< December 29 December 31 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha, North Dakota[edit]

Alpha, North Dakota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The barn shown in the article is the only building in this place, and the article all but admits that the place isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 30 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. Star Mississippi 04:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neogene Mediterranean desiccation and mega-flooding[edit]

Neogene Mediterranean desiccation and mega-flooding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly a notable topic(s?), but duplicates the scope of the already existing (and substantial) Messinian salinity crisis and Zanclean flood, not really a good redirect to either one of them, and the name seems like an unlikely search target regardless. Not sure if there is any content worth merging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons mentioned by Hemiauchenia. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2022 (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 23:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hirschville, North Dakota[edit]

Hirschville, North Dakota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the website cited in the article, this is a town which never really happened. Beyond that site, which really doesn't cut it as a reliable source, I get nothing of any substance. There definitely was a church there, and I suspect that what looks like an ag supply business now may have evolved out of the businesses started by Mr. Hirsch, but while there are plenty of signs that people thought of this as a larger locale, but indications are that there wasn't a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify this comment. Hirschville is commonly referred to as a community, and it is unincorporated. If you feel that places are inappropriately categorized, the solution is not to delete the articles, but to change the categorization. Doremo (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2022 (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 23:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Youth Marching Bands Association[edit]

Traditional Youth Marching Bands Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. No significant coverage in media. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:34, 30 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 - G4. GiantSnowman 15:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gassama Alfusainey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gassama Alfusainey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable soccer player who fails to meet any criterion from WP:NFOOTBALL. Celestina007 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental degree-granting institutions in the United States[edit]

List of environmental degree-granting institutions in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is so wildly incomplete it's useless. I looked up the first three universities not listed that came to mind (Washington State, Georgia Tech, and Purdue), and all three have environmental science programs, as I'd expect for virtually any major university. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of universities with computer engineering programs, even if this were more complete it'd be an unencyclopedic directory. Reywas92Talk 22:06, 30 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. Daniel (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Pearson (fighter)[edit]

Joe Pearson (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While he does pass WP:MMABIO, it has become apparent to me that MMABIO essentially means nothing if the subject cannot meet WP:GNG. His coverage is mainly through routine sporting report. Pearson has not fought in over 4 years and is in his 40s, the chances of him meeting GNG are highly unlikely. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 20:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Striking vote The below users make a more convincing argument, and know more about this topic than I do, so I will strike my vote. Spf121188 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If all the coverage is routine, how does he pass WP:GNG? Unless you can show some significant independent coverage, all you have is WP:ILIKEIT. Papaursa (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Papaursa, the references [1], [2], [3] from Sherdog and Bleacher Report (among others) are independent and aren't necessarily routine. I know very little about MMA and this particular fighter, so WP:ILIKEIT doesn't apply to me. My main reason for this being a Weak Keep is because though notability for this fighter may be dated, notability is not temporary. Spf121188 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference seems to be promoting his "fight coming up next Friday" and that "if you are anywhere in driving distance ... go out and support Pearson". It also says if you want more information about Pearson you should contact the article's author. Hard to see that as independent and neutral. The second reference is a one sentence mention of a fight result where he was knocked out 20 seconds into the fight. The third source mentions him in a list of "50 Random MMA Facts You Never Knew" for winning 22 fights by triangle choke. I'd call that independent, but not significant. The question isn't about whether notability is temporary, it's whether he was ever WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pearson never was WP:NOTABLE. Wikiprojects create their own notability guidelines to allow pages to created in hopes of them meeting WP:GNG, Pearson only ever passed WP:MMABIO but now that he's essentially retired it's important to go through his coverage to see if he meets GNG, to which he does not. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 10:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone Roots[edit]

Cornerstone Roots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced. Tagged since 2016. A search for sources doesn't turn up anything significant. The band exist, but do not meet our notability guidelines WP:BAND or WP:GNG. SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article has been sufficiently improved to meet notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Lind[edit]

Jonas Lind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the SNG, it is likely that sufficient sources exist to meet GNG if a player has played in one or more professional games, however this does not guarantee notability. WP:BEFORE search did not return sufficient coverage beyond basic stats to meet this standard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points made and it's not been outright determined that his football career was notable. I voted keep weakly and without much conviction as there are publications about him in his current line of work, but whether this is because he was a footballer or by co-incidence is up for debate. I wouldn't say it is a clear-cut/outright keep though, however I am not in a position to scrutinise sources in a language of which I have no knowledge of. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the best sources imaginable, but they do substantiate what they claim to substantiate, and are good enough for that, I'd say. (I've reached them through a digitalised archive, so I know no good way of linking to anything.) /Julle (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Pippin[edit]

Orange Pippin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source apart from the website itself is this blog post, which does not qualify toward GNG. Doing a proper WP:BEFORE is complicated by the common name, but "orangepippin.com" in quotes returns nothing useful, and overall I can't find a single good source. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is abundantly clear in favor of notability. This is not the place to discuss nominator's history, if people want to do that. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Blomberg[edit]

Mikael Blomberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the SNG, it is likely that sufficient sources exist to meet GNG if a player has played in one or more professional games, however this does not guarantee notability. WP:BEFORE search did not return sufficient coverage beyond basic stats to meet this standard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you conducted a source search in Swedish? –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to see Geschichte presenting himself as an authority on these matters again, particularly since he was found to have been flooding the encyclopaedia for years with these under-referenced sub-stub BLPs of often completely non-notable semi-pro Scandinavian footballers! This suggests to me he possibly is not best placed to diagnose lack of competence in others in such matters. To put it mildly. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your notion is completely unfounded, seeing as if there was a change of consensus, it happened several years after the articles in question were created. When it comes to Swedish, I was referring more to the ability to read the language fluently, knowledge about reliable and useful newspapers and other outlets, and access to said outlets. Geschichte (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What type of search was performed before creating this article? Why was it created in mainspace (where it's subject to AfD if notability isn't demonstrated) instead of incubated as a draft? This all could have been avoided if sources had been provided in the first place.
It's often implied that the article creator is the only one competent enough to perform a WP:BEFORE search in the appropriate language. If this is the case, then the burden to find sources will have to fall on them. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the old "Articles can be mass-created based solely on a single low-quality database, but you have to do a kind of super-BEFORE on them where you search offline/pay-walled/foreign-language sources before AFD'ing them" dichotomy. No, if the article was created without any real and clear claim to notability, and sources supporting one can't be found by a reasonable search, then AFD is exactly the right place to go. Reviewing the titles of Julle's sources I guess they are likely about Blomberg (I think "Blomma" is a nickname for him) so I'm voting keep, but this is without any judgement on the nomination of this article which seems to have been justified and is not at all invalidated by the finding of sources that are not available to the vast majority of editors. FOARP (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

István Kovács (footballer, born 1991)[edit]

István Kovács (footballer, born 1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found during cleanup after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/János Birtalan. Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to only 1 game. Geschichte (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Marie[edit]

Daisy Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing is pretty much all porn ecosystem noise and nothing substantial. Awards no longer count so fails ENT and GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:55, 31 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 00:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Society for Healthcare Materials Management[edit]

Georgia Society for Healthcare Materials Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails our notability guidelines for organizations. The article cites only non-independent sources that are connected to the Society in some way (e.g. other organizations with which it associates), and a thorough WP:BEFORE search does not find any in-depth coverage in sources that are unrelated to the organization. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:40, 30 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 deleted under WP:CSD#G5 criteria; created by confirmed sockpuppet of User:Bmusique99 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmusique99) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Dr Jules[edit]

Dr Jules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a DJ who is apparently big in Cape Town but I don’t find any coverage that would support notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : Okay i agree to have the article deleted, i seriously thought someone like him is notable as he is talked about often in South Africa mostly by (Word Of Mouth) I've realized, I always remembered reading and hearing people talk about him and his associated act DJ Ready D and did a quick search about him and tried to make it a stub as i personally couldn't really find much on the subject, I've realized someone who is less in public eyes has more press and notability than him and my mind automatically thought he was more notable than most subjects I've been doing research on since joining the encyclopedia, this is weird. StephenWilliams021 (talk) 21:32, 30 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 as the author and sole contributor has been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Hut 8.5 18:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chainge[edit]

Chainge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor sourcing, either unreliable, not independent, or press releases or equivalent. Closer to advertising than an encyclopedia article. Citing (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should have been more explicit and just cleaned out the unreliable sources first before submitting this to AfD (as I did here). This article was a clear case of citation bombing of trivial mentions, blogs and social media posts, cryptocurrency news sites, event listings, app websites, etc. Sweeping those away we're left with one reliable source, Yahoo Finance, which says: "Financial experts, such as Vlad Tirla, CPO of Chainge Finance," and then proceeds to talk about something else.Citing (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the only independent WP:RS is the Yahoo Finance article, then coverage is insufficient to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:08, 31 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) 17:37, 30 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 00:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Sinha (actor)[edit]

Dilip Sinha (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to show this person meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Ravensfire (talk) 17:25, 30 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 00:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alwan (organization)[edit]

Alwan (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization's aims are admirable IMO, but I just don't see any coverage in independent sources that would count towards WP:NORG. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Mortimer[edit]

Oliver Mortimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a borderline notable subject. The two sources given in the article (the Herald and STV) seem to be the only sources out there on this subject which could be considered significant and independent. This Daily Record article briefly quotes the article's subject, but the quote is regarding the Knockhill circuit and not the subject of this article. If this were not a WP:BLP then I would probably consider this article to squeak through the WP:GNG, but as it stands my concern for potentially-defamatory vandalism in BLPs leads me to believe that sufficient notability has not been established. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:19, 16 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 14:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 16:15, 30 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. Good analysis by the participants. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuya Brasserie[edit]

Joshuya Brasserie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Closed restaurant of unclear notability; refs are incidental mentions in lists apart from the dailycal.org which covers a routine business announcement of reopening; local coverage only with no indication of regional or national importance Dialectric (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) applies here, and local coverage is specifically addressed by WP:AUD, which says that 'at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.' The EaterSF is regional, but there is no statewide or greater coverage, and the EaterSF and Mercury News articles are in my opinion trivial or routine coverage, as discussed in the organizations and companies guideline, of a restaurant reopening with a different menu and owner.Dialectric (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dialectric I don't think AUD is an issue if The EaterSF is considered regional (as in AUD says "at least one"), and I think that the Mercury News article (aside from the first 5 paragraphs) provides non trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. This is definitely a borderline case so thanks for your analyses :D Justiyaya 16:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EaterSF isn't regional, it's the local area to San Francisco. —valereee (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee Oops you're right, another search returned no results, changed vote above. Justiyaya 05:36, 3 January 2022 (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. A relatively close call, but given the trend of the discussion as additional sources were found, this looks more like a keep than no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Junge[edit]

Alexa Junge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only reference is IMDb. Significant coverage from independent sources is not easily found. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.emmys.com/bios/alexa-junge
I know the Globe and Variety aren't local - I'm a journalist who has written for many national publications and I have friends who work at both...I should have wrote originally "localized or trivial mentions." But, it's passing and doesn't qualify for GNG nor am I convinced she's got enough coverage to build WP:BASIC. So...still delete. Missvain (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update Struck through a quote erroneously crediting Junge with a different episode written by Deborah Cahn. (lwt)
(3) Here's an item from Hollywood Reporter that indicates not only did Junge write episodes for Tara, without Junge as an EP, the show might never have gotten on the air. Writing about Junge's decision to depart: "Alexa Junge, the executive producer/showrunner of Showtime's "United States of Tara," has decided not to continue on the series, which recently was renewed for a second season.
"Bringing Friends alumna Junge on board was key to securing a series order for Tara, created by Oscar winner Diablo Cody. ... Junge penned three episodes, the last of which airs Sunday." (Nellie Andreevna. “Family ties strong for Roseanne; Junge steps aside as 'Tara' topper" Andreeva, Nellie, Hollywood Reporter, 00183660, 23 March 2009, Vol. 409, Issue 4, page not given.) Lawikitejana (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the heads-up, User:GoingBatty.[reply]
@Lawikitejana: It's great that you're using your access to the Wikipedia Library to find more articles. Remember that the basic notability criteria states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Interviews by definition are not independent of the subject, but the interviews may also have good information in the interviewer's words. I look forward to seeing you continue to add references to the article. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty:

Point taken, although "independent of the subject" is more about things like not using press releases from someone's own company, or possibly articles published by an outlet that is part of the same parent (e.g., one could argue about independence when CBS reports on someone's publication with Simon & Schuster, which is owned by the same company), or possibly a White House press secretary's statement as evidence of what a president did or didn't do. Where I do think you have a point would be if I took something in the interview as proof of anything that needs supported by a secondary source. In this case, however, the interview was offered simply as evidence either that (a) she's sufficiently significant to The Dramatists Guild as a writer that they picked her from among the scores of playwrights they could have profiled or as a more reliable source than IMDb as to her credits, particularly apart from film/TV. Reminder appreciated nonetheless. Lawikitejana (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 30 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Rodionov[edit]

Viktor Rodionov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Russian stage actor. Compliance WP:ACTOR is cloudy.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dewang Subil[edit]

Dewang Subil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don’t think this is eligible for A7 but it’s a BLP of a person who does not seem notable to me, or at best falls under WP:BLP1E. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Billshine: just showing up at AfDs and saying “it’s notable” doesn’t help the community understand why a topic is notable. What is the basis of your view please? Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 30 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 Sidemen (YouTube group). Anyone is free to merge any content to the target article if any. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 14:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side+ (streaming platform)[edit]

Side+ (streaming platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I proposed the article for deletion but it was removed. I do not believe that this meets the notability guidelines. It is already mentioned on the Sidemen's page "In 2021, the Sidemen launched a subscription service known as Side+.[1]". I do not think that it should be redirected because Side+ already redirects there. Sahaib3005 (talk) 11:48, 30 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 Converted barn. ✗plicit 11:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barndominium[edit]

Barndominium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable neologism. Apart from the stealth advertising for a website, we just have a few unrelated developments using the term as an advertising gimmick. 力猫 (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 30 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 Deep Sea Drilling Project. Any merging to the parent article can be done from the history behind the redirect, by any interested editor. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic offshore geologic exploration[edit]

Antarctic offshore geologic exploration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTH: loose collection of statements not directly supported by the sources. All assertions with Craddock 1976 does not exist in source. Mys_721tx (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @Mys_721tx question on "all assertions with Craddock 1976 do not exist in source" There are four assertions on this page: With reference to sub-heading"Operation", please see the reference on P.724 "Although more than a dozen sites were originally planned, we were only able to attempt four holes". Withe reference to sub-heading "Discovery and accomplishment", please see P.725 Figure 1 which shows Sites 324 and 325 drilled on continental rise. Thre are included in the text of 5 wells on the continental margings. With reference to sub-heading "Sea floor spreading", please see P729 "At Site 325 the magnetic anomalies, basement depth, and fossils all suggest a late Oligocene basement age.". With reference to sub-heading "Ice-rafted debris", please see P.735 "Cores from the four Leg 35 sites were studied for evidence of ice-rafted debris in the form of small dropstones and quartz grains with distinctive microscopic surface textures suggestive of glacial transport", P.738 "...glaciation in Antarctica was weak in the earliest Miocene, moderate by the middle Miocene, extensive by about late middle Miocene, and probably full by sometime during the late Miocene...", and in Abstract "The glaciation of West Antarctica may have begun in the Eocene, but it was certainly underway by the Miocene. Interpretation of the sediments cored suggests that Antarctic glaciation was weak in the early Miocene, moderate by middle Miocene, extensive by late middle Miocene, and fully developed by sometime in the late Miocene. The intensity of glaciation subsequently declined, with several fluctuations, during the Pliocene and the Quaternary to its present moderate to extensive state"

Reply to "loose collection of statements not directly supported by the sources." This page was written purposely to avoid violating the copy right of the cited references, hence all geological technical terms have been replaced with interchangeable terms, and direct supporting statements may not be obvious. Contents of the cited text are, however, fully expressed in the page. Futhermore, the page was written with Powerpoint style, only presenting concise essential information to convey the subject of the page.

Please don't hesitate to ask further questions for clarification. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 陳建民 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to suggestion of Redirect. The current page focuses on scientific results specifically the breakthough discoveries whereas the suggested redirect page presents limited or none at al the geogical results and accomplishments, just lists of operation data numbers. thank for consideration陳建民 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could certainly make a case for merging the properly verified content from the nominated article into the DSDP article. But there's no reason to have on article on the project, and another on its results. PianoDan (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "duplicate scope". Please note more than 90% of the current page content not covered in Deep Sea Drilling Project. If redirect, could those subjects be lost?陳建民 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this vote was changed from "Redirect" to "Merge" AFTER 陳建民 made their comment, so that should address the concern. PianoDan (talk) 19:48, 31 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. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying monkeys (popular psychology)[edit]

Flying monkeys (popular psychology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Five y/o stub that originally included four sources,[10][11] two of which aren't RS (Childress and Mayfield), another doubtful (Dodgson), and another of unclear relevance (Bowen). Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY: the Childress source referenced the Urban Dictionary, no new RS were found on Google Scholar, and only two were found on a "regular" search.[12][13] Note the article is linked by 59 pages excluding this discussion.[14] François Robere (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 30 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 Kaveri. Sandstein 09:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveri Crater[edit]

Kaveri Crater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing how this passes the WP:GNG. It has so far only received coverage in one 2017 paper than has zero citations, and 2019 article in The Hindu. No prejudice against later recreation if this later gets more substantial coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any traction in the geology community. The reports of breccias are suggestive, but in the absence of further corroborating findings, this does not merit its own article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 30 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. There obviously is no clear consensus either way, with good policy-based !votes on both sides. No prejudice to a renomination after, say, 6 months. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Tonti[edit]

Enzo Tonti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to be self-promotion of a non-notable academic. Although the citation count on Google Scholar is quite high, it's hard to ascertain what the quality of those citations are, or how germane his work is to the articles. Straight Google search for Tonti doesn't reveal much evidence of notability. Article for "Tonti Diagrams" was already deleted for being awful self promotion. (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tonti_diagram) Definitely has the aroma of WP:FRINGE although it may be notable fringe. PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am a PhD physicist, and no, I cannot translate that. PianoDan (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TNT and SPA are not policy based deletion reasons Atlantic306 (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A call for blowing up an article is grounded in policy when the reason to do so is that it is irreparably promotional, like the unclear-yet-grandiose claims which make up the majority of the content here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@DGG: is correct. Thaks for pointing out my error. GNG is indeed completely seperate to WP:PROF, which this does not also satisfy IMO. I do not see significant impact in this person's scholarly discipline, any significant awards, etc. Such-change47 (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. not meeting GNG is irrelevant; WP:PROF is an independent guideline, tho e people meet both. WP:PROf's basic requirement is influenti al in the field, and the extent to which one is cited is one of the measures of influence. I'm not voting! keep, because a highly promotional article is enough reason to delete. --it violates one of the basic policies at WP:NOT, Being free from self-advertising is much more important than just where we draw the boundary of notability. DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:51, 30 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. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amb Prayer Pemu[edit]

Amb Prayer Pemu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. It is sourced entirely to press statements. A BEFORE search brings up more press statements. Princess of Ara 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Press statements are neither independent nor reliable and cannot be used to assert notability.” No such statement was said at WP:GNG. Secondly I’m not a newcomer as you referred me for a better understanding. Have been here 5 years but not active, you have been here 10 months with nice articles created which is nice. Compliments to your contribution and happy Sunday. I might not be responding to your next reply due to my offline activities, I leave this section to other contributors --Gabriel601 (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Noticed the subject has a statewide appointment, which can be interpreted as meeting one of the criteria for NPOL. However, in practice, we don't automatically deem special assistants to governors in all countries as automatically notable, Wikipedia will be a mess if that was the case as most statewide special assistants have little or no reliable sources covering them (as the case in Nigeria). If you can establish that "Office of Special Assistant, Information, Culture and Tourism to Delta State Government" is a consistent and reputable office, I might change my !vote.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HandsomeBoy, there has been a consensus at AfD that state commissioners (who have a more established office) do not meet NPOL so their notability is assessed by GNG. I think the same should apply to special assistants. Princess of Ara 15:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a logical consensus that I definitely support when contextualized. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Subject is notable from Google search but needs enough improvement such as citations.--Tcgchv (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcgchv, subjects are only notable by evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and not by google hits. Princess of Ara 17:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Nothing looks notable here or satisfies Wikipedia's GNG or NPOL criteria, the only position he holds is the "Special Assistant" and this is a common appointment in Nigeria, many governors have hundreds of them. Governor DanKwanbo's 229 Special Assistants, Special Advisers Taraba State, Governor Ben Ayade's Special Advisers, Obaseki Appoints 72 other aides. User:Em-mustapha talk 03:04, 4 January 2022 (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 Troy, Michigan. Anyone is free to add any content to the target article if any. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 15:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Barnard[edit]

Norman Barnard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is not notable, and the source is not enough to show a hyper local politician is notable. Barnard was Township supervisor in a township that was on the verge of large scale growth and had seen some of its area annexed by the city immediately to its south. This was Troy, Michigan and Royal Oak, Michigan, but the year was 1956. The article seems to indicate Barnard did not hold a position in the new city government, or at least not mayor. He was later a probate judge, but that is not the level of judge, a county level judge dealing with estates and the lke, that is notable. Generally only appelate level judges at the state level are considered default notable. In 1960 Troy, Nichigan had a population of just under 20,000, being some raised well under a mile from the city boundary of Troy in the larger by population city of Sterling Heights, Michigan, and having read extensively on the history of Detroit, where I now live and work, and of metro-Detroit, it is clear that in 1956 Troy Township had a smaller population than Troy did in 1960. We are talking about actions in a place with under 20,000 people that was even then clearly within the Detroit Metro Area. There may be township supervisors that are notable, but we would need much more entensive coverage to show that. This article also suffers from about a third of it really being coatracking the history of the house Barnard lived in onto this article. If his house is notable, we should have an article on it, not coatrack the information onto a non-notable hyper local politician. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Deacy[edit]

Ed Deacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, mostly cited material in the article, he's has small parts and occasionally sings Yousef Raz (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of place names in Poland of German origin[edit]

List of place names in Poland of German origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I started this ages ago, and it is really poor. For One, it is poorly cited, so it is not known, for example, the true causality in some of these cases. Without proper sources, it’s not possible to know whether the Polish name actually predates the other, or whether both share a common separate source. Two, unless a similar article exists with Polish place names in Germany (to emphasize both countries intertwined cultural history), I am always worried (perhaps unreasonably so) that this will appeal to dumb irredentist passions. And that would be horrible. Three, all this info is just taken from random other articles, and is covered with German exonyms article.--Simen113 (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Simen113 (talk) 06:12, 30 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saulo Oliveira S.[edit]

Saulo Oliveira S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO. Musician, fails WP:CREATIVE and GNG. Draft declined five times at AfC before creator moved it to Mainspace. Many of the references are not Wikipedia reliable source (Soundcloud, Genius, own website, Spotify, IMDb...) Lead copied from his website. David notMD (talk) 05:19, 30 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. Sandstein 09:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by GDP (PPP) per capita[edit]

List of cities by GDP (PPP) per capita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is a nonsensical conflation of information. It appears at first glance to be a list of all cities over a certain GDP, ordered by GDP, but it is actually cherry-picked from data from individual countries that is not comparable. For example, for this list to be accurate, you would have to believe that there are zero cities in the U.S. with a GDP of over $7,000 but under $20,000 (which is nonsensical). You would similarly have to believe that 100% of the world's cities with a GDP between $7,000 and $15,000 are in either Mexico or Columbia. This list also conflates cities with counties (and, for some reason, the U.S. state of Oklahoma), which are different kinds of geographic entities. It engages in this conflation and misrepresentation of information because it relies on a single source, and draws inferences from that source that can not properly be drawn. The further down the list, the more problematic it becomes for this purpose. This could conceivably be kept if it were limited to some number reasonably susceptible to confirmation by a second source, such as the top 100 or even top 200, but as it stands it is an innacurate synthesis. BD2412 T 05:05, 30 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. Sandstein 09:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geire Kami[edit]

Geire Kami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be notable as a writer/playwright or actor, none of the theatre works or productions cited appear to be significant and the TV roles are uncredited or very minor. Winning a Australian Commercial Radio Award as a radio documentary maker doesn't seem enough for notability either. Boneymau (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason English[edit]

Jason English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Businessman BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- references are largely interview-based articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:56, 30 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. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Serhiyovych Vasylyev[edit]

Ihor Serhiyovych Vasylyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBIO. The references indicate that he contested an election and came 2nd with 14% of the vote. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Who are the Sidemen? How KSI and friends amassed 123 million followers". The Times. 23 October 2021. Archived from the original on 24 October 2021. Retrieved 24 October 2021.
  2. ^ "Електоральна пам'ять". ukr.vote (in Ukrainian). Retrieved 30 December 2021.
  • Thank you for doing this research, it is very helpful. I agree that this reference shows that WP:NPOL is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:19, 31 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 Freddie and the Dreamers. ✗plicit 03:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Quinn[edit]

Derek Quinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN musician, fails WP:CREATIVE and the GNG as a standalone article, and one of a number of articles about 1960s beat musicians (created by an editor who's been fighting redirects tooth and nail and without edit summaries) which are now up at AfD. Complete lack of significant coverage to the subject. Seeking a redirect to Freddie and the Dreamers, the notable group of which the subject was a member. Ravenswing 03:17, 30 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 Gerry and the Pacemakers. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Marsden[edit]

Freddie Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN musician, fails WP:CREATIVE and the GNG as a standalone article, and one of a number of articles about 1960s beat musicians (created by an editor who's been fighting redirects tooth and nail and without edit summaries) which are now up at AfD. Complete lack of significant coverage to the subject. Seeking a redirect to Gerry and the Pacemakers, the notable group of which the subject was a member. Ravenswing 03:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vydubychi railway station[edit]

Vydubychi railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vydubychi railway station

Railway station that does not satisfy general notability and so does not satisfy notability for geographic features, including artificial features that are infrastructure. The one reference states that the station exists, and that trains go through it. However, the guideline states that features related to infrastructure are notable based on general notability, and there is no independent significant coverage.

This article has been pushed back into draft space twice, by User:John B123 and User:Onel5969, and moved back to article space twice. Rather than move-warring, a deletion discussion is in order. If sources can be found within seven days that establish notability, then the station is notable; and if not, not. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 30 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 arguments of Soman regarding coverage and parliamentary representation were never refuted. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Workers Party (Peru)[edit]

Socialist Workers Party (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable organisation. Google searches in English and in Spanish (i.e. Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores Peru) return only primary source results or mentions in leftist blogs/magazines. Nearly no mentions by secondary or tertiary sources aside from mere mentions of its existence (i.e. Confirming the organisation's existence but making no claim to its significance). CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 30 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. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Yıldız (politician)[edit]

Mehmet Yıldız (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:22, 30 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 England–Wales border. I find Peter's contribution the most persuasive in a discussion filled with not-strongly-held positions. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Lost Lands[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Welsh Lost Lands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page seems to be nothing but original research, lacks any clarity both official and significance. Also appears to be another form of "Border wars" with Wales lost this to England while England gained from Wales affair. The article would be better off being deleted as there is nothing about Welsh Lost Lands...DragonofBatley (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kozma Kumani[edit]

Kozma Kumani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual and article likely created for vanity purposes. Only source that turns up on Google to validate this individual existed is already linked on the page, and its content fails to establish the subject's notability Jkaharper (talk) 00:53, 30 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.
More