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 he meets notability required for a politician. Admin Note unrelated to closing decision, AfD is not cleanup. The sources were identified prior to this discussion and could have been added as part of normal editorial process. Star Mississippi 15:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getachew Jigi Demeksa[edit]

Getachew Jigi Demeksa (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)

No reliable source and even citations referenced to the article. Unless citations are presented to support each statement of the article within this discussion, it can't be tolerated to keep as article. The Supermind (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add the sources identified in the first AFD. pburka (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN just add some citations Juggyevil (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Agreed and we are pretty darn close to consenus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Member of the Ethiopian Federal Parliament. I found this article that appears to show membership in Parliament - https://unpo.org/article/6579. --Enos733 (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing does not exist to build an article. Should someone want this for draft space work, just ping me. Star Mississippi 14:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Junkyard Dog (film)[edit]

Junkyard Dog (film) (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP: NFSOURCES; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I was optimistic when I found a review by HorrorNews.net, which is usable as a RS, but other than some brief mentions I'm not finding much else. I found an article on Shockya, but I'm not really comfortable keeping an article based on this. I'm going to hold off on arguing either way, in hopes that someone can find more coverage. You'd think that a film with Dourif would have gotten a bit more coverage from the horror outlets. He puts out a lot of stuff, but he's still a king of horror. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Its got Brad Dourif and Vivica Fox in it!... however, doesn't seem to be much RS establashing it as of note. Tricky. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:48, 8 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. Sandstein 20:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. N. Manickam[edit]

R. N. Manickam (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)

Biography of a senior police figure who had a long career with various posts. He doesn’t seem to have won any awards, held any clearly notable positions or otherwise done anything that would qualify him for inclusion. Mccapra (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• He was the first Principal Director of the Directorate General of Security (India), one of the four intelligence organisations of India, which is connected with the covert operations. In that capacity, he had headed the organisation under the general command of the chief of R&AW. In other words, he headed India's covert operations during that period. This included activities of ARC, SFF and SSB. Moreover, he had also headed the state police of Tamil Nadu (at that time, Inspector General was the top rank. Posts like DG and ADG were not yet created). A person who had headed a state force as well as a central force should be considered notable. As for his "doing anything", he had headed the ARC at the time of Bangladesh War, and ARC, being India's aerial and technical intelligence agency, was used in that war (ARC was split later to create the NTRO; but at that time, it was the only agency for technical intelligence). Mrparijat (talk) 06:11, 21 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) 22:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I'm unsure if WP:POLITICIAN covers appointees, but if so the ARC and DGS seems to be national-level offices of some importance. Sources may be available in an Indian language, but there aren't interwiki links to guess which one or how to search for it. Rusalkii (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The original objector had asked about awards. I did not initially know how to search for it. Sorry for that. Now I have found it and included in the article. The subject had received IPM (Indian Police Medal) twice, once for meritorious service and once for distinguished service. This is the second highest police medal of India, after the PPM. Both awards were received while he was in state service. In that Govt. site, searching is not possible for R&AW/DGS personnel, probably because of the covert nature of those organisations. For example 1 and 2, both PPM (Bangladesh Special Award) recipients while serving in DGS, cannot be found by searching in the list. The subject is likely to have received medals while in DGS, but I have not found a way for a suitable search. Mrparijat (talk) 10:49, 11 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bethea[edit]

Charles Bethea (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 article appears to be a violation of WP:NOTADVERT. The article creator, Fatima.Innovative has been involved in a UPE sockfarm, according to thier Sockpuppets Investigation archives. The awards present do not appear to be significant enough for WP:ANYBIO nor WP:NJOURNALIST. The sources also appear to easily fail WP:NBASIC and I cannot find sources online that indicate that this criteria is passed. Therefore, I believe the page should be deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we should demand better from paid editors than this. The Mirror Awards are actually a thing, and based on his resume I would not be surprised if there was enough coverage to justify an article. On the other hand, what we have here doesn't show it. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – this is basically a CV, with almost all sources being primary. I agree that he might be notable, but the article only shows a competent journalist doing his job. --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 10 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. Star Mississippi 16:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Martin (businessman)[edit]

Gilles Martin (businessman) (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 article was tagged as WP:G11. In looking at the article, I felt that the only real notability for Martin was his company. Being a billionaire in and of itself does not confer notability. So I redirected the article to the company, but the author reverted that, so here we are. Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The articles in Le Monde and several of the other sources are about Martin rather than his company, and are enough for notability.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not sure why the article was tagged as blatantly promotional. There aren't any specific notability standards delineated for entrepreneurs/businesspeople, so in all honesty, I presumed the subject would be notable on the grounds that they are one of the richest people in their country and the founder of quite an influential company. Not to mention the press coverage from a number of reliable sources... Mooonswimmer (talk)
• Keep Being billionaire is not a notability factor, but there are some good coverage here such as the ones in lesechos.fr, lemonde.fr and entreprendre.fr. Chelokabob (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, There is enough coverage and he is notable as the founder of the company.This article also exists in French Wikipedia. Alex-h (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems enough RS for him to be notable, including feature article in Le Monde. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: clearly notable...hard to see why this article was even tagged? - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:13, 11 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. Slightly early, but conensus is clear. Star Mississippi 16:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Trump[edit]

Kelly Trump (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)

Bild is not an rs per this RSN discussion. Otherwise inadequate sourcing that isn’t good enough for a blp. Fails gng ans pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable actress.TH1980 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG & WP:NACTORJuggyevil (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only notable porn star with the Trump stage name is Teanna Trump, and she's nowhere near having an article. I don't see how this Frau mit keine Quellen is any different. Trillfendi (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG and is not notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:17, 11 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyra Misoux[edit]

Tyra Misoux (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)

Lack of sources here is painful for a blp. Pornbio is no more as this article should be as there is a significant failure to meet the gng and ent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katja Kassin[edit]

Katja Kassin (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)

Porn biography that fails to meet the gng or ent. Pornbio has long been depreciated and the sourcing here is inadequate to meet the standard demanded for blps. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 4 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 and redirect to Strip Me?. RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slap that Naughty Body/My Fate[edit]

Slap that Naughty Body/My Fate (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 only has primary sources. I couldn't find anything through Google search that establishes notability per WP:NSONG. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG and NSONG. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Song released, with no evidence of notabilty. Fails GNG and NSONG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Strip Me?. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:07, 11 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 16:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Tunisia v Egypt football match[edit]

1977 Tunisia v Egypt football match (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)

From previous AfDs on football matches this year, we have a very high bar for notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bremer SV 0–12 FC Bayern Munich and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool F.C. 1–2 Grimsby Town F.C. (2001) for example. Yes, those matches had stats databases and basic match reports to verify them but there was no indication of historic significance, much like this match up for AfD today. There is no evidence of any WP:LASTING notability here or any WP:GEOSCOPE - was this match covered widely across the globe and is it continually revisited, even many decades later? I can't see anything to suggest this. I appreciate that this game led to Tunisia qualifying for their first World Cup but there is no notability guideline that means we need to keep an article just because it led to a team qualifying for a major tournament.

References fail to show significant coverage in line with WP:GNG and the topic is adequately covered in 1978 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF) and Egypt–Tunisia football rivalry among other places and there is no reason to have a WP:NOTSTATS-violating article on this match. I did do a quick WP:BEFORE search to see if I could find some detailed coverage of this game but it was just stats databases like the ones cited already. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unremarkable match with no lasting significance -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the author has spent a bit of time here putting the article together in good faith, which is a shame for them but it is ultimately not a notable match. The only claim of significance is that it was the match which secured Tunisia's place in the world cup for the first time ever, but as we know, notability is not inherited. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per above, the match is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. I agree with Bungle. Mommmyy (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is against keeping this as a separate article. There is also no consensus for merging, but a brief entry in Hypothetical astronomical object could be easily created from available sources if anybody is so inclined. Sandstein 09:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hycean planet[edit]

Hycean planet (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)

Fsils WP:NEO, based a single paper in The Astrophysical Journal published in August 2021. All pop-sci coverage, such as the other two references in this article, is about the same study. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not every scientific paper deserves an article here, even if it makes a transitory splash in the pop-science media. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hypothetical_astronomical_object#Hypothetical_planet_types. Not enough coverage/research for a stand-alone article. There are other "hypothetical planets" which should also be on the merge target but not a stand-alone article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems too early to consider deleting the "Hycean planet" article - would expect the article to be even more worthy - and more useful - when the "James Webb Space Telescope" (or related) is fully deployed - and begins observations and analysis of exoplanets - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That is, in itself, a violation of WP:TOOSOON. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No - the "Hycean planet" article doesn't seem to be any more of a violation of "WP:TOOSOON" than many other hypothetical exoplanets having standalone articles - and similarly hypothetical exoplanets as far as I can see - including those listed in "Hypothetical astronomical object#Hypothetical planet types", such as => "Blanet", "Carbon planet", "Chthonian planet", "Coreless planet", "Desert planet", "Eyeball planet", "Helium planet", "Iron planet", "Ocean world", "Ploonet", "Superhabitable planet" and others - seems the "Hycean planet" article may be as worthy - if not moreso - than these other standalone articles of hypothetical exoplanets - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't judge notability based on sources that might exist in the future, but on those that exist now. And that list of other hypothetical planet types is a textbook example of an argument to avoid. Sometimes pages exist that shouldn't, just because nobody has noticed and taken the time to start a deletion discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough reliable coverage to make the particular neologism notable or to write a detailed article. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 21:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hypothetical_astronomical_object#Hypothetical_planet_types per 力. The references are based on press releases by the authors of academic journal article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. No evidence of sustained notability yet. PianoDan (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an example of WP:TOOSOON since the concept has just appeared in one scientific paper earlier this year. Could be notable in the future if other research groups follow up and continue to use this term. Aldebarium (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all standalone articles on hypothetical planet types as indicative of current research trends in exoplanetology, which our readers come looking for in this encyclopedia. This is a subject of intense research and has significant secondary source coverage in the popular media that meets our minimum standards for inclusion. WP:NEO does not apply at all, so the argument and rationale for deletion is unjustified. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 12 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. Snowing, despite 60 degree temps in NYC today. Star Mississippi 16:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lux girls in Pakistan[edit]

List of Lux girls in Pakistan (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)

We don't -- and shouldn't -- have an article on Lux girls. We certainly shouldn't have one for Lux Girls in Pakistan or any other country. The references are the expected tabloid coverage DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List that may have serious BLP violations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons outlined by DGG, especially considering parent articles do not exist and there is no expectation of their existence occurring. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all the reasons listed above.TH1980 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete if something is spun off from a nonexistent spin-off of a nonexistent article that then it’s inherently not notable. Dronebogus (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Completely non-notable list about a non-notable "status". This list is barely a step above "McDonalds' Employees of the Month at Franchise #391". Fieari (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:50, 11 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 17:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aluko & Oyebode[edit]

Aluko & Oyebode (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)

promotional article by obvious undeclared coi editor (presumably paid) for the firm. It's a routine lawfirm, and most of the work shown here is just "advised so and so," not notable cases. Almost all the references are from the firm's web site, or are case reports, or mere notices. Part of a promotional effort for one of the firm's principals, see next AfD request. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, not even close. All of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per rationale by DGG and HighKing. Furthermore, the organization is subtly promotional, has 0 encyclopedic value (I’m big on [encyclopedic value]) & to sum it up, the supermajority of the sources used are sub par, so in all, this simply isn’t mainspace worthy. Celestina007 (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG and HighKing ,fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:51, 11 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 all to Polygon#Naming. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tetracontaoctagon[edit]

Tetracontaoctagon (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)

Many of these polygons are not notable enough to have their own page. The reliable source coverage is basically a row in each of two or three tables; there is nowhere near significant coverage. The content of these pages is essentially all a massive megafork of content that is either already at Dihedral group or Petrie polygon, etc., or can be added to an appropriate page. It is completely unnecessary for it to be split out with these formulaic details for every possible number of sides. The dissections are beautiful but WP:NOTGALLERY and we can put some of them at Zonogon. Suggest Redirect to Polygon#naming.

Batch nomination, picking out the most egregious examples with no independent content. In case you don't like deciphering prefixes, these are 48 (main), and 50, 64, 70, 80, 90, 96:

Pentacontagon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hexacontatetragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Heptacontagon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Octacontagon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Enneacontagon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Enneacontahexagon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Danstronger (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the above comments and suggestion by Danstronger.---Ehrenkater (talk) 18:26, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. I'm an inclusionist in general. While I'd worry about articles for say all polygon 3-100 sides, but sampling a few like these seem fine and good. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the most literal WP:ILIKEIT I've seen in a while. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all per nomination. Among all of the nominated articles, there is no information that is not of the form "here is a general rule about a certain class of polygons, instantiated at the particular number of sides of the polygon". So we have seven different sections about tilings of regular polygons, but they are all just particular cases of a single general rule; seven different sections about constructability of regular polygons, but they are all just particular cases of a single general rule; etc. And the general rules are covered in articles like dihedral group, constructible polygon, etc., as they should be. Moreover, I see no reason to believe that this sad state is an oversight: check out the amazing external link Weisstein, Eric W. "Pentacontagon". MathWorld. for example. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect all, more or less per the same principle described in Wikipedia:Notability (numbers): none of these has multiple "unrelated interesting mathematical properties" specific to that shape and not to other polygons with different numbers of sides. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, many references appear to be falsified or puffed up to look like they say something about these specific topics when they do not. E.g. in heptacontagon, nominated version:
    • Reference [1] is used to claim that an alternative name is used, "hebdomecontagon", coming from a Greek word for 70. The source includes the word for 70 but not the name for the shape.
    • References [2] and [3] include this shape only as a single line stating its name and that it is a polygon with 70 sides. The same is true for the three unnumbered links given as references in a bulleted list in the references section.
    • Reference [4] is used to claim that the 70-gon has no compass-and straightedge construction. It is a MathWorld link that does not mention the number 70 and does not even include the standard factorization formula from which the lack of a construction can be calculated.
    • Reference [5] is used to claim that a construction using a trisector is possible. It is a badly-formatted web link with a generic title pointing to what appears to be an undergraduate essay, not a reliable source. The 70-gon occurs only as a colored number in a table on page 25.
    • Reference [6] is a badly-formatted reference to an entire chapter of a book, used to source certain notation for the subgroups of the order-140 dihedral group. That book is infamous for its neologisms (see our article on it) and that chapter is mostly about Schläfli symbols of polyhedra, not notation for dihedral subgroups. It has a similar notation for symmetry classes of polygons on page 276, and a vague remark that this can be reinterpreted as describing dihedral subgroups on page 277. Needless to say, none of this mentions the 70-gon or sources the specific subgroup lattice depicted or its subgroup names.
    • Reference [7] is another badly-formatted book reference, sourcing the statement that zonogons can be dissected into a certain number of parallelograms. Which is true and, for once, validly sourced, but has nothing specific to 70-gons and nothing about the specific dissection patterns shown here.

  So we have nothing resembling the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources for these specific topics, as would be needed to pass WP:GNG, and no sources at all for most of the claims in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Very helpful breakdown — thanks! And this is why it helps to have articles about math books! :-) XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to Polygon#Naming. Basically, these articles have big blocks of notation that is either obscure if the reader hasn't seen it or easily deducible from the polygon's name if they have. A few remarks about constructibility can be condensed and merged into the table at Polygon#Naming. At some point, fragmenting information across articles makes it less useful; we shouldn't indulge in poor organization of our mathematics content just so we can boast of a larger page tally. XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to Polygon#Naming per XOR. WikiJoeB (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have created a second batch at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Icosidigon Danstronger (talk) 00:52, 6 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 NFL playoffs#NFL playoff appearances. Sandstein 08:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of current National Football League consecutive playoff appearances[edit]

List of current National Football League consecutive playoff appearances (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)

A content-fork of List of NFL franchise post-season streaks - a blank-and-redirect was reverted. There is some other trivia here (each team's longest ever streak of consecutive 7-win seasons) - I don't think that needs to be on the encyclopedia at all, but it certainly shouldn't be on this page. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LISTN but trim the page down to only playoff appearances only. There is a lot of fluff in this article that needs to be split out. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Merge per Paul Macdonald. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 23:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete interesting info, and the work shows a good deal of thought and effort. However... because the list is based on the "current" status, that seems to be more "newsy" and less "encyclopedia-ey" to me. If we were talking about all time playoff appearances (such as NFL playoffs#NFL playoff appearances) that would be different in my eyes. But a "current" appearance will likely change every season. The page has some significant development to it which would require upkeep every year... forever. Therefore, I'm going with WP:NOTNEWS or even ignore all rules because deletion of this article will make wikipedia better. It is my hope that enthusiastic supporters of this article will try another wiki that might be more suitable for this type of information. I respect the work and like the idea, I just think it would have a better home someplace else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into NFL playoffs. Agreed with Paulmcdonald that this is interesting and this info could provide additional context to the NFL playoffs article. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge to List of NFL franchise post-season streaks, unnecessary content fork. Reywas92^Talk 14:42, 6 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. Whether to merge or redirect this somewhere has no consensus here and would need a more in-depth discussion, as it seems to be controversial. Sandstein 20:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kylemore railway station[edit]

Kylemore 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)

Proposed/non-existent railway station. Subject doesn't exist and may never exist. The subject has never been the topic of any significant coverage. The sources which support the text (and the only sources I can find after significant searches) include this PowerPoint presentation (where the text reads "Potential Station at Kylemore" and nothing else), this politician's press release (where again we have four words "new station at Kylemore"), this news story (again where the subject is barely mentioned in passing), and this webpage/article (where the subject is discussed in a little more depth, but mainly/only to confirm that the subject does not exist beyond a notional concept and is not planned or funded as part of ANY transport dev project). The subject falls well below any reasonable WP:SIGCOV threshold. In a "flip" of the WP:EXIST essay, the scant sources just confirm that the subject DOESN'T exist. And do not support notability. Guliolopez (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to Dublin Suburban Rail#South Western Commuter which is the line the proposed station would be on. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There should not be articles on proposed things which will probably never happen. Spleodrach (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Probably TOOSOON until a brick gets laid. It general there's a lot of issues with Irish rail articles with WP:CRYSTAL, with speculative ideas given too much weight per UNDUE. While there might be a case for mentioning elsewhere it would be UNDUE Dublin Suburban Rail#South Western Commuter as it stands at the moment. There not fundamnetallly an issue with it being mentioned somewhere but usually the result in WP:UNDUE. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a section of the system or line article about proposed stations. It doesn't seem notable enough for a standalone article, but there is sufficient encyclopaedic information that mention is very much DUE somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general I've no real objection to the content existing on something like 21st Century rail infrastructure proposals in Ireland or similar. As soon as the redirect exists it will probably be abused onto route maps. But such at article likely WikiProject level discussions. I don't have bandwidth to do it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:11, 5 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) 20:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akdemir Udenta[edit]

Akdemir Udenta (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 translator not coming close to meeting WP:GNG. Surprised this is here since 2008. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources, the german wikipedia page is also woefully referenced. Mujinga (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Udenta's notability cannot be proven by independent and reliable sources.--Kadıköylü (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHORPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:54, 11 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) 20:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Watch[edit]

Dog Watch (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What was I thinking here?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the only mentions I can see are from television showings in tv guides (also it seems the creator Vchimpanzee, as above, questions its existence now too?) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No RS, and article creator seems to be re-considering! Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFO .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:58, 11 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) 20:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Coelho de Souza[edit]

Joao Coelho de Souza (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 has been draftified twice 1 2, which makes this the third time the article has been created. As AfD is the listed method of dispute resolution over draftification (WP:DRAFTOBJECT), I am listing it here – this seems to still be unfit for mainspace. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No WP:V whatsoever. Doesn't meet WP:MINIMUM. Also, the creator contributions rise some red flags. They created several one-line unsourced article. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 01:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melting Pot (film)[edit]

Melting Pot (film) (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:SOURCES. I found this link from Variety on my WP:BEFORE search. It needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a search under both titles found only the Variety review and no other sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep per the sources found by Geschichte. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Variety review, Chicago Tribune review and Los Angeles Times review (newsp.com version) There is also a review here which I don't know if is RS, maybe not. Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw this nomination per WP:NEXIST since there are reviews from Variety, the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times. The Film Creator (talk) 14:07, 5 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) 20:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrem Corredor[edit]

Aldrem Corredor (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 baseball player. Fbdave (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Text can always be fished out of the archives on the off chance he achieves notability. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:04, 11 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) 20:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rockin' Romance[edit]

Rockin' Romance (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 compilation album by a non-notable record label. Fails NALBUM, no significant coverage or other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no coverage. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:06, 11 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 Toys "R" Us#Mascot. RL0919 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey the Giraffe[edit]

Geoffrey the Giraffe (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)

Reviewed as a part of New Page patrol. No indication of wp:notability for a stand-alone article. No wp:notabiliy- suitable sources (actually there are no sources at all) I would have just converted to a redirect but it looks like this has already been done many times before. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - restore redirect to Toys "R" Us#Mascot, as ATD. But this keeps getting recreated, so an AfD discussion is warranted. While this is a recognizable advert for those of a certain age in the U.S., there is clearly a dearth of in-depth coverage of this subject so as to establish GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have corrected the formatting of this discussion. Important features were not included. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf: Thanks. The page curation tool didn't work and I created it manually. North8000 (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - redirect to Toys "R" Us#Mascot - no RS in this article at all, nothing to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Semi-Protect to prevent further revert warring. PianoDan (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I noted with the OP, this has been converted back from a redirect to an article several times. I think that having made a trip to AFD and a clear finding that it should not be a separate article (which "convert to redirect" is) will help solidify this for the future. I'd put a note in the article's talk page noting that such has occurred. All that is needed is a clear cut close to that effect which is where I think this is wp:snow headed. 23:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect(restore). Some mascots are notable but whether this one is or not doesn't change the fact that the article fails WP:V. The creator is welcome to try again - but they should not publish unreferenced stubs and then go away. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, but first let this run. If a clear consensus (again) emerges for a redirect, protect it to discourage recreation. Geoffrey was notable as it relates to TRU, and I'm definitely a Toys R US kid, but not independently so. Star Mississippi 19:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is she's not yet notable. I will draftify at the suggestion of LiAnna_(Wiki_Ed) as there's no reason not to. Star Mississippi 14:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Yesenia Alvarado[edit]

Diana Yesenia Alvarado (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 sculptures. The best press mention for her is this NYT article, but it is a trivial mention. Bbarmadillo (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was created as a student assignment. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LiAnna (Wiki Ed): as the associated WikiEd expert who may want to comment. PamD 10:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the ping, PamD. I agree this one isn't ready for mainspace yet; our preference is to move it to Draft space for someone else to work on in the future when the artist has more work covered in reliable sources. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's WP:TOOSOON. Alvarado's most notable career accomplishment so far is probably the inclusion in the group show Shattered Glass at Jeffrey Deitch, but even Deitch notes that this is a show of emerging artists. Let's give artists enough time to create a body of work before we create articles about them. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Significant coverage in reliable sources is missing - both in the article and via a BEFORE search. Therefore this BLP on an emerging sculptor does not meet WP criteria for GNG at this time. Also does not meet the NARTIST notability requirements either, perhaps in a few more years after this artist has had more exhibitions, reviews, awards, etc. I always find it a little sad when student editors' contributions are deleted, however WP has guidelines for notability that must be followed in any case. Netherzone (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does seem like WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article is not notable and reliable sources are missing, based in WP:TOOSOON.

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 keep as satisfies WP:NPOL as a state representative. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asrat Atsedeweyn[edit]

Asrat Atsedeweyn (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 Ethiopian academic. I failed to find high quality press mentions at reliable sources for him. Bbarmadillo (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• tentative Keep. He's notable not as an academic, but under WP:POLITICAN. "he ran for a parliamentary seat in the Amhara State House of Peoples and Representatives and won a seat in the state legislature. He currently represents the Samada district which is found in the Southern Gondar Zone in the Amhara region where he is a State Representative." It helps to read the entire article before judging. But we need a good reference for that, which is easy in most places, tho I'm not sure here. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:PROF as the president of University of Gondar and likely WP:POLITICIAN as an elected state representative. The article is lacking citations but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. TJMSmith (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Elected Ethiopian politician in 2021. Official result at here, link from official site is this under Amhara Region section, under RC. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. President of a university and an elected politician, from an area of the world where we expect bias in source availability to those of us searching online and in English. Yes, as above it could use more sources. Perhaps next time the newer editor who created the article, who's shown interest in an underrepresented topic area, and who's so far gotten mostly complaints on their talk page, could be invited to provide more. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep President of a university and a Elected Ethiopian politician.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:17, 6 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 20:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bourque[edit]

Joseph Bourque (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)

Biography of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, this was created at a time when our inclusion criteria for mayors was "inherently notable if the city has crossed the 50K bar in population", but that was deprecated several years ago -- in 2021, the notability bar for mayors requires a substantial and well-sourced article that establishes the significance of their mayoralty by addressing specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects they had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just documents that he existed as mayor, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, which is exactly the kind of article about a mayor that caused us to deprecate the old "50K = free pass" standard. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the referencing from having to be considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with nominator; a BEFORE didn't bring up anything of note. There are mentions in Ottawa newspapers, but they're just that: mentions. He had a few paragraphs about his funeral in a newspaper (available here), but that's not enough. --Kbabej (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Might be hard to find any news articles from back then, so maybe the requirements should be less stricter on this one. Jaxarnolds (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of newspaper articles this far back definitely do exist and are accessible to Wikipedians, so mayors from this era aren't exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because it might take a little bit more work to find sources than it would for the current incumbent. Either enough sourcing is shown to exist, or the article goes away, period. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it'll be hard to find a lot of links or sources related to him. But I agree with "Bearcat" and there should be some relevant/reliable sources available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.137.11 (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG, per Bearcat. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 12 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) 07:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SRP International Stadium[edit]

SRP International Stadium (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 due to lack of depth in coverage. It is a privately owned stadium owned by a legislator. It is a commercial org too. All stadiums are companies too. Venkat TL (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ground hasn't played host to major matches. StickyWicket (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and StickyWicket, not really seeing a suitable WP:ATD either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Per nom and StickyWicket. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not enough citations or other news in Google to meet notability. Chelokabob (talk) 09:13, 6 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nombulelo Mhlongo[edit]

Nombulelo Mhlongo (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)

extensive promotional articles, as typical for performers--even minor performers like her, with no major roles to her credit and no awards. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Don't really know about the credibility of Scream Awards 1, but she seem to have had significant roles in two national television series despite being a plus-sized celebrity 2, 3, 4, 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeBoy (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear based on that link if it's the same as Scream Awards. = paul2520 💬 18:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same. Link says this is the "Sophomore edition" (which means second edition). Scream Awards has been existing longer than that. I don't know if they are from the same organization though as this is primarily for Africa. If this article does not survive AFD, I think it should at least be draftified, I see prospects in the coming months. HandsomeBoy (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 4 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Everett Graham[edit]

Charles Everett Graham (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)

Biography of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, this was created at a time when our inclusion criteria for mayors was "inherently notable if the city has crossed the 50K bar in population", but that was deprecated several years ago -- in 2021, the notability bar for mayors requires a substantial and well-sourced article that establishes the significance of their mayoralty by addressing specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects they had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just documents that he existed as mayor, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, which is exactly the kind of article about a mayor that caused us to deprecate the old "50K = free pass" standard. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the referencing from having to be considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Might be hard to find any news articles from back then, so maybe the requirements should be less stricter on this one.Jaxarnolds (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of newspaper articles this far back definitely do exist and are accessible to Wikipedians, so mayors from this era aren't exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because it might take a little bit more work to find sources than it would for the current incumbent. Either enough sourcing is shown to exist, or the article goes away, period. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Cut and paste nomination with precisely same text as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry, nominated for deletion 41 seconds later; it's not unreasonable to consider a significant lack of BEFORE here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One is perfectly capable of finding a closely related cluster of articles that all suffer from similar quality issues, doing the before work on all of them in one shot since one would have to look in the same places anyway, and then doing the nominations all in one shot after failing to find any sources that would have made a meaningful difference. In other words, it is entirely possible to go "refcheck refcheck refcheck refcheck, nom nom nom nom" instead of "refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom, refcheck nom". So no, you're not getting a "nominator did not do due diligence" argument to stick to me, of all people. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this cut and paste already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Stanislas Aubry; despite the assertion, there is no attempt to do anything personal here, I'm simply noting that the nomination contains no evidence of a *complete* BEFORE process. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No part of the Wikipedia process requires every AFD nomination to contain a painstakingly detailed list of every individual research step they took to determine whether better sourcing could be found to salvage the article with. Nomination statements are supposed to be as brief as feasibly possible while still covering the major points that need to be considered, not Russian novels. If Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau, who very obviously have strong sources out there, somehow had Wikipedia articles that weren't actually citing any of them, and thus somebody nominated them for deletion on the grounds of failing WP:GNG, then there would obviously be a credible argument that the nominator clearly hadn't even attempted to do any WP:BEFORE work — but AFD nominations are not required to contain comprehensive bulletpointed lists of every individual research database the nominator checked, so on a topic like this your grounds for a "nominator didn't do any BEFORE" argument would be "I did my own research and look at all these solid sources I found", not "nominator didn't explicitly document every individual research step they took". Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unreasonable to expect a nominator in a case like this to have conducted a search through a newspaper archive and reported the, presumed, lack of results; comparing this to a Russian novel is hyperbole. Instructing others, as above in the response to Jaxarnolds, to do something which is part of the BEFORE process again reinforces a sense that a considered, complete nomination is absent in this case. I'll say no more other than to indicate that I have no doubt your efforts here are in good faith. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 4 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. Limited participation and no agreement. Note that WP:G12 could still be pursued if copyright violations are proved. RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu-vidya[edit]

Madhu-vidya (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 fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent mainstream media. Given sources only give passing mentions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Feuerstein, in In Search of the Cradle of Civilization: New Light on Ancient India (ISBN 8120816269), says "One of the most famous doctrines of the Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad (II.5) is the 'honey-dew' doctrine (madhu-vidya), according to which...". So at least one author considers this notable in an out-of-universe sense. SpinningSpark 08:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Feuerstein, Subhash Kak, David Frawley In Search of the Cradle of Civilization: New Light on Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. 1999., is the book you are referring to. It is a publisher of fringe theory books and considered unreliable. All these three authors, are authors of Fringe theories, and hence very much in-universe of fringe theory and pseudoscience. I note that both Subhash Kak and David Frawley are considered unreliable and should not be used to source anything on Wikipedia. (Is this why their names were left out in your comment?). Venkat TL (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: A copyright violation investigation has been launched on the articles by the creator at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20211117 and the creator has now been blocked. Venkat TL (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The Implications section is directly lifted from a 2004 book. With author's history, it's heavily likely that the rest of the article is also a collection of sentences from different books (no one else has added content since creation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanthah (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walkiria Espino[edit]

Walkiria Espino (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 topic of this article Fails wikipedia Notability , there is NO evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions Samat lib (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This musician doesn't appear to meet any WP:SINGER criteria. Existing references in the article (as well as the article on Spanish Wikipedia, which is also being considered for deletion) are all trivial. A quick web search also doesn't turn up with anything significant. Shells-shells (talk) 08:12, 5 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 20:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amherst Media[edit]

Amherst Media (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:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Lists it's facebook page as a source. Reads like a corporate blurb. Kleuske (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Eeep. As a resident of the area, I can attest that this is nothing more than the outfit that runs the community access channels for the town's cable TV. Since damn near every local cable system in America has a community access channel (and some bunch of local volunteers to run it), I wouldn't even consider this a candidate for merging into the Amherst, Massachusetts article: this is no more noteworthy than that Amherst has a senior center and a Department of Public Works, neither of which have standalone articles. Ravenswing 13:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - At least online, Amherst Media has only two brief references in regional news outlets: [1] [2]. Also, of the three citations currently listed on the page, two of them are links to Amherst Media's own pages, and the third has been a dead link since at least February 2016. I don't see how this is notable at all. Shells-shells (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this meets GNG, with persistent extensive coverage from the Daily Hampshire Gazette e.g. ^[1][2] and some coverage elsewhere e.g. ^[3]. The local nature of the coverage is the only thing counting against WP:NCORP, but I'm inclined to lean on the side of inclusion for media outlets given the usefulness of being able to link them in sources. Has a history of the town of Amherst been written since 1995, and if so does it mention Amherst Media? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I cut the advertorial bits out, which hopefully makes this a little easier to evaluate as a without being negatively prejudiced by puffy sentences about how "amazing" their programming is. I'm surprised by the argument that it's no more noteworthy than a senior centre (I guess that's "media bias" for you), but I don't have sources to add. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be glib, but the Amherst Senior Center (not to be confused with the Amherst Center for Extended Care) seems to have about as much documentation as Amherst Media, if not more: see [3][4][5], for example. :P Shells-shells (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 4 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) 07:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enllelbert González[edit]

Enllelbert González (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The claim to notability seems to be playing in the CONCACAF Champions League, but neither this or anything else meets NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NFOOTY and GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Looks to have had some WP:ROUTINE coverage regarding his coaching career here, here, and here, but nothing that would warrant a stand-alone article. GauchoDude (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the only reason I removed the PROD was because it had been dePRODed before. I found nothing better than what GauchoDude found so it's a GNG fail as far as I can see Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 7 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 11:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Davis (sportscaster)[edit]

Tom Davis (sportscaster) (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'm not seeing much in the way of independent sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 4 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 11:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Smbatyan[edit]

Sergey Smbatyan (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)

No indication of notability per WP:BASIC or WP:NMUSIC. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK concerns. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:26, 10 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 subject is notable and there's sourcing well beyond the needs of BLP. Copyvio, if proven to be present, can be dealt with editorially/via rev del. Star Mississippi 15:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Harris[edit]

David E. Harris (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)

Copyvio - Earwig reports copyvio from 4 sources. Page creator blocked indef for extensive and repeated copyright violations. Page is not likely to get repaired. Whiteguru (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke it and start over. Deletion is not cleanup; if it's "unlikely to be repaired", then do it yourself. wizzito | say hello! 23:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The copyvio issue (which really belongs at WP:CP) doesn't seem supported by any evidence: the passages flagged by Earwig's tool are just quotes and common phrases. Any remaining issues can be dealt with through the ordinary editing process. Especially since notability hasn't been contested here (nor could it be: Harris, one of the first black commercial pilots in the U.S., has received plenty of reliable-source coverage, e.g. [6][7], various books at [8], and other likely offline sources), I don't think deletion is either necessary or appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is warranted for Harris, and there is plenty of RS. If you are unhappy with the layout, or think its too close to another page, please change it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- Ok, as there is a comment here about the article not likely to be repaired, but its presence is otherwise warranted, I've gone through and changed the grammar so it is paraphrased from the original...that should deal with the copyvio issue. If anyone claims it is still an issue, I'd like them to demonstrate that - thanksDeathlibrarian (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The first African American airline pilot is certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 8 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 11:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MyDraw[edit]

MyDraw (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 meet software notability guidelines. Couldn't find multiple reliable third-party sources on the topic -- it's mostly user-submitted reviews or brief mentions. Citing (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources do not establish notability, just the usual indiscriminate download portals. MrOllie (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE per nomination - no proof of notability. A bit of googling around also fails to establish its notability. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I was able to find a product review by Venturebeat, which is considered a reliable source. It has also received coverage from a Polish news source and is the subject of this research study. The software has also been included in several manuals: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. This passes WP:NSOFT. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC) I change my vote to Delete Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The venture beat review is tagged 'sponsored deals', that is a paid advertisement. Your 'manuals' are just search results that include the word 'MyDraw' in source code and the like and are not related to the topic of this article. I can't read the Polish or the Chinese source, but I'm not optimistic based on the other stuff you have linked here. MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:45, 4 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 are some valid concerns raised about inclusion and naming, but there is no conensus to delete this list. Equally, there isn't a strong consensus present to keep the material, however a no consensus defaults to the content being kept. Star Mississippi 16:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fellows of IEEE Power & Energy Society[edit]

List of fellows of IEEE Power & Energy Society (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)

A list of one entry is not a list, this list article seems pointless, wikipedia is not a directory. Article fails WP:NLIST. Govvy (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Expanded list of IEEE fellows (added 20 out of 572) of the society. Noted all entries passes WP:NACADEMIC point 3 which will passes WP:NLIST. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question @Justanothersgwikieditor: NACADEMIC is a personal criteria for each person, how is that verifiable in a list when none of these people have an article. This is highly suspect keep vote if you ask me! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: Does an article makes a person notable or a notable person makes an article? If the article does not exist, does it make the people less notable (by wiki standards)? The reasoning here is that every academic in this currently small list is notable based on NACADEMIC point 3. The reference for each and single academic's notability is in the single source in the list article. Since notability of each entry is established, this is a list of notable academics which passes NLIST of a notable group. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Justanothersgwikieditor: My other concern is that the article is just a mirror directory of the website used as the source. And we clearly have WP:NOTDIR. Govvy (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: If you look at WP:NOTDIR, this list actually does not falls within the 7 points. While it may looks like a mirror directory, looking at wikipedia without comparing to other websites, it is just another list article listing notable academics within a particular society of an association. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep People on the list will either have articles or deserve them, and the criterion for inclusion in this list is absolutely unambiguous, so the list as a whole is fine. (Some of the other pages in Category:Lists of IEEE fellows have more bluelinks; the only trouble with this page is that it could stand to have more of them, and that's very fixable.) WP:NOTDIR is not applicable; this isn't the kind of "directory" described there. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMIRROR. If completed, this list will pretty much just be a replica of the IEEE site which, aside from the risk of being a copyright violation, is not what Wikipedia is for. The information is already available online and is not encyclopaedic. The category is sufficient for navigational purposes. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but correct the name to something like List of IEEE fellows (Power & Energy Society). These people are not fellows of the IEEE Power & Energy Society, they are fellows of the IEEE who also belong to the a particular society within the IEEE. The individual societies have committees which evaluate members for fellowship, but the the elevation to fellow is done by a committee of the IEEE itself. We have dozens of lists like this in Category:Lists of members of learned societies. A decision not to have lists like this would need a centrally advertised RfC rather than a discussion at AfD. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Good points. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are something like 6500 IEEE fellows currently, and that number grows substantially every year. Even split 40 ways, these lists are long and don't feel like a particularly defining attribute. If they are a useful as a directory of redlinks of notable academics, they can be kept in project space. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are nine on the list that have their own articles. Doesn't matter though, this is notable achievement in their field, so the list is valid. Category:Lists of members of learned societies show how common these lists are. If you don't think any of them should exist, start a discussion somewhere to gain proper community consensus. Dream Focus 07:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NLIST. Looks like everyone on the list passes WP:NACADEMIC notability. I see a few in that list that should have articles written about them! DavidDelaune (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks independent WP:RS supporting that the topic meets WP:NLIST. Also, notability is inherited from Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:04, 9 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaak Hayik[edit]

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. A clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. BlameRuiner (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets GNG with sources provided. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to F.C. Ironi Or Yehuda - subject notable enough to be included in that article but does not deserve seperate article - WP:ONEEVENT. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to his club. The sources provided very clearly fails WP:ONEEVENT in my opinion, which is the case for most Guinness World Record breakers throughout the world. The article also falsely claims him to be a professional player; the club sits on a fairly low level. It's a possible search term though, hence the merge. Geschichte (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Has significant coverage, not just for football but also his notable stage business. Free1Soul (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets GNG with sources provided. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This account has been blocked as a sock of NoCal100. JoelleJay (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. GiantSnowman 13:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 5 keeps claiming gng is met, four delete / merges on the grounds that whilst he has clearly received widespread coverage internationally for being the oldest player the is a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Need a clearer consensus, would be useful to provide sources for the claim that he has also received coverage for his "notable stage business".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BLP1E (or is it BIO1E). This isn't an article about a person, it is an article about a publicity stunt by the folks at Guinness. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a reason we have BLP1E; there is nothing to suggest coverage will extend beyond this one promotional event. JoelleJay (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, per Gidonb's sources, which maybe show SIGCOV but are hard to assess for notability purposes since they're in Hebrew newspaper archives. If kept, the article should be refocused on his writing career. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Isreal National News calls his stage firm "Hayik Bamot, a veteran stage props firm that is one of the best known names in the field" and is one of the leading firms in its field in Isreal.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to F.C. Ironi Or Yehuda - This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT.--Aervanath (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a notable Israeli businessman, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS are extremely irrelevant to this entry. Still, it takes more for an article to be kept. Sufficient content is also needed to fence off a merge. Hayik passes this hurdle as well, although this one is a somewhat closer call. It is sad that the delete supporters chose concentrate on the gimmick, instead of on the essence. Inclusion in the Guiness Book of Records is nice but there is so much more to Hayik's biography and coverage than WP:ONEEVENT. Frankly, all opinions focusing on 1E should be discounted for a lack of depth and research. gidonb (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  How does being an Israeli businessperson exempt someone from BLP1E concerns? What continued coverage are you basing this on? JoelleJay (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also passes WP:NCREATIVE. Coverage is significant and continuous since 1970 at least, i.e. spanning more than 50 years.[14] Delete and merge opinions in this discussion should not be considered for the obvious weakness of their research. I expanded the article a bit. With 50+ years in-depth coverage, more could be written about this author, illustrator, and businessman who can also catch a ball. gidonb (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing Hebrew, I have to use Google to translate the text from the one article you link, but the output suffers from a lot of formatting issues and so looks like gibberish. Can you clarify what the content is? And you assert "coverage is significant and continuous" but only provide one supporting reference that is of undetermined significance, so your smear against other !voters is totally unjustified. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a biography of the author and a discussion of his books. If you click on this link, sources 3, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 18 are about our Isaac Hayik. Some ads as well (not included in my extraction) and 4 was excluded as a maybe. There are more references of all times in the hewiki article. I'm not going to get into who smears who with you. It's not my thing. gidonb (talk) 18:49, 10 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolmaster[edit]

Schoolmaster (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 is, and really always should be, a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Qwirkle (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nom. This is a redundant term, and fails GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The crunch question is notability, and I do not see any problem with WP:N, as three books are named on the page which are devoted to the topic and there are many more reliable sources to be found. On being *redundant*, the term is not that, as it is both significant in the history of education and also still used in its original sense in hundreds of our schools. Qwirkle has a reasonable point that this just needs a definition, but the same could be said of physician, merchant, barrister, and so on, and they are all useful for linking where some readers would not know the meaning. A Wikipedia article can do more to explain something than a Wiktionary page. If not kept, essential to merge, as there are hundreds of incoming links: a new section in Master of Arts would be a possibility, that is at least where the origin lies, but much better to keep, on the principle of notability, and as there are benefits and no harm. Moonraker (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge into Head teacher. This is a term of historical significance. BD2412 T 07:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Interesting history/etymology, plus I'm aware that the term is also used in Indian boarding schools that were founded during the British Raj. I have added a line in the lead, but will be looking at more sources when I get time. An interesting section could be added, if sources are available, about how the usage survives in the subcontinent in 'colonial' schools etc. Don't think this warrants deletion imo AlpinistG (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you could add some reasoning why we need to keep this beyond an opinionated judgement. Every word on the dictionary has an etymology, many of them surprising or interesting, many English words have variant meanings and history in “divers places”, to use an example of that. That doesn’t mean they all belong in an encyclopedia. Qwirkle (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Qwirkle, I do think AlpinistG was giving some reasoning and not being opinionated, adding to my point that a Wikipedia article can do more to explain something than a Wiktionary page. In policy terms, the focus surely needs to be on WP:N, which does not rule out topics that can be defined in dictionaries. Either something is notable or it isn’t. Moonraker (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]