strict WP:NCORP guidelines on how to assess the notability of companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another reluctant keep, while deleting or merging the product article mimoLive. I disagree with above that any company merits an article for merely existing. My main criterion, albeit subjective, is to think if someone reading ten years from now would find the information still useful. From what I can tell, the company has been around since 2007 at least with several products getting noticed a bit at a time. Adding these up together gives me a NCORP, but I know others disagree. Some potential sources seem to be in non-English, but that should not disqualify them. If consensus is delete, that might be reasonable too. W Nowicki (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I don't think a company gets an article just for existing, but this is a company with a product history and a userbase, which means people who encounter their products may want some background on the company (background barely provided by the article). Merging with mimoLive would probably still achieve this goal.Oblivy (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep (weak keep) - to me, there looks like *just* enough RS to justify keeping the page. Clearly not all companies get a page... but there is some discussion of this company in various media. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "*just enough RS" isn't one of the criteria for Keeping an article. Even if we assume every reference meets RS, according to WP:SIRS the references also need to meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND for example, and none of the references I can locate come even close. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with mimolive as per WP:ATD or Delete. This article is about a company/organization and therefore the appropriate [[WP:SNG|guideline] is WP:NCORP. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings relavent to Apple design awards for a product (not the company, which is the topic of this article) or regurgitations of company "announcements". Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing. MimoLive is up for deletion as well, so merging to that page could still result in a deletion. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has a few sources, but the sources are about products and at best trivial mentions of the company. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. - MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has few sources, none of these seem to demonstrate any notability per WP:N. Looking at the companies LinkedIn page alone, it only has seven staff. That already says a lot. Yes, there can be companies with a small headcount who are notable, Wikipedia at one time surely had few staff also. However this does indicate a small business, and smaller businesses are typically not notable, generally speaking. Googling further, several pages of Google show little to no sources independent of the subject. The article hence has no true independent verifiable sources, and as such is unlikely to be suitable for Wikipedia. Whilst I do understand that some people here think that if you Wiki a company, a page should come up, this completely goes against the first paragraph of wp:NCORP which states no company or organisation is inherently notable'. As such, in order to be notable, it must have 'significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I feel like for some here, this article is on the border. To me, it is not even close. It simply does not meet the relevant standards and policies developed by consensus and should go. Such-change47 (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:37, 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 delete. ✗plicit 06:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sensorium (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensorium (band) closed as delete in 2016; the current version was created in 2018, this time with a few sources. However, neither the cited sources nor the limited coverage by some metal webzines that I can find online ([3], [4]) add up to the significant coverage required to pass WP:BAND. Lennart97 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough reliable sources covering them, and their YouTube page with only 124 subscribers and unimpressive view counts corroborates lack of interest in this band. Pikavoom (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - simply does not meet WP:GNG. Not useful or notable information. Does not belong in an encyclopedia - Such-change47 (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I like goth stuff. Never heard of them. Nothing here to support WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:05, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Micronesia–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is really almost nothing to these relations. No embassies, agreements, state visits. Article says trade is very "scarce". In the cooperation section, most aid is given to a group of island nations, including the example of aid given to Palau which is really scraping the barrel for relations. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by LibStar. I’m in agreement with their assessment. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's some material here, but it really needs a lot more - pretty sure its not out there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Personally I think it's all been said by LibStar. Does not meet wp:gng, this article is not useful. This article does not discuss anything of notability or significance, standing in the shoes of someone who may wish to learn about this subject the article does not contain significant information at all and there is not much commentary out there on the subject to include. - Such-change47 (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO RS here to indicate notability of this article content.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. the article does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:38, 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. Redundant content.

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) 17:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of current champions in Ring of Honor[edit]

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

List already on the main Ring of Honor article, promotion on hiatus (maybe done for good), no sense of having a redundant article. Vjmlhds 23:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. List is too small for its own article.Yousef Raz (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you kidding me? See List of current champions in Impact Wrestling and List of current champions in the NWA.--TheGoldenRule (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on TheGoldenRule, your comment is the definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not a valid argument. Spf121188 (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is going on with ROH is sad and makes this article totally useless, but this article probably shouldn't have ever existed in the first place. All of this information is covered on the main article and is just redundant here. I'd support deleting the other articles TheGoldenRule listed for the same reason.LM2000 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per similar votes above. starship .paint (exalt) 13:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, and as LM2000 notes - Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this just duplicates the table in the main article on the promotion, albeit with the addition of some prose which simply re-states what's in the table. Can't see any need for a separate article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per previous comments this article is merely a list and does not warrant an individual article. Contents already covered elsewhere. Such-change47 (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Best in parent article. Nigej (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and is there in main article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:39, 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. Per WP:SNOW.

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. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Primate's Memoir[edit]

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

There are no links, the significance of the book is not shown.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 22:36, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK given coverage and reviews in The New York Times, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Auto/Biography Studies, Publishers Weekly, AudioFile, Time, Library Journal, and more. The book is notable and so the article should be improved, not deleted. DanCherek (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dan's many sources are clearly enough on their own to establish notability, and it wasn't hard for me to find even more coverage in the press, for instance the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ([5]), the Star Tribune ([6]), and Newsday ([7][8]). I really question whether an adequate WP:BEFORE search was done here: just a quick Google News or Google Scholar search yields a number of results, and the statement that "there are no links, the significance of the book is not shown" doesn't suggest that there was even an effort to look for sources in the first place. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I am the first one to recommend deletion of an article not meeting WP:GNG however just because no sources are included in the article does not mean these sources do not exist, and others have pointed out they do exist. Therefore, this should be kept and if it needs improvement...respectfully WP:DIY rather than nominate for deletion.... - Such-change47 (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominated for a significant prize, plus the sourcing identified here is more than enough for NBOOKS/GNG. While I'm sure the nom was in good faith, there are no links is not a reason for deletion. Star Mississippi 17:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Lot's of reliable references available and it has improvement opportunities. Mommmyy (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I added infobox, cover, sources and reception section. Artem.G (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources have now been added, meets WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:35, 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 speedy keep. Consensus is clearly to keep, to prolong this is to prolong an eventual actuality. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vale of Clwyd[edit]

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

I think the article lacks quite a lot of clarity, appears to be original research with not many references and would be better placed either in the Denbighshire article or Wales article for a valleys/vale tab? While the name does exist, its actual stance and significance are not very clear and likely better off mentioned in county article? DragonofBatley (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even the most elementary search throws up plenty of RSs which are not associated with the political entity. This is a very commonly used name for the whole of the Valley of the River Clwyd south of St. Asaph and is used by BBC, ITV the local and National Press and is universally recognised as a significant geographical entity in North Wales. This article does not do it justice and could be greatly improved, but that is not a sound reason for an AfD nomination. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well used and recognised term for an area of Wales, as shown by the sources. No valid reason for deletion. PamD 08:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't believe anyone is even considering deleting this article. It can of course be improved like all articles, and time would be better spent doing that than debating its potential deletion! Geopersona (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per new sources. FOARP (talk) 11:07, 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 keep. Passes WP:NPROF.

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. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stam[edit]

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

Article has absolutely zero independent sources cited to demonstrate notability. Even without sources, I don't see evidence that the subject of this article meets WP:NPROF inclusion criteria. No objection to draftifying if the subject turns out to be notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C2 for being a Guggenheim Fellow [9] and WP:PROF#C5 for being a University Professor at NYU [10]. His textbook Film Theory: An Introduction has been repeatedly reprinted since 1999 and translated into Chinese [11]. The article needs editing for tone and the removal of links directly to publishers' websites, but that's a fairly straightforward fix. XOR'easter (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This article needs to be seriously re-written and cut back, there are large blocks of text about his work, with basically no references for the bulk of it. His notability is supported by the awards, and its clear he has written a number of books, some of which may be of note....*BUT* apart from that, there is little independent RS I can see that establishes his notability. For someone (apparently) of note like this, I would of expected more RS. He has very few articles indexed in Google Scholar - if he is a noted academic, he should have a body of published articles indicative of his research. He has no author profile on GS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Scholar isn't the be-all and end-all. In the humanities, where we tend to look for book publications first and journal articles second, it is often not very useful. Nor is failing to create a profile there a strike against him. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, fair enough, Google scholar is not the be and end all, so I looked at some other citation databases.As he has few results on Google scholar - I searched Ebsco's Academic Search complete for articles he's written. I got *zero* results. I checked Scopus, he has 33 articles in that, which is not many - and they are not well cited, a total of only 423 cites for 33 article... but nearly half of those go to two articles. His published article work is NOT well cited. Simply publishing books is not necessarily a measure of notability. The books may not be well regarded, or of consequence to their field, or published by a notable publisher. If those books are held in high regard, or show that he has made a notable contribution to their field, then they should be. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reviews of Reflexivity in Film and Literature (787 citations on GS): [12][13]. Reviews of Subversive Pleasures: [14][15][16], etc. Reviews of Tropical Multiculturalism (403 citations on GS): [17][18][19][20][21], etc. That's enough for WP:AUTHOR, and I'd say it's what passing WP:PROF#C1 looks like in the humanities (which are much more book-oriented than the physical sciences). XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holds the title of university professor, so satisfies WP:NPROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: see WP:NPROF#5, simply being a professor does *not* fulfill #5: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment", a named chair is quite different from a regular professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannes Röst (talk • contribs)

In this case, "University Professor" is a title analogous to "distinguished professor" [22]. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. clearly passes WP:NPROF (thousands of citations in a low citation field) and WP:NAUTHOR, he has multiple independent reviews of his books: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] among many others. --hroest 16:28, 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Shohat[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NPROF notability criteria. The cited sources either do not provide independent coverage of this person, or they are authored by this person. She has apparently won some book awards, but I cannot determine if they are notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:AUTHOR with room to spare. Reviews of Taboo Memories, Diasporic Voices: [30][31][32][33]. Israeli Cinema is "considered one of the best and most comprehensive books ever written on Israeli cinema and has been reprinted several times. Thousands of students in Israel and all over the world have used it as a textbook, and we may assume that thousands more will continue to do so" [34]. (This goes a significant way to meeting WP:PROF#C4 all by itself.) Other reviews of Israeli Cinema: [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. Reviews of Talking Visions: [44][45]. Reviews of On the Arab-Jew, Palestine, and Other Displacements: [46][47][48][49][50]. We don't typically look to citation counts for testing WP:PROF#C1 in the humanities, but hers are pretty high; Google Scholar turns up at least 8 single-author papers with citations in the triple-digit range. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter, but I'm tempted to evoke WP:TNT. The article is in such a sorry state. Geschichte (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The biography section is mostly copied from her university profile. I'm going to blank it for now, and try to rewrite it later today or tomorrow. gnu 57 19:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per citation record and XOReaster. Suggest closing this. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page has been around for a while. Where's the substance to it? MaskedSinger (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Substance" isn't relevant to AFD. We're evaluating the notability of topics, not the quality of pages. pburka (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR - page needs fixing up, as others have noted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --hroest 16:29, 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. Closing early - clear evidence that the subject 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) 17:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jackson (executive)[edit]

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

Non notable business person that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus WP:GNG isn’t met, neither is WP:BIO or WP:BASIC. A before search shows me materials predominantly in user generated unreliable sources, press releases and sponsored posts Celestina007 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Being a CEO of a non notable company doesn't really add to notability. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO RS here to indicate notability of this article content.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, He is the CEO of a non notable company that won't establish his noatblity. MerliSter (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Open and shut. No where near WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:33, 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 redirect to 28 Costumes. Fails WP:GNG so redirected.

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) 17:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fake Death Experience[edit]

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

Not notable, no reviews from reliable sources, few reviews on allmusic, discogs, etc Artem.G (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 28 Costumes#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond Drowned in Sound and Gigwise. SBKSPP (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~The above vote recommends redirecting to an entirely different band.~~ ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already corrected. SBKSPP (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 28 Costumes, the correct band. The article says the album was reviewed by several publications; I can find nothing online for NME or the Independent. It does have two mentions at Drowned in Sound at [51] and [52], but those are relatively brief. Not enough to justify a stand-alone article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 28 Costumes No RS here for the album, independent of the band. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 28 Costumes per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:40, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MimoLive[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the GNG, lacking substantial coverage in secondary sources. As such, the only real secondary sources in the current article are to source the statement "Apple Design Award 2009 Winner" - the rest is either unsourced, or sourced to the company site. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs serious trimming, there is evidence the subject meets WP:NSOFT point 1 and WP:GNG. The Apple World Today article cited meets requirements but there is also significant coverage in the Houston Chronicle and also substantial mention in SVGNews. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (software) is an essay, not a notability guideline that has been approved by the community through the WP:SNG process. The Houston Chronicle article reads quite promotionally, and the coverage in SVGNews is clearly not substantial as it cannot be used to write any prose at all: At the end of last year’s race, Aldrich, who produces a variety of other events during the year, began experimenting with mimoLive video-production software and Intinor encoders and routers as part of his work on high-end corporate golf-outing productions. “I started using Intinor bonded-cellular gear and routers, along with mimoLive,” says Aldrich unless we want to add Art Aldrich uses mimoLive's video-production software to the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 17 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) 19:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I cant see WP:SIGCOV met and as stated by ProcrastinatingReader, WP:NSOFT is an essay, and not a software sng. furthermore I do not believe this to be WP:SIGCOV. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not have any notable sources and not notable enough for WP:SIGCOV. HelpingWorld (talk) 02:44, 23 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FotoMagico[edit]

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

Product of suspected UPE. Doesn't meet the GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSOFT point 1 and WP:GNG with significant reviews in Macworld and other RS outlets including [53] and [54]. UPE issues can be dealt with by article improvement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (software) is an essay, not a notability guideline that has been approved by the community through the WP:SNG process. and other RS outlets both of your links are reviews in Macworld. Two reviews in Macworld does not meet GNG. If it did, we'd be creating an article every time Macworld reviewed a piece of software. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability guidelines are WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I doubt this product has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. MarioGom (talk) 10:33, 22 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) 19:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eggishorn's sources plus the ones I've added to the article. It's not very notable, and a lot of the coverage reads like flap-copy, but it does just about get over the bar. FOARP (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has some RS, and has received some awards. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:52, 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 redirect to List of people in Playboy 1960–1969. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Eden[edit]

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

Appearing in Playboy magazine isn't a guarantor of notability. The article currently contains a reference to a fan site (wekinglypigs.com) and a dead external link to the Playboy website. I found two brief syndicated news items about her and her daughter[55][56], but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Cheers, gnu 57 19:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list, like similar individuals. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people in Playboy 1960–1969. She has a paragraph in The Playmate Book (1996), which mentions she pursued a Hollywood career, then married, had a family (including Simone) and became a licensed vocational nurse. Significant sustained coverage for things other than being Miss December 1960 is lacking. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people in Playboy 1960–1969. Missvain (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people in Playboy 1960–1969.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:42, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Second[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBAND, notability WP:NOTINHERITED from Five Iron Frenzy. Has been deleted before. Geschichte (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no significant coverage. Artem.G (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of notability.Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by Geschichte, with emphasis on the fact that notability is not inherited. Celestina007 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Five Iron Frenzy, where both of the members were part of. Fails WP:MUSICBIO per nom and WP:NOTINHERITED. SBKSPP (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:43, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish Australians[edit]

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

Per this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. Geschichte (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with only a few Kurdish Australians in Australia and nothing else to talk about, this article fails notability. Safyrr 22:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThere are some Kurds in Australia, but only a fairly small number, and there is nothing in particular written about them, that estbalishes notability Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:44, 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meghna (character)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Sources only mention character name and nothing else. Most sources just say "Sameera Reddy reminisces "Vaaranam Aayiram". Not a notable character. Sources include blogposts (unreliable). Merging this page to Vaaranam Aayiram is a good option too. --DareshMohan (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 - The Times of India: mentions the character name and nothing else
Source 2 - Facebook post by Sameera Reddy
Source 3 - India Today: Sameera reminisces Vaaranam Aayiram
Source 4 - Rediff: Mentions character name once
Source 5 - TikToker recreation
Source 6 - Pinkvilla: Sameera reminisces Vaaranam Aayiram
Source 7 - JFW: Shows Twitter post of Sameera
Source 8 - lavanyagurumurthy: Blogpost about character
Source 9: MyKollywood: Shows Twitter post of Sameera
Source 10 - Medium: Blog of a random person's train journey
Source 11 - jessynaija: Video from movie
Source 12 - Twitter: Fan theory
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable on its own per above. Cannot be redirected either because there are plenty of other films with a character named Meghana -- Ab207 (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vaaranam Aayiram. There is a reception section but it is badly written, with most sentences beginning with " Many fans and audiences" and half of them referenced to blogs on Wordpress, the other, to some minor niche website. WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS is an issue. Some of the reception - the ones that's not based on blogs - might be salvageable by merging. But overall GNG seems not met. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources fail to demonstrate notability. Avilich (talk) 19:55, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hanna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-nominating, since previous AfD have been subject to bad faith manipulation by Sanketio31. 1st AfD in 2019 resulted in delete, and I don't see any change in terms of notability. It was then recreated and Sanketio31 created a 2nd AfD which was nominated, voted keep, and closed all by their sockpuppets. This 2nd AfD resulted in a premature closure of the 3rd AfD. Please, ignore 2nd (fraudulent) and 3rd (misled) AfDs. MarioGom (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per MarioGom's rationale, furthermore this has 0 encyclopedic value, sources optimized aren’t even necessary about him, other material I could find do not meet WP:SIGCOV as they mention him in passing/announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and thank you to MarioGom for bringing this forward. The article from the Los Angeles Times is good coverage, but the NYT, Hollywood Reporter, and LA Business Journal articles just quote Hanna without providing significant coverage. My online search does not turn up any other sources that would establish notability. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO RS that features him here to indicate notability of this article content, some RS but just side mentions. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per before AfDs and passing GNG criteria. Subject has indepth coverage in Los Angeles Times and can see coverage on other reputed sources too like NYTimes, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. It should pass for WP:BASIC. Girthab (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Girthab (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:51, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Konstantinova (blogger)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, likely WP:PROMO article referenced by PR pieces, paid press (the dead giveaway is most photos are credited to Press Service), non-independent profile sites, and self-works. Several simply name the subject as being one of dozens of event attendees. GPL93 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not see significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see familiar faces! Hello, my friends! )) Олег Черкасский (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Oleg. Is it raining by you? Or are you still in the sun?--Mvqr (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! There was a very strong thunderstorm yesterday. We had a problem with electricity. The masters came today, they made me a new heater in the bathroom and fixed the wiring in the second bathroom. But the weather was good, +15 Celsius, and there was snow in the mountains. Friends told me they have a villa in the mountains.Олег Черкасский (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flying to Moscow on Sunday for 10 days.Олег Черкасский (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I can't find anything in Gnews. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are primary, contain interviews and/or promotional content. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:45, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Paul Jones[edit]

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

So ambassadors are not default notable. We need substantial sources about the person to show notability. In the case of Jones this article sat for over 14 years with no sources at all. I was able to find a state department directory listing showing he was in fact ambassador, but it said nothing of substance on him, and we need secondary sources. Just because an employer creates a file on someone that can be found by an internet search does not mean they are notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I couldn't find a single source that wasn't his state department listing either. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. Has an entry in Who's Who and appears frequently enough in the Department of State newsletter [57] (like many diplomats) but these sources lack independence (who's who is basically paid for if I correctly recall, and the DoS newsletter is his own employer). -Indy beetle (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. NO substantial independent RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:53, 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. The sourcing provided by user User:Paora. I'm sure there is also some non-digital coverage, too, based around the time when the suburb was developed. That works for WP:GNG for me.

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. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pomare, Lower Hutt[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, a section of Taitā, is notable enough for a separate article, especially when the article has no references or sources. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Listed by LINZ as a suburb.~~ Schwede 66 19:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This source shows that the place exists, but not that it is notable, as it only provides very brief coverage, rather than "substantial" coverage which is the test. Merely existing isn't enough for an article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Schwede66, that link provided is for a different 'Pomare' that is in Rotorua near Auckland. The 'Pomare' that we are talking about here is in Lower Hutt, Wellington. 0800cpc (talk) , 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, 0800cpc, for pointing out my error; I've struck the incorrect link. Please add new comments at the bottom of a talk page / discussion to keep things in chronological order. I'll stick with the keep vote! either way; Paora has posted some useful links. Schwede 66 18:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search shows Radio NZ ([58], [59], [60]), Stuff (Dominion Post) ([61], [62]), and the New Zealand Herald ([63], [[64]), all regard Pomare as a suburb of Lower Hutt. There has been substantial coverage of gang problems in and Housing New Zealand redevelopment of the suburb. Paora (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listed by LINZ as a 'place', this link is the correct one, Schwede66's link is for a different 'Pomare' near Auckland. 0800cpc , 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep Has an interesting story, would be great to have it expanded. Somej (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion, particularly with regard to GEOLAND and the effaciousness of the sources indicated by Paora would be beneficial
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 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 delete per G11. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Dr. ahmed al-baidhani[edit]

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

Not notable. This is his scholar.google profile, with 160 citations total. He tweeted that he was in "the top 10% of Authors on SSRN by total new downloads within the last 12 months", but that is not so notable either. Mvqr (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self promoting autobiography, unreliable sources JW 1961^Talk 16:10, 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Knodel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. He was an all-star in ECHL, which is not enough for notability. A previous AfD in 2009 had consensus to delete as well, and I'm not sure why the article was re-created recently, as nothing seems to have changed. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete:~~ per G4. @Kaiser matias:, what happened seems to be that the article never was deleted in the first place after the 2009 AfD. I've no idea why a non-admin felt the need to close (other than it seems he was shilling for the mop at the time), but he certainly didn't arrange for an admin to delete the article, and he hasn't edited in over a decade anyway. Ravenswing 18:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I was trying to figure out what happened, but it was late here and I was kind of rushing (thus the initial PROD rather than AfD as it should have been). Kaiser matias (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was that I restored it because WP:NHOCKEY is now met. (See log for restore comment.) -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now. Totally missed the ECHL being listed in the criteria. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He meets criterion 3 of WP:NHOCKEY since he was an ECHL first team all-star. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:: Knodel indeed meets WP:NHOCKEY #3 since he was an ECHL first team all-star in the 2018–19 season. [65] Flibirigit (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NHOCKEY #3 since he was a ECHL first team all-star, which wasn't the case yet when the first Afd happened. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, I misread WP:NHOCKEY, and see that he does meet notability. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NHOCKEY as it suggests that an ice-hockey player should have played in ECHL, which is a criteria stated in WP:NHOCKEY. Juggyevil (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY #3, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NHOCKEY, as noted above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NHOCKEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:54, 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoftTalk Messenger[edit]

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

No WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are routine reporting, mostly copy-paste from press releases and marketing material, with little or no independent reporting. MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely UPE spam. Fails WP:NCORP Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per MarioGom and Timtrent possible UPE article that fails to meet WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very little in the way of independent content. Sources found are based almost entirely on material or comments from people working for the company behind this software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:06, 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) 16:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QT's Diary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's questionable whether this blog meets our notability criteria. There are a couple of sources cited at the end of the article, plus this, but I'm not sure this is enough. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, seems to be fancruft and not notable, and completely unsourced. Artem.G (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't believe the 2006 nom was kept; the article was created a year after the blog was taken down, no real sources were ever added, and it never met N. Nate • (chatter) 21:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- it only has two references here *neither* actually have anything to do with the content. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:55, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PopText[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks significant coverage in independent sources, with just a brief mention in a BBC article and a short paragraph in this Sunday Times list. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the references in the article are minor mentions. I can find no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks significant coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeddah Formula 2 round[edit]

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

Pretty much a duplicate of 2021 Jeddah Formula 2 round. Does not add anything new other than a placeholder for future year results. noq (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge 2021 Jeddah Formula 2 round into this article. The individual race (2021 Jeddah Formula 2 round) is not independently notable from the overall topic on the race (Jeddah Formula 2 round), which is notable and passes GNG with independent coverage from ESPN, RACER and Jalopnik. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC) - Striken after below discussion with SSSB -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; since the author has created other pages for other Formula 2 rounds, this page would be also kept, since the circuit will have another F2 round in 2022. Apeiro94
The fact that someone has created other similar pages has no bearing on the notability of this page. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article fails GNG. The Keep and Merge nomination above does not specify which article it is to be merged to. Defective nomination. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)DSSD[reply]

I thought I very clearly specified that 2021 Jeddah Formula 2 round should be merged into Jeddah Formula 2 round. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I have the opposite opinion of GhostOfDanGurney. Individual races pass may just pass GNG (such as the 2021 Jeddah Formula 2 round) but a collective article definitely doesn't, every potential source talks about specific editions (the only edition so far). SSSB (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realize they are all different sub-projects, but generally, at least for the NASCAR and IndyCar sides, there are articles at the overall topic on the race (ie Music City Grand Prix and Ally 400) before there is one for the individual race (2021 Big Machine Music City Grand Prix and 2021 Ally 400 - using these specific examples as they are also new-for-2021 races like the subject in question). That is the basis for my rationale above. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For one offs that makes very little sense - as all the sources will be talking about a specific event. If it's the first of a series of races (i.e. if there will be a 2022 race) it could work, and it's the approach we take for F1. But the reason that this doesn't work here (even though there will be a series of races in Jeddah) is because it is a support series. (Correct me if I'm wrong) but there is no source that talks about the event in general (i.e. no headline reads "F2 to race in Jeddah till 2022.) so I don't see how the event in general meets WP:GNG. Although, I guess it could be a disambiguation (like Sakhir Formula 2 round used to be, Special:Permalink/1026300182) SSSB (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're 100% right, actually. I took another look and for sure the RACER and Jalopnik sources are talking about a start crash in the individual race. Other sources I'm finding on the overall topic are also WP:ROUTINE and therefore not eligible towards GNG. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I agree that the 2021 race is notable, I don't think the event itself is notable. The same goes for many of the other "xxx Formula 2 round" articles which have been recently created. Coverage relates to the specific races, not the broad event. A7V2 (talk) 00:09, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. E. Bradshaw[edit]

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

No significant coverage about coach, fails WP:NCOLLATH. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find some coverage in the Newport News paper (the city where he coached), e.g., here, here. However, WP:GNG suggests we need WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable and independent sources, which I am not finding. Note also that The Apprentice School is not a college or university; it is an apprenticeship school operated by a shipbuilding and dry dock company. The first cited clipping above shows that Bradshaw was not a regular athlete or coach (he attended NC State but did not compete in sports), just a civil engineer who worked at the school and was called upon to be the football coach for one season. Cbl62 (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:59, 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 06:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Arana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG - this minor blurb in a local paper is about the only valid source I could find. Previously deleted in 2018, and doesn't appear to have become more notable since then, but she was on an episode of a TV show this year, so I guess it's time for a new AfD. Spicy (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has really changed in terms of notability from the last AfD. Looks like a probable promo article as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to delete this article on Erica Arena. I support her efforts to help animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:4301:F840:8146:8ADE:3201:F75 (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references present in the article fail to establish notability, nor could I find any myself. -- Whpq (talk) 02:59, 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. Nothing presented here convinces me this subject passes 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) 00:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Loco Shed, Pune[edit]

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

No indication (in article or online) why this would be a notable subject. Fram (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article lead section notes that this is the largest loco shed in its region, a fact that is referenced both by Indian Railways and the IRFCA (which is independent of the subject). Although referencing could be better, with more citations to external sources, this is a good start. Slambo (Speak) 18:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To be precise, it is the largest of three... Hardly something extraordinary. That the hobby group "Indian Railways Fan Club" also notes this doesn't really help. Fram (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. A fan club website is not reliable. Indian Railways are not independent. Fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 11:40, 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 23:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ginevra Csillaghy Fürstenberg[edit]

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

Can't inherit notability from her mother. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any reliable secondary sourcing that convinces me this subject passes WP:GNG, nor anything that helps her qualify using one of my favorite tactics - WP:BASIC. Missvain (talk) 18:09, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GaragePunk Hideout[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:WEB, or WP:NCORP. The only sources are blogs and other WP:SPS. The RFT might be reliable, but GNG states that "multiple sources are generally expected" and that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Searching Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News Archives results in this single WP:TRIVIALMENTION from God Is In The TV. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails [WP:GNG]], WP:WEB, and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:01, 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loizos Michael[edit]

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

His 76 minutes of football over 11 years ago provide, at best, a weak presumption of WP:GNG. When searching in the Greek language through Google News and DDG, only results about namesakes can be found. Similarly, when searching in English, all the results seem to be about an academic of the same name. I can't find any indication that this semi-pro footballer, who just so happened to make 2 professional appearances back in the day, is actually notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I verified the academic is someone else, the academic graduated in 2002 so not the footballer. Just scrapes by NFOOTY with a single Cypriot league appearance, but fails GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, has people have confirmed he's not also the academic. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:58, 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 no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes This High[edit]

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoes This High (band) I'm still not convinced WP:BAND is met despite some more sources found last AfD. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trying to add more references to the page right now. I don't believe the references in the article is enough right now, but I would lean keep based on the print sources in the other AfD. By the way, shouldn't this AfD be moved to "Shoes This High (2nd nomination)"? RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went looking for potentially useful sources and I found enough independent ones significantly covering the band. Here's everything I went through, not comprehensive, just what I could find on a quick search for sources.

Sources primarily covering the group:

Steel, Gary (November 4, 1980). "Shoes This High Step Back Home". The Evening Post. Retrieved 2021-12-01 – via Witchdoctor.
Steel, Gary (February 28, 1981). "Stayers Shoes This High Shine". The Evening Post. Retrieved 2021-12-01 – via Witchdoctor.
Maclennan, David (May 28, 2013). "Shoes This High". AudioCulture. Retrieved 2021-12-01.
Schmidt, Andrew (February 7, 2014). "Brent Hayward on Shoes This High". AudioCulture. Retrieved 2021-12-01.
Schmidt, Andrew (February 7, 2014). "Brent Hayward on Shoes This High Part 2". AudioCulture. Retrieved 2021-12-01.

Mentions, not primarily about the group:

Goddard, Michael (2013). "Noise from Nowhere: Exploring 'Noisyland's' Dark, Noisy and Experimental Music". In Goddard, Michael; Halligan, Benjamin; Spelman, Nicola (eds.). Resonances: Noise and Contemporary Music. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 135. ISBN 978-1-4411-1054-1.
Maclennan, David (November 7, 2017). "The Amps/Jellyfish story". AudioCulture. Retrieved 2021-12-01.

Could not access or trivial mention:

Article in In Touch (July 1980), mentioned by Maclennan 2013
Review of July 27, 1980 gig in Auckland Star by Louise Chunn, mentioned by Schmidt 2014b
Article in Mysterex #2, mentioned by Maclennan 2013
Churton, Wade Ronald (1999). "Have You Checked the Children?": Punk and Postpunk Music in New Zealand, 1977-1981. Put Your Foot Down Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4730-6196-8. [did not confirm, found excerpt mentioning band with no page number]
Eggleton, David (2003). Ready to Fly: The Story of New Zealand Rock Music. Craig Potton Publishing. pp. 94–95. ISBN 978-1-8773-3306-4.
The Wire, issue 340, p. 12 [namedrop of NZ artists with sought out releases by record collectors]
The Wire, issue 368, p. 59 [namedrop of NZ artists reissued on Siltbreeze]

Note that I included sources that are very very casual mentions, this is just to note that some sources I could access but aren't free access do not cover this group in detail. RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:56, 1 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) 05:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 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 redirect to List of Alderson Broaddus Battlers head football coaches. Per User:Cbl62 as an WP:ATD.

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) 00:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Krawchuck[edit]

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

No significant coverage about coach of non-notable team, fails WP:NCOLLATH. Reywas92^Talk 05:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Alderson Broaddus Battlers head football coaches. Fails WP:NCOLLATH (only Division I and University Division head coaches are presumed notable) and my searches don't turn up WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Just passing mentions like this and this. Cbl62 (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 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 redirect to List of Alderson Broaddus Battlers head football coaches. RL0919 (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Howard[edit]

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

No significant coverage about coach of non-notable team, fails WP:NCOLLATH. Reywas92^Talk 05:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Alderson Broaddus Battlers head football coaches. Not finding WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. I do note that the name is surprisingly common which made the searches more difficult. If someone comes forward with the needed SIGCOV, ping me and I'll have a second look. Cbl62 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Not sure if he is the same as A. Randolph Howard who was a banker and raced some horses, but as it stands not much can be said of him other than he coached two seasons. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:57, 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. 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) 00:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dovi Frances[edit]

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

Nothing about him as distinct from the firm except some promotional interviews ( there's a draft for the firm Draft:Group 11 but there's no likelihood of it ever being accepted & it's in line for deletion in the next few days DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree 100% with nomination. Does not come anywhere close to satisfying WP:GNG His father and wife don't make him notable. Pure WP:CHURN MaskedSinger (talk) 11:01, 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 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. Missvain (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Khandelwal[edit]

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

The entity fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:SIGCOV. Also, he doesn't qualify under WP:BIO1E - reason; an ongoing trade union protest doesn't assign or pass on notability to the connected subject. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-12 ✗ deleted ← 2021-12 ✗ deleted ← 2021-08 ✗ G8 ← 2021-08 move to → Draft:Praveen Khandelwal

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 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 Radiohead. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hufford[edit]

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

Manager of Radiohead, but about which there seems to be little to write. I can't find much coverage of him in reliable sources. Popcornfud (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Radiohead: Merits a solid mention in the main article, but otherwise is woefully non-notable besides his affiliation with the band. Curbon7 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Curbon7. Not "prominent" enough but totally open to a mention in the Radiohead article. Missvain (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Radiohead: per above. ––FormalDude ^talk 08:37, 23 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 Parade (disambiguation). Content was already merged, so will redirect. RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Parade[edit]

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

Most of the entries are also listed on Parade (disambiguation) - I think this ought to redirect to that page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also the page The Parade (disambiguation), and the page The parade, both which redirect to The Parade. Aoziwe (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parade. Delete The Parade (disambiguation) and The parade. Aoziwe (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit error. I meant Redirect to Parade (disambiguation). Aoziwe (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is already fully merged with Parade (disambiguation). Aoziwe (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Parade (disambiguation). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Parade (disambiguation) as suggested by the nominator. It appears that a few redundant old redirects need to be cleaned up too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Parade (disambiguation). Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Parade (disambiguation), agree with above voters.Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Per Aoziwe's comment and a double-check that they're all there, I think I can safely change The Parade to a redirect now. Is it okay for me to do it? (Ping me in any responses to this question, please.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to wait for a formal closure. Perhaps the closing admin can delete the two old and redundant redirects? Aoziwe (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an AfD, the procedure is to let it play out for one week in case there are votes to do something else. In the end, let an Admin handle the process because in the background there might be some leftover double redirects that need special attention. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do, thanks Aoziwe and doomsdayer520.

Merge with Parade (disambiguation) per WP:DABCOMBINE, which its WP:SNOWING. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:54, 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 redirect to Domingo French. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patricio French[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill merchant who lived in Buenos Aires in the 1700s. Fails WP:GNG. BEFORE produced only this genealogy which does not help with the GNG, and the rest are REFBOMBs per my assessment table. Created by a ban-evading sock of a permablocked account, escaped G5 because an IP made a substantial contribution to this article. Pilaz (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://books.google.fr/books?id=lagZAAAAYAAJ&q=domingo+french+buenos+aires&redir_esc=y			No mention of "Patricio French"	✘ No
https://books.google.fr/books?id=vR9lAAAAMAAJ&q=patricio+french++comerciante&redir_esc=y			No mention at all	✘ No
https://books.google.fr/books?id=S6lXAAAAMAAJ&q=patricio+french++Cristobalina+Alcal%C3%A1&redir_esc=y			No mention at all	✘ No
http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/163796	primary source signed by Patricio French		? Hard to ascertain because it's handwritten	✘ No
https://books.google.fr/books?id=xwEXAQAAMAAJ&q=Patricio+French+buenos+aires&redir_esc=y			A single mention page 81	✘ No
https://books.google.fr/books?id=40DRnjI4a-YC&q=patricio+french++buenos+aires&pg=PA137&redir_esc=y	?	?	? Book is no longer on Google Books	? Unknown
https://books.google.fr/books?id=S9JbmhmS4LAC&q=coronel+patricio+french&redir_esc=y			A single mention page 42	✘ No
https://books.google.fr/books?redir_esc=y&id=OvoJAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=patricio+french			No mention at all	✘ No
https://books.google.fr/books?id=f_ozAQAAIAAJ&q=domingo+french+calle+Defensa&redir_esc=y			No mention at all	✘ No
https://books.google.fr/books?id=NiVNAQAAMAAJ&q=Oliver+French+galway&pg=PA306&redir_esc=y			No mention at all	✘ No
https://books.google.fr/books?id=_8g_AAAAcAAJ&q=Oliver+Age+French+margaret+joyce&pg=PA40&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=Oliver%20Age%20French%20margaret%20joyce&f=false			No mention at all	✘ No
https://books.google.fr/books?id=B90XAAAAIAAJ&q=patricio+french+irlandes&redir_esc=y			No mention at all	✘ 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)).

Pilaz (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this extremely brief mention suggests to me that one of the Spanish-language sources listed at the end of this encyclopedia article might have something more significant, if anyone is inclined to dig them out. -- asilvering (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but Tag as stub -- That source calls him an Irish administrator. Being a leading import merchant might be enough to make him notable. What is available in Spanish? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a leading import merchant (which I doubt he was) is not inherently notable. As for the "Irish administrator" part, I don't see it in the genealogy source I provided - it's Patricio French y Alcalá that we are discussing, not one of his descendants. At any rate, you don't seem to dispute my concerns about WP:GNG. Pilaz (talk) 13:54, 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) 22:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- Did a brief search for 'Patricio French' and his son 'Domingo French'. While accounts mentioning him in English exclusively relate to his genealogical connections, he receives more attention in Spanish language texts. From what I've gathered, he is the patriarch of a wealthy family of Irish and Spanish origins who settled near Buenos Aries, but he is not the main subject of any documents I could find, receiving only a few paragraphs briefly documenting his business and his progeny. There are no detailed description of his business activities. That being said, everything I've seen points to a man who, although poorly documented, did play a significant role in the local economy and possibly its upper-class society. Right now most 18th and 19th century documents from Argentina have yet to be digitized, and it is quite possible that there is more substantial information simply not available to Wikipedia editors at this time. A bit of an edge case, but I er on the side of keep. Thereppy (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to agree that the coverage of Patricio French does not meet WP:GNG: in your words, it is "poorly documented", his role as a merchant is ill-defined, and he receives "only a few paragraphs" briefly documenting his activities (which paragraphs?). Being the ancestor to a patrician family does make one inherently notable. You acknowledge that he is exclusively covered in genealogical terms, and your weak keep rests on the possibility that substantial information exists somewhere in a library in Argentina - which I can't disprove, but which you've also omitted to prove (WP:MUSTBESOURCES). Everything points to a failure of significant coverage, which I think is because Patricio French was not a particularly notable person. Pilaz (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell (Spanish is not one of my strongest languages, but I can make sense of it) most mentions of Patricio simply name him as the father of Domingo French, who is certainly notable. A redirect would seem to be the way to go here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No prejudice against redirecting from me. Pilaz (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Phil Bridger. The sources in the article are terrible breadcrumbs as they don't seem to mention him at all or aren't suitable, so I can't support a keep, but it also feels as if everything could be remedied if better sources are found, probably because there are familial mentions, possibly due to Domingo. I also wouldn't have a problem restoring this if better sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Sorry, I didn't chime in again before this last relist because the redirect outcome seemed inevitable. It's probably worth it to add an extra sentence or two to Domingo French before deleting this and redirecting, but given that most of the "sources" here are just refbombing, a sentence or two is all there is to be pulled from this whole thing. That's not something worth keeping in the hopes that more sources turn up; if significant sources do turn up (and it doesn't look like they will any time soon) it would be just as easy to start this over from scratch anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Domingo French seems the best path forward for this. This fellow just is not notable on his own. 80.247.89.52 (talk) 17:24, 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 merge to Averett University. Merge away! Missvain (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cougars Den[edit]

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

Notability not established with multiple independent significant sources for small, generic athletic field. Reywas92^Talk 13:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a little research, found a few sources and added two of them to the article to show that the subject passes WP:GNG. There is probably some work to do on verifying the name of the article (a rename may be in order) and I found some conflicting data on the capacity, but those are editing and research issues, not deletion issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of your additions due to close paraphrasing and original research issues. Please also note, passing mentions and non-independent coverage do not contribute to meeting the requirements of GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per Paulmcdonald. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Averett University, per WP:ATD. Hopelessly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is also entirely insufficient content to justify a standalone article when a suitable main article exists to accommodate what there is without any issues. We have just one independent source that contains anything more than a passing mention but even that is mainly just quotes from the university – it is entirely insufficient for GNG. Other than the sources already in the article, all I'm seeing are standard passing mentions that you would expect for any WP:MILL university sports facility. Finally, for anyone looking for sources, as noted above it seems the stadium and field have been renamed, to Frank R. Campbell Stadium and Daly Field. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Averett University, per WP:ATD. This scarcely-sourced stub does not need to remain as an independent article. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. Fails GNG. Much better as part of the parent article. Nigej (talk) 06:36, 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley H. Metzenbaum[edit]

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

Mid-level government official, academic and daughter of a senator, none of which seem to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Metzenbaum is an elected fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and meets criteria #3 of WP:NACADEMIC DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Academy of Public Administration (United States) you mean - this has 850 fellows, & I'm dubious all are notable. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did mean National Academy of Public Administration (United States). I cannot find information about how many fellows they have versus members. I added more details. For example, she was the 2013 commencement speaker at the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania (recent speakers include Helen Gym, Pete Buttigieg, and Larry O. Spencer). She also played a central role in the Obama administration's 2010 Government Performance and Results Act (add link to that page and an external link to photos of the bill signing. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article a bit more to include her mentions in the Washington Post and the New York Times. She has spoken to Congress,^[1]^[2] been interviewed in the Federal News Network,^[3] and has given multiple keynote and invited speeches.^[4]^[5]^[6] I also added a photo of her, Jeffrey Zients, and Barack Obama from the White House during the signing of the Government Performance and Results Act. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Clark, Charles S. (April 1, 2014). "Good-Government Gurus Embrace, Expand on Obama Management Agenda". Government Executive. Retrieved 2021-12-10.
^ United States Congress Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (2014). Management Matters: Creating a 21st Century Government : Hearing Before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session : Management Matters : Creating a 21st Century Government; March 12, 2014 ; Management Matters : Creating a 21st Century Government, Part II, Outside Views, March 31, 2014. U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 125–127.
^ Emily Kopp (April 10, 2014). "Shelley Metzenbaum, President, Volcker Alliance". Federal News Network (Podcast). Retrieved December 10, 2014.
^ "Performance management in the Obama Administration: Lessons learned and challenges ahead". Crawford School of Public Policy. 2013-07-25. Retrieved 2021-12-10.
^ "Fiscal Leadership | Initiative on Cities". www.bu.edu. April 2015. Retrieved 2021-12-10.
^ "Lessons in leadership series: Special Guest Speaker: Dr. Shelley Metzenbaum" (PDF). July 16, 2013. Retrieved December 10, 2013.

Weak Delete as essentially promotional, as shown by the extensive blurbs used as references togethe rwith borderline notability at best. But she might be notable, if there's agreement that being a member the Academy is sufficient--and then an article would be possible. We need a discussion about the National Academy of Public Administration (United States)] . I cannot tell from thePR-based article on it the extent to which it really does represent a top level honor inits field for a government administrator. The number of people is not unreasonably high, and thatwe don't have articles on many of them might be because of the difficulty in finding good criteria in this field. This might be very helpful if there's consensus to use it. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 4 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) 16:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete mainly promotional article, there is no evidence of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG, membership in National Academy of Public Administration (United States) is not significant enough. --hroest 19:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article lists facts of her career. I don't know how that is deemed to be promotional. Some of the refs are not independent, but enough of them are to establish notability.Lamona (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per DGG. The article is in an SEO maximized style, chock full of weasel words, and a quick online search easily reveals that the it was created by someone with a close connection to the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

??She's 70 in March 22. Time to make your mind up! Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Grandma Moses hit her stride at 78. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned up the publication section, including the addition of three reviews of her contributions to edited books. Her election to the National Academy of Public Administration was covered in the Journal of Public Affairs Education. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

contributions to edited volumes don;'t usually count the same as peer reviewed journal articles. What would make this very much easier would be if she had been awarded any actual honorary degrees. Often commencement speakers are, but it's usually mentioned quite prominently in all the PR. and can be easily verified.

the basic problem we have is in companies or governments, it's very hard to distinguish externally who really does the notable work. PR people can make whatever claims they care to , and they might even isn some instance be correct, but it's almost impossible to verify unless someone does a third party study of the agency or company. As an example, we among us know who does the noteworthy work here, but it would be very difficult to verify this to an outsider. Similarly,, those in the WMF know who is really responsible for progress, but it would be very hard to demonstrate, and an outsider would probably treat any statement with considerable doubt about objectivity. On the other hand it's easy to show who have been the CEOs.

Keep: per WP:SIGCOV as demonstrated in sources over time 1989, 1993, 2013, 2013. Being an elected fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration likely meets WP:PROF. TJMSmith (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. TJMSmith (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:SIGCOV. Easily meets WP:GNG. Not the article it was when nominated for deletion. Her governmental service and academic career are all notable in themselves. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with TJMSmith's findings, [66] [67] are significant coverage about her in reliable sources. Dream Focus 03:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has 54 sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:27, 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 delete. Does not pass 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) 00:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Starks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles like this and this have enough content on Starks that I feel they pass WP:SIGCOV. The sourcing here is good enough to meet WP:GNG, IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One is an annoucement of taking the job and one is an annoucement of promotion. Both are interviews and both are primary. They are no secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 16:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews can count towards establishing notability if there is sufficient content outside of quotes, and I believe that is the case here. NemesisAT (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not for a BLP. They are PR interviews and primary. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 24 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) 18:36, 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) 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Ref 1 is a 40 under 40 x of y article. Non-RS. They're everywhere now.
Ref 2 [68] Jazz president Steve Starks promoted to CEO of all Larry H. Miller companies, search underway for new team president A routine annoucement of employement.
Ref 3 [69] Jazz president named new CEO for Larry H. Miller Group An short interview.
Ref 4 [70] Wunderkind takes over LHM Sports & Entertainment, years after Miller hired him in an elevator A longer interview.
Ref 5 [71] Steve Starks Named Chief Executive Officer For Larry H. Miller Group Of Companies A routine annoucement being named to the position.
Ref 6 [72] Another reference being named to the position.
Ref 7 [Utah Jazz president to speak at chamber ‘Inspiration Luncheon] A routine annoucement
Ref 8 [73] A 40 under 40 recepipeince award x of y type article for an award. It is non-notable. These x of y sites have exploded in recent years. They are effectively non-rs as references.

There is 8 references, 5 are the same news of getting the position, 1 is non-notable award, and 2 are primary source, they both fail WP:SIRS, as they are both related to the company. They're is no secondary sources on this article and it is a BLP. It fails WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:SIGCOV a scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a borderline case, but I don't think the sources establish that the WP:ANYBIO threshold is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Was notable before. Notability is not transitory. Important both as an executive and as a political operative. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "before" link does not show it was found to be notable, since the outcome was "no consensus". MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- low quality RS, mostly local press. IMHO The RS doesn't establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the sources are sufficient to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The keep side has failed to demomonstrate why the article should be kept when it has no secondary source failing WP:BLPPRIMARY. They show he exists but not why he is notable. Another ref has been added to the article in attempt to meet WP:HEY but it another 40 under 40 x of y article ref, essentially the same reference as ref 1. There is no secondary sources added to the article, because they're is none. The policy at WP:BLP is clear that you should be very firm on the use of good source. scope_creep^Talk 16:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not have much reliable sources and not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page. I do not see any secondary sources as well. HelpingWorld (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another reference has been added to the article, specifically Utah Jazz president to speak at chamber ‘Inspiration Luncheon’. This is another routine annoucement and is primary and lacks depth. No single reference in the article can support a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 12:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability has not been established, per source analysis above. Previous AfD can be disregarded, since it had just one !voter and resulted in no consensus. Anyway, it was an undisclosed paid creation by Lesbianadvocate that would have qualified for G5 speedy if nominated a bit earlier. MarioGom (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If you actually read the sources on this guy, those used in his article, and some others on reliable sources online you will see that despite their titles these sources are in fact offering in-depth biographical information in the voice of the publications. The COI angle is out of play as their have been many intervening edits. These are not just routine notices and pure interviews. 80.247.89.52 (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA who has made only eight edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 20:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, they could be on a changing IP address. NemesisAT (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MarioGom and scope creep. Levivich 06:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is limited to trivial announcements, non-independent sources and non-notable awards, insufficient for demonstrating the suitability of this article on a LP. Avilich (talk) 00:16, 23 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 few sources presented here are primary or promotional in nature. I do not see the in depth sourcing that helps a subject pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.

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) 00:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Road Federation[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence the subject meets WP:CORP, and it doesn't seem to have had any independent sourcing since creation in 2008. Has frequently been used as a promotional platform by the subject. Hut 8.5 19:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hut 8.5 19:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added some references. There seem to be two different organizations with the same name: https://irfnet.ch/ in Switzerland and https://www.irf.global/ in the United States. This article is about the one in Switzerland. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Things like [74] don't show that the subject meets WP:CORP. That source is basically a press release announcing the location of a conference, and largely consists of quotations from a spokesperson for that conference. It also doesn't represent significant coverage of the subject, as we don't learn anything about the International Road Federation other than that they have this conference. (It also doesn't support the statement it's been cited for in the article.) Hut 8.5 08:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is 100% real and a non profit and has a history since 1948. I dont see this as promotional at all. See :https://www.irf.global/mission/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.171.142 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't matter if they actually exist, the organization itself does not meet General notability guidelines.--VViking_TalkEdits 12:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still dont understand how an organization founded in 1948, recognized by the United Nation with global activities doesn't mean the general notability guidelines. I read the guidelines and still dont understand how the organization wouldn't qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.171.142 few or no other edits (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - what to do with this sort of organizations? They should be mentioned in various specialist journals, but those are not easily found by "Googling". Here are a few links: [75], [76], [77] - are these considered "proof of relevant existence"? - Keep. --User:Haraldmmueller 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 delete. Nothing presented here convinces me that this subject meets our notability guidelines. 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) 00:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannatha Dasa Babaji[edit]

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

A Hindu guru (religious teacher) without any notable work or Independent coverage (outside of his org.) Fails WP:NACADEMIC as well as WP:ANYBIO. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Here are some sources for starters: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]~~

~~Did you try and find any?~~

I can't help but feel that you've got some kind of axe to grind here, considering the number of pages about prominent Gaudiya Vaishnavas that you've nominated for deletion in bulk. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not establish the notability. They simply mention his disciples and his org, or are published by his org (not independent). Also, You are supposed to disclose your conflict of interest while participating in AfD. Venkat TL (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~What conflict of interest? I've edited the page in the past so it's on my watchlist.~~

~~None of the books above are related to the person in question, nor published by "his org" (whatever that means).~~

Here are some more, from the Internet Archive, and none of which are published by ISKCON (the organisation founded by the Babaji's great-grand-disciple, which I'm guessing is what you're referring, inaccurately, to): [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]. The books by Rosen and Broo are academic texts. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[6] is book by Gaudiya vaishnav publication, (not independent) [7] is a book on Gaudiya vaishnavism, with a 1 line passing mention. [8] is an in-universe publication about Gaudiya Vaishnavs.(not independent) [9] has only a single mention without any detailed coverage. [10] and [11] are books published by Bhaktivedanta Group. I will be interested if there are source, not published by Gauraiya Vaishnavs and ISKCON publications, as they are closely connected to the subject and not independent. Venkat TL (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few scattered mentions in GBooks and Scholar, mostly just confirming his existence. Always seems to be in relation to others. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:57, 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. One recreation after a speedy deletion is not typically enough to justify WP:SALT. That can be applied later if there are more unwarranted recreations. RL0919 (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Safaee[edit]

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

Previously deleted under G5, G11. Still it does not fulfill general notability guidelines and a promotional piece. Fails WP:GNG. no meaningful reliable coverage. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage with actual independent analysis of the subject. DMySon (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete This person is a real Iranian musician. Source: This musician in a prestigious Iranian newspaper Jam-e Jam (newspaper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akbartaleshi (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — Akbartaleshi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not delete I am an Iranian Wikipedia writer, this person is approved and well-known. Source Fars News Fatima usefi (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — Fatima usefi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not delete Javad Safaee is an Iranian Artist, and also played a major role in composing Mohsen Ebrahimzadeh's song (memoir review). Source Sasan mazloumi (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — Sasan mazloumi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete this obvious piece of paid promotion. - MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously paid promotion, and with inadequate sources. I went through the lot. (1),(3),(4),(6),(8),(10),(21) are near-identical interviews. (2) is the subject's personal website. (5) I don't know, it doesn't translate and regrettably I speak no Persian; (7) dead link; (9) is writing about himself; (11) only tangentially about subject; (12) IMDb reference to a very minor film that hasn't attracted any further attention; (13) budget film with no mention of Safaee; (14),(17) Safaee appears as a single entry under the heading "rest of cast", which suggests he wasn't important enough to make it into the cast list of these incredibly small budget films; (15) link to a film festival that happened before the film for which it's the source! (16) IMDb reference to a biographical film about him probably made by friends and relatives; (18) a collaboration in which he was the sound and vocal manager; (19), (20) sponsored publicity. Apart from the one reference of which I'm unsure because I couldn't read it, none of the others is in any way usable to show notability. Elemimele (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt due to recration, shenanigans in this AfD. Star Mississippi 02:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The breakdown of sources by Elemimele above is pretty damning. Despite some songwriting credits for others, this musician is in purely self-promotional mode for now. Good luck to him as he blasts his country's various promo sites, but Wikipedia should be kept out of it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:18, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Bharatiya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. No election victory. No other achievement that would make him pass WP:ANYBIO Venkat TL (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: as per nom, Fails WP:NPOL. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)SDD[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:31, 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. Per User:Warshy and User:Curbon7. Looking forward to seeing the stub expanded.

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. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judaeo-Portuguese[edit]

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

This is (no longer) an article, but a dictionary definition. There apparently isn't even any proof that it even existed. BilCat (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. BilCat (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are a large number of Jewish "languages" that are little more than a language written in Hebrew script and with a sprinkling of Hebrew words. Few of these are languages in a MI sense, but may still be of sociolinguistic interest.

IMO this stub is not worth keeping as-is, but it is perhaps at least worth turning into a RD to preserve the page history.

I see no evidence that JP was a distinct language. However, it might still deserve an article as a sociolinguistic register. One source is at JewishLanguages.org. A PhD thesis available online here.

— kwami (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I shan't lose any sleep if this is deleted, but anyway, I've made a couple of edits to indicate why two apparently identical citations are actually different. Athel cb (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the branches of Judeo-Spanish. It did exist in two modes: a) written in Hebrew characters (there is a Ph.D. dissertation about this, as indicated above and on the page); b) written in Latin (Spanish/Portuguese) characters, where some 20% of the text are transliterared Hebrew words. As I said, it is more of a branch of Judeo-Spanish, which in itself also had old Castilian and Portuguese words mixed into its vocabulary. The difference between Judeo-Spanish and Judeo-Portuguese lays in the relative proportion of Spanish and Portuguese words (and the form of spelling of a particular word, which may be different in Spanish and Portuguese) used in a particular text. A classic text in Judeo-Spanish may have 60% of the words in Spanish, 20% of the words in Portuguese, and 20% of the words in Hebrew. A classic text of Judeo-Portuguese may have 50 or 60% of the words in Portuguese 30 or 20% of the words in Spanish, and 20% of the words in Hebrew. The Judeo-Portuguese variant was mostly used by the Portuguese Jews in Amsterdam during the Dutch Golden Age of the 17th century. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google Scholar features hundreds of articles mentioning this language as both Judaeo-Portuguese and Judeo-Portuguese. In particular, this paper offers a very in-depth analysis of this language. And that is only one of many. Curbon7 (talk) 21:24, 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) 13:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Camiguin Mindanao[edit]

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

Verifiability in question bordering to WP:MADEUP based on the comment left at Talk:Camiguin Mindanao. I was also looking for references to support this article but most point to Camiguin province and the rest are Wikipedia mirrors. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE for this, though of course the name makes things difficult. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:59, 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) 13:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-fiction books about Shanghai 1920s–1950[edit]

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

Unreferenced orphan since 2013. Unsourced lists are not useful. Dicklyon (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if sourced, overly specific and almost certainly non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly redlinks, list equivalent of WP:NARROWCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All red links and one link to the city not a book by the name of the city. The two films mentioned are apparently porn. We have plenty of "list of books about" [89] various things, but those list have plenty of blue links and thus serve a purpose. Dream Focus 11:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT, specifically too specific. (Why is a non-fiction list included in a fictional elements discussion?) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Somehow I find this useful from the library science perspective, but I do wonder if it meets NLIST or such. It has a relatively narrow scope. But OR is a concern. On the fence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - from a librarian perspective, this would be useful, as there isn't a collection of books covering this specific topic anywhere else, and library catalogues don't go to this level of detail. I know that's not enough to necessarily negate our usual AFD wiki rules, but thought I would toss the comment here to see what people think. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:30, 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 delete. ✗plicit 13:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operational Programme Italy – Maritime France 2007–2013[edit]

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

Not clear what this is, or how to repair the title to some meaningful form. The refs are dead links, and there's no lead. Dicklyon (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure what this is either. Can't believe it's existed for 10 years. Created by a single purpose editor. Unencyclopaedic topic. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given. The "single purpose editor" doesn't seem to have done anything since 2011. Athel cb (talk) 13:34, 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. ✗plicit 13:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Subbarayan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing notable about this person Ravensfire (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete - Googling this person's name, it is evident they are actively involved in movie making, and the filmography is significant. My gut tells me this should be kept, but unfortunately the subject simply does not have WP:NFSOURCES to their name, and there certainly is no significant coverage, although the subject has minor coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Whilst there is some evidence of work in the film industry, the subject simply is not sufficiently notable to warrant their own article per WP:GNG and so the article should be deleted - Such-change47 (talk) 08:44, 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 13:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edulanka[edit]

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

This is about a non-notable website in Sri Lanka which is not even a government one. It clearly apparent that this page has been created to promote this website as the references used in this page are not independent sources but links only related to this website. There are a large number of similar websites in Sri Lanka which have higher website ranking than this. What is the notability and encyclopedic value of keeping a Wikipedia page for this site? L Manju (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NORG is almost entirely dependent upon primary sources - concur with nom, this appears to be a self promotion by someone associated with the provider. Dan arndt (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to satisfy WP:NORG notability. Per WP:ORGCRIT I cannot locate significant coverage that is independent of the article subject, reliable, and a secondary source. Does not appear to exist and so this article should be deleted Such-change47 (talk) 08:37, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator and no (more) redirect !votes thanks to the expansion. (non-admin closure) ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otano (Navarra)[edit]

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

No evidence of either significant coverage or legal recognition that would meet WP:GEOLAND. INE database source lists this as a Unidad Poblacional, and the other source is just a map which can't be used to establish notability. The rate of article creation makes me skeptical that due diligence was done here. –dlthewave ☎ 04:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact it still has a parish church indicates notability. It obviously once existed as a village of some importance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp - where's the parish church? Or, put another way, would we keep an article that is just about a parish church absent a GNG pass? FOARP (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly marked on Google Maps and very obviously a church. It's not about the church. It's confirmation that this is, or at least was, a village of some importance. Having a parish church in a Christian country = clear legal recognition, at least historically (and, as we should all know, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, once notable equals always notable), and that passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Churches/chapels/etc. are everywhere - don't we need evidence of the existence of an actual Parish? This is setting aside the problems with using GMaps as our source for this. EDIT: I aslo note that there is a stand-alone church similarly labelled "Parroquia católica La Purísima" just up the road from this location, so it is not obvious that these churches are automatically associated with settlements. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added evidence that this is a parish and a settlement.Ingratis (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Noáin - regardless of whether this location is or is not legally recognised (which is highly dubious), there is literally nothing in this article about the site which is not already discussed in the municipality article, where it is already included in a list of villages that are part of the municipality with their population. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Happy to flip to keep per new sources. FOARP (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necro. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick check/search of the reference in the Spanish language wiki demonstrates that this indeed passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 13:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, SportingFlyer, the ES wiki article is unreferenced, see here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otano . It does have an external link, but that’s to what appears to have been a blog/personal website. FOARP (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not unreferenced, there is that link, and we're after WP:V, not GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not RS, so no V.FOARP (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Martín Javier Mina y Larrea was born there, and this came up instantly in a search. We're not reliant on just one source. SportingFlyer T·C 16:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added more refs. It's a settlement and a parish, which is more than adequate as "legal recognition", whatever exactly that is supposed to mean in a mediaeval European context, and it's been there since no later than the Middle Ages: it's notable. All of this would have come up with anything more than a cursory BEFORE. I have some sympathy with the desire to tidy up certain geostubs but this is not the way to go about it. Ingratis (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - Article has been expanded to demonstrate notability. –dlthewave ☎ 13:15, 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 keep. Discussion shows that there are sources to show notability of this person, regardless of whether his medical claims are accepted science. RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Galland[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of ScienceFlyer, who considers that the sources to not amount to notability. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Leo_Galland-_Propose_for_deletion for previous discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability depends upon influence or significance documented in reliable sources, and this is a medical topic, for which we really have to be careful when deciding what reliable means. Indeed, it crosses over into fringe topics, where we have to be the most careful of all. What we'd need are serious evaluations of his work and career; what we've got is fluff. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. This is a human, not a biomedical topic, so WP:MEDRS is a red-herring. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Non-trivial press coverage in reliable journalistic sources over many years allows a complete and neutral biography, even if short, regardless of the veracity of any of his views. Stating that he may hold fringe views is different from promoting fringe views. WP:FRINGE states: Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. and Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable. Within the field of functional medicine he is known for developing the concept of "patient-centered diagnosis",^[1]^[2] for which he was awarded the Linus Pauling Functional Medicine Award in 2000.^[3]^[4] Beyond this he has significant coverage in reliable independent sources, for example:
- Brody, Jane E. (October 26, 1989). "HEALTH: Diagnostics; Test Unmasks a Parasitic Disease". The New York Times. (dedicated article about Galland. Intro: "By using a highly specific new test, a New York internist has found that many people believed to be suffering from irritable bowel syndrome actually have the common intestinal parasitic disease giardiasis. When properly treated with drugs that kill the pesky parasite, Giardia lamblia, symptoms of bowel distress disappeared, the doctor reported yesterday at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in New Orleans. The internist, Dr. Leo Galland, explained in an interview that the new test uses a special dye that makes the tiny cysts of the parasite easier to detect. He said it was far better able to detect the organism than a routine stool examination.")
- Ferraro, Susan (3 August 1998). "Consider the Alternative: Total Health Becomes the Option of Mainstream Medicine". New York Daily News. (Dedicated profile of Galland)
- "Doctor offers healing reading". The Times-Picayune. 19 August 1997. p. F5 – via NewsBank. (Profile of Galland and The Four Pillars of Healing: "Dr. Leo Galland is a medical detective who uses his extensive training (at Harvard University and New York University Medical School) to search for answers to real-life medical mysteries. His patients have problems that defy standard treatment. But then, Galland is not your standard physician...")
- Ansorge, Rick (July 29, 1997). "Doctor devoted to righting bodily disharmonies". The Gazette. Colorado Springs. p. 1 – via NewsBank. ("Dr. Leo Galland makes an unlikely apostle for alternative medicine. Schooled in conventional medicine, he's a no-nonsense doc who specializes in treating undiagnosed and hard-to-treat illnesses at his private practice in New York City. You won't find him posing with a bundle of herbs and a mud-smeared face as one of his contemporaries, Dr. Andrew Weil, recently did in Time magazine. But in his just-published new book, The Four Pillars of Healing (Random House), Galland, 54, makes a passionate case for the fusion of alternative and conventional medicine."))
- Mironowicz, Margaret (4 July 1997). "MD an architect of integrated healing". Waterloo Region Record. p. F1 – via NewsBank.
- "Healthy diet of healing in new books". Austin American-Statesman. 13 July 1997. p. D8 – via NewsBank.
- Berger, Jody (17 April 2015). "Diet, exercise, nutrition can fight autoimmune diseases, some now say". The Deseret News – via NewsBank. (Galland one of several physicians quoted discussing autoimmune disorders, introduced as: "Dr. Leo Galland, director of the Foundation for Integrated Medicine, which is based in New York, an award-winning clinician and the author of several highly acclaimed books."
- "Diet Bookshelf". The Salt Lake Tribune. 3 January 2006. p. B2 – via NewsBank. (book review of The Fat Resistance Diet)
- "The Four Pillars of Healing: How the New Integrated Medicine - The Best of Conventional and Alternative Approaches - Can Cure You". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 244, no. 18. May 5, 1997. p. 204 – via Gale OneFile. (book review of The Four Pillars of Healing)
- Schopick, Julia (2005). "Drug–Nutrient Interactions: Leo Galland, M.D., Discusses His New Database" (PDF). Alternative and Complementary Therapies. 11 (2). Mary Ann Liebert: 78–82. doi:10.1089/act.2005.11.78. (Interview with introductory biographical content).
- Marty, Alan T. (1997). "The Four Pillars of Healing". Chest. 112 (6): A16. (book review of The Four Pillars of Healing)
- Hutch, Richard A. (2000). "On Being a "Hip" Doctor Today". Pastoral Psychology. 49 (1): 51–68. doi:10.1023/A:1004673515865. (Extensive analysis of Gallard's The Four Pillars of Healing, e.g.: I begin with a model of healing developed by a leading New York based practitioner of allopathic medicine, Leo Galland. Galland has specialised in treating patients who are at wit's end, that is, their treatment by other physicians has proved to little or no avail and they come to him as a "last resort"... Galland, however, has developed a model of diagnosis that attempts to put the patient back into the picture of health care. Following a summary of Galland's model of diagnosis, I will suggest how treatment protocols of some medical practitioners in the present appear to be responsive to the emphases of his diagnostic model... Galland has done us the service of setting out a "big picture" that portrays how the patient, "eclipsed" from most contemporary allopathy, can be put back into the picture of health and healing... Galland espouses traditional biomedical assumptions about medicine as premised mostly upon rationalism and Darwinism (and, to a lesser degree, empiricism).)
- Kidd, Parris M. (January 2003). "Putting the patient first". Total Health. Vol. 25, no. 1. pp. 46–47. ISSN 0274-6743. OCLC 768122126 – via EBSCO Host. (2-page book review of The Four Pillar of Healing)
- Hagloch, Susan B. (2005). "The Fat Resistance Diet". Library Journal. 130: 75 – via EBSCO Host. (Book review: "Internist and nutritionist Galland (Power Healing) has devised a three-part weight-loss plan based on recent studies of the hormone leptin, which regulates weight. He claims that inflammation caused by poor eating habits, stress, and other factors leads to leptin resistance and encourages weight gain. To reduce inflammation and enable leptin to do its job properly, readers are supplied with many appealing recipes and weekly menus featuring foods rich in omega-3 oils, antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. Galland's research is impressive, although his theories have been tested only at his own practice. It would seem that further trials are warranted, but his eating plan remains remarkably well rounded, with none of the faddish elements that mar such well-known diets as the Atkins and Ornish plans. A welcome change from the most recent diet fashions, Galland's book deserves a wide readership.")
- Kupferberg, Natalie (1997). "The Four Pillars, of Healing: How the New Integrated Medicine--the Best of Conventional and Alternative Approaches--Can Cure You". Library Journal. 122 (10): 132–134 – via EBSCO Host. (Book review: "Galland, a pioneer in integrated medicine and a specialist in treating undiagnosed or difficult-to-treat illnesses, describes in detail a new model for disease causation known as "Patient-Centered Diagnosis"...)
- Kidd, Parris M. (1998). "Nature and Nurture: Saving Our Children with Nutrition". Total Health. Vol. 20, no. 3. p. 10. ISSN 0274-6743. OCLC 768122126 – via EBSCO Host. (Book review of Superimmunity for Kids)
- Beatty, William (1997). "Adult Books: Nonfiction". Booklist. Vol. 93, no. 18. p. 1551 – via EBSCO Host. (Book review of The Four Pillars of Healing)
- J.G. (1998). "A Roundup of New and Noteworthy Books". Better Nutrition. Vol. 60, no. 9. p. 42. ISSN 0405-668X. OCLC 818873414 – via EBSCO Host. (book review of Power Healing: "Power Healing represents the true vortex of alternative healing and conventional medicine presaged by such co-luminaries as Abram Hoffer, Jeffrey Bland, William Crook, Bernie Siegel, and Andrew Weil..."

--Animalparty! (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is WP:MEDRS a "red herring" when the entirety of the article is about "research" and writings on medical topics? XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:MEDRS begins: "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources...", linking to Wikipedia:Biomedical information. Nothing in the section What is biomedical information? addresses biographies. The section What is not biomedical information? however explicitly includes Beliefs, as well as the statement "For biographical information, use a source that is reliable for biographical information". Biographical information is not biomedical information, and thus WP:MEDRS is largely irrelevant. Saying "He wrote a book about diet" is not biomedical information. Summarizing what secondary sources have written about the books and views he's known for is neither biomedical information nor WP:PROFRINGE. And again please look to the sources, not the current or former state of this Wikipedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the sources and been unimpressed. Expanding the article would necessarily make the problem worse by inserting more medical claims. And what is the benefit to the reader of merely listing the books that he has written? We're not WorldCat. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: You could ask what is the benefit of listing books by Michael Pollan and summarizing his theses? You seem to presume that what Galland writes is inherently bad or fringe, and be afraid that merely stating what Galland claims, as nearly every source I've provided does, will trick people into thinking it's the gospel truth. This is a patronizing and paternalistic view in my opinion. If medical skeptics haven't yet been so aggrieved to denounce or dissect any of Galland's works, then maybe you should reexamine your preconceptions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being paternalistic; I'm sticking to policy. If reliable sources don't exist, we can't write about a topic. WP:MEDRS sets the standard for what "reliable" means regarding medical claims. This article is nothing but medical claims. XOR'easter (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, can a neutral, encyclopedic article be constructed from these sources? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so (neutral & encyclopedic need not equate to long and overstuffed). I've neither read nor cited a single book, paper, or blog post by Galland, but from the existing sources, it becomes apparent that Galland is known for several things: using conventional and alternative therapies, treating patients with undiagnosed or hard-to-treat illnesses (several sources call him a "medical detective"); The Four Pillars of Healing (originally/alternatively titled Power Healing), in which his pillars seem to be are rather unshocking recommendations: Relationships (have a good social network and relationship with your doctor), Diet (avoid junk food, and exercise more), Environmental hygiene (avoid allergens, pesticides), and Detoxification; "Since publishing Superimmunity for Kids in 1989, Galland has been championing anti-inflammatory eating, which means a nutrient-dense diet made up mostly of whole foods with plenty of fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds and other healthy proteins.";^[5] authoring The Fat Resistance Diet, in which he recommends an anti-inflammatory diet, arguing leptin resistance is a primary cause of obesity, although the link between diet and leptin resistance is unsubstantiated.^[6] While I recognize the depth of coverage in any individual source is rather limited, and we don't have a juicy in-depth diatribe by Science-Based Medicine to quote verbatim, a short paragraph or two could be made from existing sources that state what Galland is known for without making it a showcase promoting his views. We need not extoll his every dietary recommendation, every patient story in articles about him, nor exhaustively list his conference talks or media appearances. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the depth of coverage in any individual source is rather limited, that sounds like we don't have significant coverage. This isn't a situation where he meets some criterion that makes an article worth having no matter how short it's going to be. (For example, there are prizes and fellowships which are significant enough that the encyclopedia should cover all their winners in order to be systematic, even if some winners might not have much biographical detail.) If he's just a humdrum example of somebody repackaging diet and exercise as "complementary" or "alternative", then there's no reason to write about him; if he's mixing that with more substantive claims, then we need medical evaluation of those claims to avoid passing along bad information relevant to human health. Given the available sources, not limited to those presently in the article, that sounds like a lose-lose situation to me. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Animalparty's extensive argument. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "His research includes nutrition,[5] chronic allergies,[6] leaky-gut syndrome, [7] and Lyme disease." leaky-gut syndrome is not an actual thing and much of Lyme disease is claims and quackery, especially the "long term" variant that has nothing to do with the actual disease. Are sources sufficient to provide better coverage? If not, it's a good reason to delete. —Paleo Neonate – 19:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added those statements after an editor gutted the article of all existing sources and tried to pull a ((Prod blp)). You know that notability is never based on the content of an article, but the existence of reliable secondary sources. Articles can always be improved, and I welcome good faith attempts to do so. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bland, Jeffrey S. (1994). "Neurobiochemistry: A New Paradigm for Managing Brain Biochemical Disturbances" (PDF). Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. 9 (3): 177–185.
^ Jones, David S.; Bland, Jeffrey S. (2005). "History of Functional Medicine" (PDF). Textbook of Functional Medicine. Gig Harbor, WA: Institute for Functional Medicine. pp. 10–14. ISBN 9780977371303.
^ Bland, Jeffrey S. (October 2019). "Systems Biology Meets Functional Medicine". Integrative Medicine. 18 (5): 14–18. PMC 7219445. PMID 32549839.
^ "Leo Galland receives Linus Pauling Award". Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 6 (5): 27. 2000.
^ Berger, Jody (17 April 2015). "Diet, exercise, nutrition can fight autoimmune diseases, some now say". The Deseret News – via NewsBank.
^ Johannes, Laura (4 April 2006). "The New New Thing in Dieting". The Wall Street Journal.

Keep. The article needs improvement, but the individual has notability. Sources are out there, and it's not like those are self-published books. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 03:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the obvious extensive coverage by the media. Let's remember that our own feelings about whatever a person is touting in the media should not affect our reasoning for inclusion of an article that describes the existence and notability of that person. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:32, 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. Per nomination. 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) 00:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy's Girl (1996 film)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. The article says, "The film received mixed reviews." while only listing one review from an unreliable source. I found a one paragraph Entertainment Weekly review that for some reason is about the film, but also says that it is a book published by HarperCollins. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that the review at this source is from the Radio Times from a published film critic not WP:IMDB so I'd count it as a reliable review for WP:GNG purposes. I couldn't find any other coverage though besides blogs and newspaper TV listings. It's difficult because "Daddy's Girl" is a common title for many different things, but my WP:BEFORE came up empty on sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:21, 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. ✗plicit 03:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Weishaupt[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Could not find significant coverage. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find a one sentence mention of his name as the new German ambassador to the Philippines, but it was not a substantive reference. We need substantial sources to show that a person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this nomination be at WikiProject Germany AfD? Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:00, 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. ✗plicit 03:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury Property (company)[edit]

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

This real estate brokerage fails WP:NCORP. The article is heavily refbombed—the refs are all passing mentions or not independent coverage. My online search does not turn up any coverage that would establish notability. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Probable WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and LibStar. BD2412 T 03:32, 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. ✗plicit 03:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suplee, Oregon[edit]

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

Oregon is, thus far, in much better shape than many states, but there are some GNIS-dump examples, such as this 4th class post office. I found two direct testimonies to that: an Arcadia Press book on the county says that "The post office changed locations depending on which local resident was the postmaster", and a self-published memoir of growing up in the area starts with the author being born nearby, and describes the post office as being on "the back porch of a ranch house". Beyond that, I get a lot of other "Suplee area" mentions, and that area is apparently of great interest geologically, as the latter provides the vast majority of book references. But I cannot find anything suggesting there was a town, so I don't think the notability is there. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - GNIS spam. @Mangoe: - I've seen a fourth-class of post-office mentioned in the old US Post Office regulations, but nothing saying what one was, how official were they? Am I right in thinking that a lot of GNIS spam articles were also fourth-class offices? FOARP (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC) OK to flip to keep per new sources. FOARP (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep used as a location for heaps of geological articles and is/was definitely a place in a place without places: [90] [91] [92] (fire marshal stationed there) and referred to as a place by a government service [93]. Not just an incorrect database entry, there's actually quite a bit here in a simple search. SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my expansion with cites, WP:HEY, WP:BEFORE, WP:AGF, and my personal essay at the AfD for Alicel, Oregon. (See also numerous clips [as of today] mentioning people living in, being from, being born in, moving to, etc. Suplee. [Yes I am aware these are trivial passing mentions.]) Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 09:57, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Martínez (footballer, born 1952)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Did not play professionally as a player nor has he managed at a professional level. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete I had a look and can't find this coach player in many football databases. Found his soccerway profile. Didn't find anything on worldfootball.net which is normally very good for finding these types of guys. However the fact that all apart from one citation are dead links is a major red flag. Govvy (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to pass GNG with plenty of Salvadoran sources, even if the link are rotted.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG as the only in-depth coverage is the 2005 El Diario de Hoy article. The other articles aren't available online and appear to be routine coverage (hiring/departing announcements), and I could only find similar articles that were definitely routine (season previews). Jogurney (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is with WP:V. I think that such a long-time manager (31-year career) surely would pass GNG even if the game is just semi-pro. However, where is the source that confirms all these manager jobs? Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-Urals Ring Structure[edit]

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

Not seeing how this is a notable. This was originally discussed in some conference abstracts by G. Burba, and since then has only been discussed in two academic papers by one author, John M. Saul, and even then, the mention of the claims is brief. There's not really any critical scrutiny of the claims that would be required to construct a proper encyclopedic article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need to do an analysis of the conference abstracts, which per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Massive_Australian_Precambrian/Cambrian_Impact_Structure do not count towards notability, but I will do some analysis of the Saul Papers. The first one I will analyse Circular scars dating to the Earth's accretionary period (open access), published in Energy Procedia, a publisher of conference proceedings, is relatively short. The only mention of the impactor claims is in a figure and caption, which I will quote in full LHB scar circles associated with petroleum and deep gas in the region west of the Middle Urals. The supergiant Romashkino oilfield is situated within a 210 km diameter scar (infolded map in [15]) and the Arlan supergiant oilfield is located along the tangent shared by this scar and the adjacent c.420 km “Middle-Ural Ring Structure” [16-17]. Where 16-17 are references to the conference abstracts of G. Burba.

The second paper, Transparent gemstones and the most recent supercontinent cycle is published in International Geology Review, the paper includes a 300 word paragraph on the claims, which notes that Saul had previously come up with the idea independently, and had published it in his 2014 book "A Geologist Speculates on Gemstones, Origins of Gas and Oil, Moonlike Impact Scars on the Earth, the Emergence of Animals and Cancer", published Les 3 Colonnes, a review of this book by Quintin Wight, published in the journal Rocks & Minerals [94] notes that the book is highly speculative and states [Saul] presents evidence that continental cratons thousands of kilometers across may be attributed to gigantic meteorite strikes during the period known as the late heavy bombardment (LHB), 4.1– 3.8 billion years ago, and he postulates that cooling of meteorite-induced melt may have produced dense rock that sank into lighter rock and changed the patterns of subduction that may have gone before. In a sense, he is challenging some of the aspects of uniformitarianism that has held sway for much of the last century. He is also saying that the very deep fracture patterns created by those LHB impacts persist to this day, despite tectonic movement, and could control the formation of gem deposits and allow for the upward migration of fluids and gases. I'm not knowledgeable on this topic, but this seems pretty WP:FRINGE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did search for additional sources and didn't come up with anything better than the above described. The evidence also looks pretty circumstantial and doesn't include any shocked quartz or anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of better supporting evidence (overturned beds, impact breccia, shocked quartz, shatter cones). --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nowhere near enough to support notability. Mikenorton (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very speculative. This alleged feature lacks the published supporting evidence and detailed arguments needed to support notability. Also, lacks any detailed discussions and / or commentary by secondary sources and experts. A publication that fails to add anything new is Saul, J.M.A., 1978. Circular structures of large scale and great age on the Earth's surface. Nature, 271(5643), pp.345-349, The "2014 book" is Saul, J.M.A., 2014. A Geologist Speculates. Les, 3, 159 pp. Paul H. (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - The origin, and even existence, of geological ring structures in itself a controversial realm of study with no current agreement whether they are either endogenous, exogenous, extraterrestrial, or some mixture of these in origin. Also, there is disagreement over whether specific geologic ring structures are either actually real features of the geologic version of pareidolia. Therefore, before featuring any specific ring structure in a Wikipedia article, it needs to be documented and discussed in secondary sources as in case of the Nastapoka arc. Paul H. (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul H.: Aye, I've been thinking of taking Diamantina River ring feature to deletion for the reasons you describe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the Middle-Urals Ring Structure, the Diamantina River ring feature has been discussed in detail in one peer-reviewed primary source (journal paper) and two peer-reviewed secondary sources (a paper and book chapter). Unfortunately, they are all by the same senior author, Dr. Andrew Glikson. However, Dr. Andrew Glikson is an internationally respected planetary geologist. About the Diamantina River ring feature, Dr. Andrew Glikson concluded that "A potential interpretation of the ring structure in terms of asteroid impact cannot be confirmed or rejected given the present state of knowledge, ..." I have access to these and other sources. Paul H. (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the recent Australian impact cratering record: Updates and recent discoveries, and there was no mention of the feature. I think when covering speculative impact crater claims, there needs to be some uninvolved secondary coverage, which this feature unfortunately lacks. I agree thought that the sourcing is much better in this case than for the Middle-Urals Ring Structure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the lack of significant uninvolved secondary coverage, the Diamantina River ring feature is just one of several similar size, even larger, ring and multiring features / "structures" that have been mapped using gravity, topographic maps, and aerial imagetry of Australia as sketched in figures 1, 4, and others of:

O'Driscoll, E.S.T. and Campbell, I.B., 1996. Mineral deposits related to Australian continental ring and rift structures with some terrestrial and planetary analogies. Global Tectonics and Metallogeny, pp.83-101.

In this respect, Diamantina River ring feature lacks notibility. Also, like the other "ring structures" / features of O'Driscoll and others, they remain speculative and elusive entities so far lacking anything that can be observed in outcrop or in local geologic mapping that can be associated with them with any degree of certainty. Paul H. (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On the Russian internet, cited sources I have seen are the same few sources in English already mentioned above. GeoWriter (talk) 13:45, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Busset[edit]

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

If I'm not mistaken, Servette FC was in the Challenge League (the Swiss second-tier competition) while Busset was on the team. He was then loaned to SC Kriens (also in the Challenge League) and has played there ever since. So he doesn't seem to meet the guideline WP:NFOOTY and I see no indication that he meets WP:GNG either. Pichpich (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG and hasn't played in an FPL either. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:28, 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 no consensus. Despite a month long afd, no views were expressed contrary to keeping the article. A merger with Platinumb Heart Beating has already since been done and a rename to Platinumb Heart can be done outside of the afd. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Platinumb Heart Open[edit]

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

No indication that this meets WP:NALBUM Gbawden (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gbawden (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Platinumb Heart: This is a double album. The sources in the article, except for Apple Music, seem reliable. I also found a few more reliable sources which talk about the album: [95], [96] and [97]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure if this is a double album or two separate albums released on the same day, like Use Your Illusion I and II, so I don't know if I would recommend the renaming of both albums. The first article Superastig listed above is no use: the album gets a one-line mention in passing in an article about an entirely different subject. I don't know if the other two sources are reliable ones or not, but they are certainly proper coverage. Richard3120 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard3120, it's kinda confusing. The sources I found mentioned either "double album" or "2 albums released". But, I never found a single source which talks about either of the albums alone aside from download links. Since they're both released on the same day, I believe merging them into 1 article would be a better option. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Superastig: I agree. They certainly have two separate artworks for the digital versions. But I can't find out if they were released in physical form, which would tell us if they were sold in the same physical package or two separate packages with two cover pictures. Richard3120 (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Platinumb Heart Beating. I agree with a merger of two since it's not clear on how they were released. But it does meet WP:NALBUM with sources pointed out and presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 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. ✗plicit 03:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Nasiłowski[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability – “Criteria supporting deletion: Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art”. Rovingrobert (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Rovingrobert (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources. Mentions in articles about demonstrations do not show that WP:GNG is met. The undocumented claim of winning a world championship in a 40+ year old division doesn't meet any SNG. Papaursa (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NSPORT. Cassiopeia talk 02:02, 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.