< December 08	December 10 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Moore (police officer)[edit]

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

Generic police chief of mid-size city arguably falls under WP:NPOL and notability is not shown. Souces are insubstantive and routine local announcements. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Mujinga (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:53, 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 redirect to Pittsburgh Police Chief. Daniel (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Ward (police officer)[edit]

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

Generic police chief of mid-size city arguably falls under WP:NPOL and notability is not shown. Heck, he was acting police chief for less than three weeks so I'm baffled why my redirect to Pittsburgh Police Chief was reverted. Souces are routine and local. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pittsburgh Police Chief as previously done by Reywas92, although I would also support an outright delete too, however the latter offers some degree of potential unsuitable recreation. There are very few if any mentions of this person, beyond a handful of passing mentions but I cannot determine anything significant to assert notability. The Pittsburgh Police Chief lists many red links to former officers but this doesn't automatically mean each are notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per above Mujinga (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not independently notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:54, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben R. Marshall[edit]

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

Generic police chief of mid-size city arguably falls under WP:NPOL and notability is not shown. Was chief for less than a year and souces are routine and local. Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability here - insubstantial RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Goodwill[edit]

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

Lack of sufficient notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references covering him. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well there's this. Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:55, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance Graven[edit]

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

This promotional autobiography does not meet notability guidelines WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. There is not enough SIGCOV in RS to support an article. I was able to find one review online in addition to review that is in the article refs. Other sources in the article either don't mention him or are a simple name-check or photo caption. His work is not included in any notable museum collections, it is not widely cited by his peers, has not contributed a new concept, theory or technique, nor a widely known body of work. He has had some exhibits, which is what artists do - make and show work WP:MILL. All else found in a BEFORE was user-submitted or social media. It seems like a self-promotional effort WP:PROMO especially given that there is an external link that goes to the "Terrance Graven Employment Website" where you can hire him to do a job for you. The link has since been removed[1] on Dec. 10. Netherzone (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist fails WP:NARTIST and there are no references to support the biographical information. The article appears to have been written by an editor close to the subject, or perhaps the subject himself. The whole article is puffy. I cannot find any reliable source that the artist ever exhibited at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. I moved the unsourced CV laundry list of exhibitions off main space, and think the whole article should be deleted. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kataluwa Walawwa[edit]

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

Current sourcing includes only very brief mentions of this residence. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage. Was deprodded with the rationale, "Most students, academics, researchers as well as interested parties of the History of native aristocracy and archaeology find this content much useful." Which isn't a valid reason to have an article. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:COATRACK. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 18:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COATRACK per normJuggyevil (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building is notable as it is an archaeological protected monument.--L Manju (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Hog Farm _Talk 20:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muktar A. Gadanya[edit]

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

The award is the lowest rank of the order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Federal_Republic and I can find nothing else that might possible amount to notability DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Nanak Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Just sourced with a related source.Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. A search just points to listings and WP-forks. The Banner talk 16:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like the only reference in the article is primary and there's some brief mentions in things about other stuff, but nothing that would satisfy the notability requirements. At least not that I could find. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete schools need to qualify either WP:NORG, or WP:GNG. Existence is not notability. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 15:54, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of the Philippines by province[edit]

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

Another indiscriminate (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) collection of trivia (definitely WP:Listcruft, failing WP:LISTN, verifiability, and WP:NOSTATS. Not a single source present in the list (all are footnotes). The topic is not notable, and thus should be deleted. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Filipinos do identify by province, especially non-Tagalogs. Dismissing this as trivia or even as "not notable" (LOL) misses out this important fact. See also quite similar discussion on "Britishness#Scotland" and Imperial Manila. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Howard the Duck – Yeah, but that topic would definitely be much better covered in an article like Regionalism in the Philippines (see Regionalism in Ukraine, Somogy County). Moreover, even is it plays a role in Philippines politics, that doesn't mean that we can possibly start classifying political position-holders based on their province, and create lists. Every topic can be classified on various parameters like age, longevity, religion, number of children, province, even whether they have beard or not. But, for creating a list such as this, we'll need to demonstrate notability that presidents of the Philippines classified by geographical province is of interest to scholars and reliable sources. Currently no such notability has been established, thus the topic does remain non-notable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're not talking about "age, longevity, religion, number of children". If you've noticed, I've let those slip by because Filipinos don't usually associate their politicians by "age, longevity, religion, number of children", or even schools they went to... but they certainly do so for provinces, as a proxy for ethnicity. Solid North exists, Presidential tickets were previously balanced for geographical considerations (and the practice is being revived for the 2022 election). Rodrigo Duterte is commonly described as the first president from Mindanao; so much so that he won the Mindanao provinces by a landslide. Not every demographic is equal, and in the Philippine experience, people care enough to know which province a politician came from. This is real and is not made up. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, not every demographic is equal, and I agree that regionalism does play an important role in Politics of the Philippines. It is indeed real and not made up, but ... our sourcing policy believes in verifiability, not truth. I tried finding sources, but couldn't find except few with passing mentions. If Filipinos particularly associate each of their presidents by certain demographics such as province, then there should be reliable sources backing up this claim. In U.S., they do, and we have sources discuss this. ([2], [3]) If not, then it does not belong the the encyclopedia. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's this detailed article on which presidential candidate won where in which 2016.
      - Certainly verifiable.
      - Certainly not "passing mentions".
      - It's a good idea to withdraw the nomination now. I've been here in Wikipedia for like decades now to know every WP:xxx shortcut used in deletion discussions. This nom is bound to go nowhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I keep persisting this point, but the source you cite here is a report discussing whether "candidates for president and vice president [lead] in the polls in cities and provinces where they trace their roots", asserting the fact that province does play an important role in politics of Philippines, not necessarily in list of presidents. I am always open to reconsider my nominations and declarations of Keep/Delete. If you or anyone else can improve the article, backing it up with sources demonstrating notability, I'll be happy to withdraw this nomination, but until then, let this have its complete run. Lets agree to disagree! I do respect your experience here, and appreciate your work on Philippines related articles. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of vice presidents of the Philippines is a list of vice presidents of the Philippines in chronological order of when they took office. Believe it or not, there's no definitive list of vice presidents, or even when some vice presidents took and left office, or even when specific "eras" started and ended. Would you send that to AFD? LOL of course not. If there's no such list, then that's even worse than as what you are saying here that "a list of home provinces of the presidents of the Philippines, which are readily available and actually based on reality, is not notable."
I know you want to delete similar lists such as this, but you chose the wrong list to send to AFD. WP:BEFORE (sorry for citing actual policy!) was sadly not made. Instead of improving other articles, such as those in the upcoming election, I'd have to fight this well intentioned, but in the end silly, AFD. I'd appreciate it so much if you can be so kind to withdraw the nom so that we can do other stuff here. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge city/province/birth/death columns into List of presidents of the Philippines, convert that to a sortable list, and redirect Not a common list among other nations, and I definitely don't understand the 'province is a stand-in for race' argument; I'd understand it more if it was 'province is a stand in for rural/suburban/urban' instead. There's only one province with multiple presidents and two with province of residence, and the article is mostly a lot of filler which is better in a main list-of article than a diversionary article where it's lost among maps and other DYK minutia. And a note to the above; stop pressuring the nominator to withdraw the nomination. We have seven days for a discussion for a reason. Nate • (chatter) 23:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not even a rural-urban divide; a rural resident in Batac, Ilocos Norte (Marcos' hometown) will feel different than a rural resident from Talibon, Bohol (Garcia's hometown); they wouldn't probably understand each other (LOL). We don't add columns hometowns/provinces/states on lists of presidents and vice presidents el se whe re, and there's no reason to break prior consensus and add one here (and curiously, not on other lists). Again, this AFD is a complete waste of time, where people could have been doing other work, instead of replying to comments such as "add another column to the table, but only on this list and not on other lists, which have mostly clearly defined columns such name, term of office, party and portrait, and probably elections." Howard the Duck (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article follows the general format of the List of presidents of the United States by home state article. As the AFD for that article resulted in a speedy keep in November 2020, I don't see why this counterpart article should be deleted.SilentGanda (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SilentGanda – Well, List of Presidents of the United States by date of death has 'no consensus' for deletion, the same list for Philippines was 'deleted'. List of presidents of the United States by time in office was 'kept', the same list for Canada and India were 'deleted']]. List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair was 'kept' even at the fourth nomination, the same list for New Zealand was 'deleted' at the first nomination. List of presidents of the United States by education has never been considered for deletion, the same list for India was unanimously 'deleted'; etc. If something is notable in country 'A', it not-at-all necessary that it should be notable in country 'B'. However, if you could find reliable sourcing asserting notability, that could be a well reason for Keeping this article. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NLIST per Howard's and SilentGanda's arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have provided numerous examples in response to SilentGanda's vote. This list may meet WP:NLIST, but the same policy states that "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The current citations added by SilentGanda just verify the province, and accuracy of the list was never questioned. The same sources can be used to create various other lists, but all won't be notable. Upto you, but I still don't see citation providing "notability" than "verifiability". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who cares what you think? It definitely meets WP:NLIST and WP:V and Howard's argument is spot on. SBKSPP (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NLISTJuggyevil (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Juggyevil – Quoting the policy which you cite: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources .... Throughout this entire discussion or in the list-article, I don't see any source discussing the topic to be notable. So I don't understand how it clearly passes WP:NLIST. The sources in the article are merely verifying the entries, which doesn't makes the list notable. However, I'll appreciate if you can provide with reliable sources which discuss "List of presidents of the Philippines" on basis of their province. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NLIST and the information may not fit neatly into to main List of presidents of the Philippines page. --Enos733 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Enos733 – Well, I don't want to persist the point I discussed in the above response, but WP:NLIST states that: there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y"). I would be interested to know how this passes NLIST. Do you have any sources which discuss "List of presidents of the Philippines" based on their province? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-Latex Equations[edit]

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

Article was created without going through AFC process and likely by someone affiliated with the topic. There are no notable or third-party sources. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Nature source is notable, third-party, and reliable, but it is not in-depth. I don't think it's enough by itself for WP:GNG, and my searches didn't find anything else. Tellingly, the content about this product in the Nature source that is somewhat negative (the equations are inserted as images, rather like the bad way that Wikipedia handles mathematics, rather than as MathJax or other methods that can treat equation text properly as text) is entirely omitted from this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the sources in the article nor anything else I can turn up qualifies as in-depth coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the product is used in school settings per the sources already on the page, it does not appear to be the subject of instruction in that environment. So, the product does not meet WP:NSOFT. Also, I could not find significant coverage beyond Nature and these mentions: [4], [5]. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only good RS here is the article in Nature ... but searching I can't see anything else. Doesn't establish WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kastrijot Ndau[edit]

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

Footballer who has never played at WP:FPL level or senior international level and the article makes no claim to notability. Google News only has passing mentions in local match reports and a Swiss search yielded nothing better. German Wikipedia has an article on him with only one semi-decent source. This talks about his cameo appearance for Albania U21 and accuses him of using it as a stunt to get into the Switzerland U20 team but doesn't contain any significant detail on Ndau himself at all and seems to be just using him to make a point. Regardless, one semi-decent source does not demonstrate WP:GNG, which generally calls for multiple sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom - dashiellx (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no FPL and lacking significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly Fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL Juggyevil (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV from what I was able to find, or particularly not find in this case. While the subject is still young/early in career, at this stage they have not generated enough coverage (that I could find) to warrant a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Lewis Inder[edit]

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

I cannot see any real claim to notability. And if all the irrelevant guff was removed, there would hardly be anything left, not that that is strictly relevant TheLongTone (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. Quite a lot of World War-era people's lives are fairly well documented thanks to archival efforts, though whether they become the subject of coverage by secondary sources is another matter. Such coverage doesn't seem to exist (yet) in this case, as far as I could determine, so Wikipedia's notability criteria aren't met. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best I could find was a page for his private papers on the Imperial War Museum website, although Inder's papers are not currently accessible. This is not an indication of notability though because the IWM has the personal papers of over 20,000 people in its collections dating back to 1914. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First Light - Short Film[edit]

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

A three and a half minute short film on YouTube with no apparent significant coverage. I can't see any claim to passing any of the criteria at WP:NFILM nor any coverage outside of social media that would allow a passing of WP:GNG. This article is written by Christopher Sammut who also happens to be the director, writer, producer and lead actor for this film; a case of undisclosed WP:COI - whilst this is not a reason for deletion in itself, it certainly doesn't help its cause. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolute lack of notability. I see that the cited review is by the director/author of this article. Off with its head!TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --SVTCobra 22:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and breaks clearly breaks CoI _Signed,Pichemist ^(Talk) 12:32, 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. ✗plicit 13:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan Canadians[edit]

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

Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. No relations page to merge to. Geschichte (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the level of migration is very low and not subject to significant coverage failing WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the level of migration is very low, no RS here supporting WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:GNG, not even close. MarioGom (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Georgians in Latvia[edit]

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

Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. No relations page to merge to. Geschichte (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the level of migration is very low and not subject to significant coverage failing WP:GNG. Migrants struggling with the local language happens worldwide. LibStar (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs above, insignificant migrant community, article content is thin. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:33, 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. ✗plicit 13:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dudi Hidayat[edit]

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

His 177 minutes of football almost a decade ago is only a very, very weak presumption of WP:GNG. An Indonesian source search yields only passing coverage of namesakes and nothing about this particular Dudi. Searching through Google, I only found a passing mention in Bola. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom - dashiellx (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV from what I was able to find, or particularly not find in this case. While the subject may meet WP:NFOOTY, consensus per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES has previously been in favor of deletion. Unless someone can point to more coverage that I've not been able to find, this should result in deletion as is the precedent. GauchoDude (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (CSD G11) (log) by Blablubbs. (non-admin closure) firefly ( t · c ) 11:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad zeinali[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or otherwise demonstrate notability - coverage does not appear to be independent of subject or significant. Is also largely written to be promotional. firefly ( t · c ) 11:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 11:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 11:08, 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. ✗plicit 10:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Gento Paroy[edit]

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

Footballer made a handful of appearances in 2012 totalling less than 3 matches in terms of game time then subsequently disappeared with no sign of an ongoing career. Clear consensus at Masayo Sato AfD and Asuka Nose AfD as well as several others that a weak passing of WP:NFOOTBALL is insufficient when WP:GNG is comprehensively failed. Searches of Didi Paroy and Didi Gento Paroy in Indonesian sources yield absolutely nothing useful at all. The best that I can find in Google is a passing mention in Tribun News, which is not even close to significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom - dashiellx (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this badly-sourced BLP.—S Marshall T/C 14:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:08, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We'll Meet Again (2002 film)[edit]

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

I found this one paragraph review. At first I thought that this review was reliable, but it's a self-published website. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great example for why I think WP:NF should be itself deleted (see option 3 here). There are dozens of pages that reference this movie[6], including TV Guide. Plenty to make it likely for users to search for information about it. Indeed, page views average at about 5 per day[7]. If people are looking for it we should have an article about it. That’s all that should matter. Not all the contrived criteria at WP:NF. —-В²C ☎ 05:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how Wikipedia works. Mlb96 (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well Mlb96, it’s how Wikipedia should work, because removing an article like this is an abject failure for our users. It’s high time to revamp notability and Afd accordingly. In the meantime we can WP:IAR them to minimize the damage they cause. —В²C ☎ 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feels like another dismissive AfD; MHC was notable enough for her books, and definitely for these films, including this one. We've got enough for an article, plenty of WLH links in, and there much fewer TV films in general in 2002, so it meets WP:N for me by that standard (especially as we allow any direct-to-Tubi action dreck these days that somehow passed N because it qualified for Czech-Romanian tax credits). Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responses: Born2cycle Mrschimpf Blatantly ignoring notability guidelines will not save the article from deletion due to the closing admin having to take guideline-based and policy-based reasons into account. That is how AfDs have always worked and both of you should know this. I'm amazed that an editor who has been on Wikipedia for 16 years would say that say that what links here counts towards notability among the other things. SL93 (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SL93, evolution applies to decision-making on WP and is often fueled by WP:IAR. In my opinion notability and Afd have a lot of room for improvement. I believe any topic for which sufficient information exists to make it something likely for users to look up should have some coverage on WP. WP should be the reference to whatever information there is on a topic, even if the only reliable information we have is, for a film, just the basic facts (name, date, cast). I suggest you ask these questions, which underlie IAR: How is the encyclopedia improved if this article is removed? How is it not better for users if it remains? The answers to those questions should be the overarching guideline, and if our formal guidelines tell us to do otherwise, that’s solid grounds to change them rather than follow them. Let’s not be lemmings. We can do better. Much better. —В²C ☎ 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you would like to change our notability rules, you are welcome to try. However, this is not the correct forum for that. The closing admin will likely ignore everything you've written. Mlb96 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment My stake in this is that I've been seeing a lot of films meant for women or families (mainly Hallmark Channel and Lifetime films) getting deleted for no other reason than they don't meet WP:N because 'there's not enough coverage' out there (there is, it just seems that these nominators don't want the fact they're searching about a Hallmark/Lifetime film in their browser history), when somehow we're allowing low-sourced direct-to-video films only existing because Bruce Willis has bills to pay and states have tax credits like this get articles only because Bruce Willis is in it. This is an acceptable, bog-standard article to me. It aired on a national network. It was based on a popular book. It has name actors doing original stuff. That's what hits N to me, not just that it has to hit a certain reader's imagined standards. Nate • (chatter) 22:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except those are your own personal standards of what is notable. WP:N isn't backed up. Maybe try changing notability for films first because an AfD discussion really isn't the place for that. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mlb96, SL93, trying to change the guideline first requires facing a chicken-egg problem. We need to first establish consensus opposition to the status quo at the article level as basis to change the relevant policy. That’s why Arguing a policy or guideline needs to change first when opposing a proposal that is based on ignoring that policy/guideline per IAR or is a form of status quo stonewalling. The practical reality is you can’t change the guideline first. —В²C ☎ 06:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I think continuing this discussion here will not be productive. I was going to suggest a RfC before seeing that you brought up the current one at WP:FILMS. Discussion should continue there. The outcome of this AfD is independent of the current RfC. – The Grid (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that a good compromise here would be to create an article on the book (a search shows that the book would likely pass notability guidelines) and have a section about the film. What I'm personally running into issue-wise is that I can't really find many in-depth sources for the film. Even Newspapers.com doesn't seem to have anything for the film beyond routine listings, which is honestly kind of surprising. Films based on books by very well known authors tend to gain at least a little publicity. I figure that if sources for the film can't be found we could redirect this to the book article with history, that way if/when the sources are found we can restore the article. I'm going to try looking a little harder today for sourcing and also try to make the book article, so here's hoping. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to We'll_Meet_Again_(novel)#Film_adaptation with history. There's not really enough out there that I can find to establish independent notability, but there is definite notability for the book. I included a section in the book's article that covers the movie, so until/if more sources can be found this will certainly work as a good compromise. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer leaving the stub as-is, because that encourages expansion by others, but as long as readers can find the verifiable information that exists for a given topic including a film in a section of another article, the main requirement is met. —В²C ☎ 16:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it were to be expanded, reliable, independent sources would have to be used. The question is, where are the reliable, independent sources? Geschichte (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don’t know. Apparently not on the internet. Maybe in a book or magazine? But we know the film exists (I started watching it on YouTube) and people do look for it. So I think we should provide as much information as we can, even if it’s not from the best sources, for now. —В²C ☎ 18:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because a suitable target exists and subject does not otherwise appear to meet GNG. "the reasons of those who want this article kept" are nothing more than special pleading and personal opinion about what makes a film notable (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSIMPORTANT), disregarding entirely the practical aspect that we need good sources – not reviews on websites lacking reliability – to write an article. IAR is not a get-out-of-jail-free-card (just as jury nullification is rightly both a valid AND an uncommon outcome), and here it would not improve the encyclopedia, because a mere database listing (what this is, and seemingly what it is likely to remain due to the lack of proper sources) does not improve the encyclopedia (WP:NOTDATABASE). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSee WP:NF. PreppyElephant (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 15:44, 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. ✗plicit 10:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimplified[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I would have CSD'd this. but cannot find the original deletion (so it may have been CSD's the last time, I know it was deleted). No evidence of any notability (still).Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was deleted last year in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oversimplified. Lack of sources covering this channel.--Mvqr (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it just could not find it, clear case of CSD.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty certain this is what the article looked like last time, so should qualify for G4. As before, I'm still not finding any independent sources with significant coverage (just a brief mention in a Times (UK) article). Schazjmd (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I didn't found any relevant coverage of this topic in reliable sources; most likely non-notable per Wikipedia standards. (doesn't meet WP:GNG) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG not enough sources to support the article Juggyevil (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 23:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Because it's awful. 48Pills (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But that shouldn't be a reason to delete it. See WP:IDL – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should really be snow close now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mokhtar Amalou[edit]

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

Being FIFA listed and refereeing a couple of minor finals is not enough to keep an article on a referee in lieu of passing WP:GNG; see deletion discussions for Michael Kennedy (referee), Angelo Nardi (referee), Ronald Gutiérrez (referee) and several others from the past 12 months that clearly show consensus towards the need for significant coverage.

Searches of "مختارامالو" return zero useful coverage and only direct Wikipedia mirrors. Searches of "Mokhtar Amalou" come up with nothing better than basic stats pages like World Football and Playmaker Stats. His World Referee page does contain some info but it's not clear where it comes from. According to this, World Referee takes emails from people if unsure about a referee so it's likely that the World Referee is entirely user submitted information and therefore unreliable.

It's also worth noting that the creator of this article is an WP:SPA clearly here only to promote Amalou; see warnings at User talk:Zombrito. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This referee is so popular his new haircut gets a mention! [8], however as you said, a fair number results popup in mirror sites of wikipedia and he has a fair number of profiles across the footy-verse profile websites. I saw a couple of match report articles mention him, but I didn't see a lot that suggests any depth. I am kinda on the fence here. Govvy (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The about us section for Hairlebrity doesn't give me great confidence in the quality and accuracy of its journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know I threw that in there as a joke right? heh. Govvy (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, don't worry, just thought I'd play along with it Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to run his name on aps.dz the Algerian Press Service, strangely no results! :/ Govvy (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite telling. I always have my concerns when an article on an obscure football-related person is created by an SPA. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:07, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute (Time-Life album)[edit]

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage. Not even one review. Non-notable album. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it does have one review at least, the AllMusic review already in the article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 I read a few editors say that Allmusic isn't a reliable source. I'm not so sure about that, but I didn't mention the review just in case. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found another review. I will leave it to others to decide if a paragraph review from Allmusic and Billboard are enough. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 30 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) 09:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Source 1 in the article and the Billboard review indicated above seem reliable. All I found is a mention of the album's entry to the Billboard 200. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm, the fact it reached no. 73 on the Billboard 200 might be enough to keep this. Although I rarely see the point in articles for compilation albums – apart from a chart position, there's no substantial prose you can write about a bunch of previously released songs. Richard3120 (talk) 16:00, 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 delete. ✗plicit 10:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaporo[edit]

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

Geostub made by Spokane Ball yt who was blocked for creating similarly poorly-sourced stubs. This one fails WP:GEOLAND which requires populated places to either be legally recognized or have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Please don't just add a GEONAMES entry as a ref; community consensus has consistently been against using such databases to establish legal recognition or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 18:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination, doesn't meet notability requirements. JonnyDKeen (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEOLAND. – The Grid (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a genuine, recognised and separate settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, doesn't meet GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locus in quo[edit]

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

This page is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and I see no way that it possibly could be anything more than that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lex loci. There are actually about a half dozen terms like this which are all variations of lex loci or terms relevant to its application, and we would be better off merging all the short ones together. I have now proposed this at Talk:Lex loci. BD2412 T 06:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:23, 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) 07:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 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. Given the nature of this split, and the fact that the now blocked (but non-sock) position was rebutted without response, and lacked any reasoning on why the sources would be sufficient, and both other keeps were weak, a clear Keep would seem unwarranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morristown Jewish Center[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. No independent sources. Searching finds some coverage in the local Morristown newspaper and many passing mentions. Overall, just routine coverage. MB 03:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 03:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. MB 03:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MB 03:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources - [this one]. --CappellsFromSkelmersdale (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an article about the center with in-depth coverage; it is another passing mention: "the Morristown Jewish Center Beit Yisrael donated to Morristown National Historical Park (NHP) a high chest purported to have John Hancock provenance." MB 15:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article is light on sources but I think can be brought up to standards. I have added a few sources and will be adding more in the coming days. I think there still could be notability issues through. Jmbranum (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as above, the article just scrapes by with RS, but there seems to be historical importance with the centre. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Health Film Festival[edit]

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

could not find any coverage for its English or French name. The festival website www.imagesante.org seems dead and just links to advertising. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment https://www.imagesante.be/fr (with a .be domain, and translation from French required; no en site available) is their current website. They seem to use the full title of " International Health Film Festival of Liège" to differentiate from the "Global Health Film Festival", though I will say I can't make an WP:N call on this based on that alone. Nate • (chatter) 04:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Liège#Culture for a lack of content, sources, and prominence. I considered a highly selective merge as well, just did not find any text or sources in International Health Film Festival that are missing in the parent article. This may be a discontinued or pandemic-halted event. By itself that is not a problem. Issue is that for a lack of notability the media does not seem to care. Then why should we? gidonb (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film festival. I'm not even sure there's enough reliable sourcing to include it on the Liège#Culture article; seems to not exist anymore and was never notable. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 10:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Schaefer[edit]

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

Effectively unreferenced for over a decade (IMDb doesn't count, and neither does their "official site"). Subject apparently has a three-year acting career consisting almost entirely of bit parts. This might be the same Erika Schaefer who later appeared in various episodes of Million Dollar Listing Los Angeles, which would actually be a better case for notability, but a source would be required for this connection. BD2412 T 07:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 07:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is clearly not there for her acting roles. My search for more sources came up with absolutely nothing helpful. Even if this is the same person as the real estate agent, we lack any reliable sources on her as a real estate agent, let alone reliable sources showing this is in fact the same person. My search came up with non-reliable sources about the real estate agent, like LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Race Against Time (novel series)[edit]

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

Includes:

Revenge in the Silent Tomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Escape from Raven Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evil in Paradise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Duel for the Samurai Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pursuit of the Deadly Diamonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Secret of the Third Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trapped in the USSR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Journey to Atlantis (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This book series, including all its individual entries, appears to be a failure of WP:NBOOK. All of these articles consist of plot only and are completely unsourced, and I cannot find significant coverage on either the series as a whole or any of the books; the closest it gets is small magazine mentions like this one, but no substantial reviews. Nothing on the (redlinked) author either. Lennart97 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. A preliminary search didn't find reliable source to show notability. Isabelle ^🔔 01:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Sourcing just isn't there. GNG fail. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sorry to appear snarky, but do editors look for reviews?, not doing anything fancy (but must admit time consuming:)), just doing a gsearch under ""title of book in inverted commas" by J. J. Fortune book reviews" brought up the following (allbeit short/precise(?)) hits: Revenge in the Silent Tomb and Evil in Paradise appear in the book - Books for You: A Booklist for Senior High Students. New Edition. published by the National Council of Teachers of English pages 4 and 79 where there are short reviews of each, they are also reviewed by Books for Keeps "Brilliant, ... I wouldn't spoil the tension-tingling ending for you, but it's genuine entertainment all the way.", combined review here, Trapped in the USSR is reviewed by Books for Keeps "So, it'll not be any great loss if you don't stock it, unless you are desperate for something undemanding for less confident, reluctant readers.", that also refers to the whole series as "a kind of B-Movie of the children's book world -- all stereotyping, masses of far-fetched melodrama, speedy action to mask creaky plots and goodies triumphing by the merest whisker.", here, Journey to Atlantis and Danger: Due North by Books for Keeps "Some authors spill out stories at a seemingly never-ending pace. Like the 'Hardy Boys' series, each book by J. J. Fortune mirrors the others. ... Easy to read, middle school material -- pure escapism!", combined review here, admittedly not enough for separate title articles by may be ok for the series article? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for locating these. I must say I did take the time before my nomination to look for reviews on each book, title in quotes and all that, but these didn't show up for me. Personally I do think this type of ultra−short review falls short of what GNG requires, and wouldn't be enough to make a reasonable series article beyond a mere listing of entries with plot premises. Lennart97 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

acknowledged, admittedly reviews found around no. 40+ of ghits. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article on the series, per the review Coolabahapple found they seem to each be quite generic and don't stand out indvidually, but notable as a whole. Rusalkii (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Plenty of stuff out there, pre internet doesn't mean non-notable. It was a fairly common book two find in school liberies. Super (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the assertion that the series is notable based on? The tiny review blurbs mentioned above clearly do not address the topic "directly and in detail", so unless the bar for what counts as substantial coverage is far lower for NBOOKS than it is for GNG, the evidence of notability isn't there, whether it's the individual books or the series as a whole. Lennart97 (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited above are superficial, which means that they do not establish notability for the series or the individual books. Sandstein 15:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 10:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverence (music festival)[edit]

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

not notable local festival, all mentions are just mentions, not a discussions, so has no significant coverage. article doesn't cite any sources. Artem.G (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 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 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 10:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damiano Fioravanti[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP. A before search returns a lot of routine coverage, as this driver has competed in events which are themselves notable; but the coverage of those events never seems to include more than a passing mention of this driver. This Checkered Flag article is probably the closest I found to significant coverage in an independent source. Some sources, such as this article from the Italian edition of Motorsport.com initially looked promising, but on closer inspection I believe they are probably press releases and thus cannot be used to establish notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well-written nom that I can't find anything to add to. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quanda S. Francis[edit]

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

The subject of the article is not notable. The subject's references are exclusively news articles about a candidacy for the NYC Mayor on a minor party line.Yousef Raz (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely fails WP:POLITICIAN, nothing else suggests notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Created by a WP:SPA, leading me to believe that there are WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues at play as well. KidAd • SPEAK 20:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not deleteWP: POLITICIAN citations added, references are not paid content, news articles and represent press coverage about the candidacy and the political party the subject established. The subject's candidacy is in Submission process for Collections in National Museum of African American History and Culture as the subject was the first African American woman in history to qualify for ballot access in a general election as candidate for mayor of New York City. looking for information about the age of subject.list of Women-related deletion discussions.list of Politicians-related deletion discussions subject announced a run for Lt. governor of New York as a republican which suggests the request for deletion is politically motivated. The subject has spoken about her education platform and workforce development in London, South Africa and Ghana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.248.15 (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quanda S. Francis is not the was the first African American woman in history to qualify for ballot access in a general election as candidate for mayor of New York City. There were at least two before her; Frances Villar was on the 2009 NYC Mayoral ballot and Lenora Fulani was on the 1989 NYC Mayoral Ballot.Yousef Raz (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note A few of the references in the article are just a random number. Like for instance "11".Yousef Raz (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
’’’ note’’’ Subject is the first African American woman to qualify for ballot access as a New York City mayoral candidate in a general election with a party line she established. Subject is in the submission process for Collection in the National Museum of African American History and Culture, where the subject serves as an ambassador. The subject was the first African American woman to appear on a general election ballot as a mayoral candidate as evidence of all general elections listed on Wikipedia. Lenora Fullani was not listed on the general election ballot in 1989 as a New York City mayoral candidate as mentioned by Yousef Raz. Fullani was listed as a candidate for Lt.

Governor of New York. Francisca Villar is not African American. Lenora Fullani is affiliated with Columbia University which listed the subject’s accomplishment on their Instagram accounts and in their voter guide distributed to students. Barnard College which is reference 5, would not publish inaccurate information. Reference “11” is a resolution passed by the Virginia state senate commemorating the life of the subject’s father-in-law and discusses the subject’s family and ties to the Democratic Party, including Henry L. Marsh and United States Senate Timothy Michael Kaine. Locating more information about the age of subject and names of parents and spouse. Subject is running for Lieutenant governor of New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reboot40 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only notable for being a failed candidate, fails our notability policies. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’KEEP’’’meets Wikipedia notability which states, “On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. reliable and independent sources can be found on the subject and have been added to the article. This subject is notable to the African American community. Deletion would be considered controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reboot40 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dado Center for Interdisciplinary Military Studies[edit]

Military department doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG This unit has many publications in hebrew and allot of coverage, there are 2 sources that talk about Dado center. This is unit is important in IDF and has allot of influance . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisshin (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has the appearance of an enormous WP:BEFORE failure, where only the references in the article were examined. Well, one click on the hewiki article, shows a very different reality. And if a web search by WP:NEXIST was at all conducted (as it should), this should also have included the search string in Hebrew. The Dado Center passes WP:NORG and the WP:GNG with the greatest of ease. Meritless nominations such as this are borderline disruptive for taking precious time away from improvements in the article space. gidonb (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I wouldn't say there are that many sources on the Hebrew wiki article, and a lot of them appear to be IDF, which makes them less independent of the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The intro and history are referenced by independent and important media. This is an example of other sources that can be found online. For sure, there are in existence in addition to notability supporting references, also references on hewiki that do not count towards notability and only support data in the article. That's normal. But while such references specifically do not add to the notability of the subject, they do not take away from it either. It is a routine red herring argument after notability has already been established. gidonb (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett In hebrew it has many media mentions by the largest Israeli news websites such as Haaretz, Ynet (User talk:Borisshin) 19:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But is it significant, non routine coverage in the news? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borisshin, which of these mentions do you think best establishes notability for the organisation? MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett, Yes they are making news headline, senior IDF officer's don't give interviews where they can give opinion about IDF preformance. The articales they write in Dado monitored regulary and quoted as their opinion by Haaretz, Ynet (User talk:Borisshin) 19:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrsSnoozyTurtle, any of them take this one https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5631984,00.html the hadline is Senior in IDF "serving in protecting the borders percived as unnecessary".

Thank you, Borisshin. I wouldn't say it is "in-depth" coverage about the organisation, but the article does go some way to helping establish notability. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is an important organization with sufficient coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho, Washington[edit]

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

A 1960s aerial is good enough to show the catenary poles, but there are no buildings, and topos going almost back to the construction of the line show no more than one, presumably the station. Probably the passing siding was the main reason for the spot, as the area is extremely barren. No sign of a town. Mangoe (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS spam. Notably GNIS describes it as populated but the article describes it as "extinct", which appears to be the SOP of editors mass-creating stubs based on GNIS listings where they could find no evidence that there was an actual community where GNIS appeared to say there was one, and is the reason why we have so many "ghost town" articles about places that never really existed. FOARP (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More GNIS spam, no evidence that a town ever materialized despite the ambitions of railroad officials. –dlthewave ☎ 02:54, 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 redirect to 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash. The overall consensus herein is to redirect to 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Singh (Indian Air Force Officer)[edit]

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

It's proposed he's notable for surviving a crash.. WP:NOTNEWS DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I never said his notability depends on surviving an air crash and you are distorting this subject by a mile. He is a high-ranking officer who already established notability by receiving the Shaurya Chakra from the President of India himself (and already had a Wikidata item in 2019, three years before before I wrote the article).

I have never, ever stated his notability (which is anyways rising as we speak) is dependent on surviving an air crash. I advise you not to distort the intentions of other editors to make them look ignorant of the rules. I have readWP:NOTABILITY over and I think this article is supported by WP:SUSTAINED (He has already gotten notability in the past). Dunutubble (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG - Apologies if my previous reaction seemed a bit too harsh. What I am trying to say is that I never proposed he was only notable for surviving a crash. There are more reasons why I think this article has notability. With all due respect, Dunutubble (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a bit unusual but I’d say delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankiethesexaddict (talk • contribs) 05:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*I have struck this now-blocked, not HERE user's contribution because it contains no sources and no intelligible reasoning.—S Marshall T/C 14:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently notable in his own right, as a crash survivor or otherwise. He might still die of his injuries as well. This article is simply unnecessary at present. WP Ludicer (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i would say Merge with the article of the crash Jazzy Jazz Jr (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it wouldn't fit well into that article, even if we tried. Many additions to that article end up getting cut or deleted, and anyway, this subject (Varun Singh) has become relevant enough. Dunutubble (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash: add information to that page JW 1961^Talk 08:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:ONEEVENT. Singh's Shaurya Chakra award is the 7th in the order of precedence of Indian awards (if our infoboxes on them are correct) which is rather insufficient. Brandmeister^talk 10:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ONEEVENT does not apply in this case as he is know for, well, more than one event. I've added new content to the page, so it is no longer a stub, and so the notability can be expressed more clearly. Dunutubble (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash the same should probably be done with Madhulika Rawat. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above, I've also boldly done the same for Madhulika Rawat. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if someone dies, that doesn't make them non-notable. Almost every news article about the crash has now become an article about Singh. Dunutubble (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BL1E Only noteworthy for surviving an accident so not enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge This article should be merged to the parent article. Utkarsh555 (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell that to the people behind Bahia Bakari and Stuart Diver. Dunutubble (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash pure WP:1E, he fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash is better option. Hasan (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that the good folks at the redirect target article would not allow to name this person in the article. Talk:2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash#Naming the sole survivor Varun Singh. So this is a strange conundrum. Venkat TL (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash as the subject is not notable per WP:BL1E. Whether the name should be mentioned is subject to editorial discretion but a redirect would be helpful for readers who are looking to find information on this subject. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ab207 If the redirect target does not name the subject, then the redirect may get be deleted. Venkat TL (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL, not necessarily. We have ((R to article without mention)) for that. I can recall Priyanka Reddy Rape Case where this has been followed. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen participants on Redirect for deletion discussion, using the lack of mention in target article as a reason to successfully delete those redirects. Name should be allowed. This is not a crime incident. Wonder why folks are removing the name. Venkat TL (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash article per the many rationales above. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash article, he was only notable as the sole survivor as an aviation incident. Zerbey (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question how can he be a "sole survivor" (per the article's lead), if it ultimately killed him?! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Attained fame through the Shaurya Chakra. Became known again after briefly surviving the air crash. The first one itself is worthy of inclusion. Jstore Master (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash he was only receiving coverage for surviving the incident, but as it turns out he didn't even really survive if he succumbed to his injuries in a couple weeks. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VizuaMatix[edit]

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

fails WP:NCORP -- no substantial 3rd party sources DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a prominent software company in Sri Lanka 175.157.171.227 (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a "prominent software company" would be evident from references as per our NCORP guidelines. Can you find some references which meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. I'm happy to review by !vote if the Keep !voter IP above finds good references though. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Low Gap, Washington[edit]

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

Unusually good topo history for the area makes it quite clear that this was a 4th class post office in a residence, the same farm/orchard property that, with changes over the years, still sits on the west side of the road as in the oldest topo from the 1910s. There was no town here. Mangoe (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A poster child for why having a post-office is basically meaningless as to whether or not there was an actual community at the site. Post offices could be (and are now) literally anywhere, often inside stores/stations that may not be situated within any actual community. Some of them are literally mobile.

The Mid-Twentieth Century Pioneering of the Royal Slope of Central Washington source is interesting until you realise that 1) It's a master's thesis based largely on interviews with local residents, 2) it concedes that Low Gap basically doesn't exist (see p. 50), 3) it is often simply describing a census precinct (i.e., basically a census tract). Even accepting it as a single instance of WP:SIGCOV, more than this is needed for a WP:GNG pass. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was never anything more than a single farmhouse. –dlthewave ☎ 02:52, 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 delete. ✗plicit 10:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Eugenics Council[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources covering this band. Of the existing references, three are just directory listings from Discogs, which isn't considered an RS. Both of the remaining two are dead links. Looking at archived versions, we can see that one is to IDN Music, which seems to be another directory type site. It has a smattering of reviews on the page, but none seem to be from reliable sources, or even sources that still exist. They look like transient zines or random individuals. The second is from industrial.org, and it looks like a blog post from another random person. This page is little more than a redundant discography. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator's reasoning is solid. If this group used guns and tear gas and explosions on stage, they probably got few gigs and therefore little reliable coverage. The creators of this article don't even know the group's full membership and discography, further indicating an absence of coverage. I managed to find a few minor gig announcements like this: [9], but otherwise the group apparently craves obscurity so they don't need to be here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability; also, the article reminds me more of a blog post or fan site than an actual Wikipedia article. Some quotes from the text: "To further confuse and alienate we released a pop song called Auschwitz Fuck." ("we released"?? oh my god.) "The complete discography of E.C. is unknown." "The Eugenics Council was founded in 1995 by D.N." As we all supposed to know who "D.N." is. These all just convince me that this is 1) not a Wikipedia article, 2) absolutely devoid of any notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:53, 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. ✗plicit 10:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiflis, Washington[edit]

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

The place names DB says it was named by a Milwaukee Road VP, so yes, it's a rail location. The topos show that at some point it was a junction, but what they don't show is any settlement. Searching containing two national capitals generates a lot of clutter but nothing particularly helpful. Mangoe (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS spam. No evidence of legal recognition. No evidence of GNG pass. Occam's razor tells us it's a railway station. FOARP (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to just be a rail location, certainly not a notable town. –dlthewave ☎ 02:43, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Star Mississippi 02:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sivak[edit]

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

~~Invalid disambig page: only 2 items, per WP:MOSDAB in such cases we use redirect (in this case to surname page) with hatnote to the second page Loew Galitz (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn. Loew Galitz (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not redirect from the basic title to a disambiguated title. The choices are:

Agree that the surname is the primary topic, move the surname page to Sivak (ther is already a hatnote there to point to the village)
Agree that the village is the primary topic, make Sivak into a redirect to it, add a hatnote there to point to the surname page.

Move Sivak (surname) to Sivak, with the existing hatnote pointing to the village. PamD 09:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the false premise, the manual of style does not actually say that, please see WP:2DAB. I don't see why there would be an assumption of primary topic for English readers here, both search strings seem no more plausible than the other, when someone searches for "Sivak". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Invalid AfD nomination. See Talk:Sivak (surname). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 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 delete per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JFK-UFO conspiracy theories[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:FRINGE content, padded in an apparent effort to make it looks more significant within the Whacko-American community than it actually is. Orange Mike | Talk 02:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep could be improved. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GNG and and NFRINGE are met; Notability is established by RSes of folklore & popular fiction. (Strong disagreement with accusations that the article was "padded in an apparent effort" to deceive/misrepresent the subject matter, kindly WP:AGF.) Feoffer (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it was not deliberate misrepresentation on your part. Perhaps it was just unfamiliarity with the finer points of WPs editorial policies. Example: Fred Crisman once claimed he saw a UFO + Fred Crisman was deposed at the trial of Clay Shaw regarding possible CIA ties + Clay Shaw was accused of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK = a JFK/UFO Conspiracy Theory. That’s classic WP:SYNTH. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not WP:SYNTH/OR on our part: there have been whole books on the topic: "JFK and UFO: Military-Industrial Conspiracy and Cover-Up from Maury Island to Dallas. Feoffer (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some secondary source that discusses and analyzes this theory, along with others in the context of "JFK-UFO Conspiracy Theories"? Or is it just confined to this one, non-notable book? I'm afraid what you have assembled in this article is your own List of UFO conspiracy theories mentioning JFK. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher suggests that this book too may not be usable as a source. However the Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy (in the article) does have some mentions and is acceptable. —Paleo Neonate – 02:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep It clearly is a thing, and clearly has a lot of coverage, it may be bollcoks, but it is notable bollcoks.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The photos and first section are WP:IRI, and the remainder is WP:SYNTH derived almost entirely from sources that fail WP:FRIND. The dearth of coverage in reliable sources indicates that the topic fails WP:NFRINGE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:IRI issues seem to be getting worse; e.g., this,this, and this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews's citation of militia conspiracies is literally straight out of Barkun, used to support his conclusions that Andrews et al represented a new, "darker", phase in UFO conspiracism. I get that you don't like this subject, I don't like it either. But kids are watching TV shows where they see presidents killed over aliens, and our mission is to give readers the best article possible, to help them understand the origin and sometimes-dangerous influence of these crackpot ideas. NFRINGE is a policy because we want people learning about fringe from us, not the FX network or QANON. Feoffer (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This deserves a couple sentences in UFO conspiracy theories, but as a stand alone article, it fails WP:NFRINGE. Conspiracy theories connecting JFK with UFOs are a thing, but they haven't risen to a level of notability that warrants a separate article. To do that, we'd need lots of WP:FRIND sources like this that explicitly address the topic of conspiracy theories about JFK and UFOs. Instead we have lots of WP:OR, i.e. a compilation of things an editor found in primary sources about JFK or UFOs that they feel support the article topic (Clay Shaw, the Maury Island UFO incident, some rumor about Marilyn Monroe, an episode of The X Files, etc). - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not OR to connect Maury Island to the JFK assassination. There's literally a book with the subtitle "From Maury Island to Dallas". Feoffer (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are conspiracy theories about UFOs. THere are conspiracy thories about the Kennedy assassination. And given the tendency of conspiracy theorists to connect absolutely anything with anything else, it is inevitable that there will be 'JFK-UFO conspiracy theories'. The mere existence of such an intersection doesn't however make anything inherently notable, and given the lack of significant evidence from non-fringe sources that this particular intersection is of any specific interest, rather than just being another example of fringe wackiness, it fails WP:GNG. As LuckyLouie says, a line or two in UFO conspiracy theories is all it requires. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe, non-notable conspiracy theory.--Darwinek (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge There is a useable article somewhere in here, but the current one fails WP:SYNTH. Maybe make a Behold a Pale Horse article a thing instead. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's tricky -- according to the Barkun narrative, the theories both predated Cooper and continued evolving after his death. The current article certainly can be improved by increasing parity with and reference to scholarly sources. Feoffer (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any 'scholarly sources' that actually discuss this specific subject in any depth though? You cite Barkun in multiple places, but from what I've been able to see, he merely gives the 'JFK-UFO' theories as examples to support his broader thesis regarding conspiratorial thinking in contemporary American culture. He is writing about a mode of thinking, rather than describing specific beliefs as independent objects of study. "It seems to matter little whether the belief in question concerns the Kennedy assassination, Atlantis, Bigfoot, or UFO's"( P.28). You cannot cherry-pick a source like that to make a claim that there are scholarly sources establishing Wikipedia-notability on a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkum devotes significant coverage, as do Bergmann, Goldberg, and Jacobson -- none of those works could be ever accused of being adherent proclamations. As for "writing about a mode of thinking, rather than describing specific beliefs as independent objects of study", I'm not 100% certain what that very creative language means, but it's not a standard of inclusion. Feoffer (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is the standard of inclusion. Which specifies "significant coverage" in sources as being necessary. Please cite the specific page numbers for the content in Barkum that you consider constitute 'significant coverage' of the article topic, so people can assess for themselves whether notability criteria are met. Because I'm not seeing it, in what limited access Google permits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pages numbers added. Barkun traces the theories from Andrews , Moore, Cooper, Icke, and eventually even Jim Marrs. He discussed their intersection and overlap with anti-semitic as well as anti-masonic tropes. And Barkun's work is far from alone -- go read the Jacobson work, that book's almost entirely dedicated to the theory, its proponents, and its impact. Feoffer (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Barkun discusses theories. Theories plural. A whole 244-page book of them. What he doesn't seem to do, from what I can read via Google at least, is treat 'JFK-UFO' theories as anything of particular significance in the developing web of interconnected conspiracism he documents. Or if he does, your article fails to explain what particular significance he attaches to them, since you seem to be citing him just for the purpose of establishing that the topic has been mentioned by scholars. Scholarship consists of more than mere lists of things that happen. It involves analysis. And conclusions. Barkun analyses the cultic milieu that US conspiricism developed into. He reaches conclusions about it. Conclusions about the whole milieu, not about particular facets of it. Barken writes a damn fine analysis, in my opinion. One that deserves better than to be cherry-picked to prop up an article that decontextualises one particular 'theory' to such an extent that his analysis apparently doesn't deserve even the briefest of explanation. If you are going to claim that 'scholarly sources' support the article, explain how. By telling us what conclusions this scholarship arrived at. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk Feoffer (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why you chose to reply there, since splitting this discussion over multiple pages serves no useful purpose whatsoever. And the material you have just added [10] says nothing about the Kennedy assassination (it is commenting on " the early 1990s"), and accordingly does nothing to indicate that JFK-UFO conspiracy theories' have any independent notability. Instead, it illustrates my point - that Barkun is analysing the conspiracist milieu, as a whole, rather than as a series of independent ideas, and you are misusing the source to try to justify an article on one specific facet of it. You are clearly resorting to synthesis, to try to support a topic which can be more usefully discussed in articles which actually provide the context, and the opportunity to cite Barkun for his analysis, rather than just a source to cherry-pick. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there because that's where we talk about improvement to the article, such as those you suggested. Your above post shows you're cognizant that Barkun, a very notable scholar, has significant coverage that could be better-summarized. That's GNG, my friend. And Barkun's far from alone. Feoffer (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is where we talk about cherry-picking and synthesis engaged in to give a misleading impression of independent Wikipedia-notability for a topic much better discussed elsewhere. Your refusal to actually address my point is duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder, Personal attacks of this nature are unacceptable. There are no angry mastadons here. This article's subject can obviously inflame passions, but we're all doing our best to write a good encyclopedia. (edit conflict)Feoffer (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like being told to stop playing stupid games, I suggest you stop playing them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory, a line or two with the highest quality source(s). I see on the talk page there such a mention in the article once existed but was removed in 2013 for being fringe. That was eight years ago, try again. I also see a line does currently exist in the UFO conspiracy theories article. This current article can't even factually establish that Kennedy had an interest in UFOs other than "supposed" and none of the references have supporting quotations. See also this archived talk page discussion from 2012-13 for the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article, where the theory as a subsection involving NASA was deleted in this edit on Jan 2, 2013. Until a time-tested mention on either of those Kennedy articles happens, a stand-alone article is not warranted at this time, in my opinion. 5Q5|^✉ 13:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This current article can't even factually establish that Kennedy had an interest in UFOs That's not a standard for inclusion. The article on Bigfoot can't even factually establish Bigfoot exists, because he don't. This is bollucks, but it's notable bollocks, with three different TV shows dedicated the premise and more books than you can count. Feoffer (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources aren't strong enough for this to remain a standalone article. Sgerbic (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be recreated as part of the normal editing process. Hog Farm _Talk 15:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Smooth[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a seemingly small-batch beverage, ((u|Squeeps10)) {Talk} Please ping when replying. 01:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ((u|Squeeps10)) {Talk} Please ping when replying. 01:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ((u|Squeeps10)) {Talk} Please ping when replying. 01:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Could redirect to President's Choice or Loblaws, it's basically a store-brand soda. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 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. ✗plicit 03:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EA Home Design[edit]

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

Lacks independent coverage. Sources are advertorial/PR pieces. KH-1 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, was in the process of cleaning out all the junk sources. A quick external search reveals nothing but the same paid placement/PR/SEO sinks. Does not appear to be anything notable about this firm. Kuru (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough significant news. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jaxarnolds (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotion. Looks like the subject hired a PR agent who got a few paid posts via Forbes and Entrepreneur contrinutors (not editorial) and got published in the IBTimes by their Singapore desk. Why would a publication from Singapore be interested in a remodeling company from Virginia? Or why is the jpost.com writing about them? Because what the jpost calls "Special Content" is paid advertising, and they're not especially conscientious at separating advertising and editorial content. PR people expect that if they can place content like that often enough, it will eventually get picked up by local publications. Don't let them fool you.
Delete per above. Undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this article. MER-C 17:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability.--Mvqr (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and CSD G11. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no assertion of notability here.Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Poor WP:BEFORE on my part, next time I’ll do more digging. (non-admin closure) WikiJoeB (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob McEwan[edit]

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

Article about a Scottish footballer who appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. The search for his full name (Robert Blaikie McEwan) turns up largely irrelevant results, with the only result matching his exact name being a Wikipedia mirror[11]. A search for only "Robert McEwan scottish footballer" turned up yet another Wikipedia mirror[12]. If the article is to be believed, and Robert really is an association football player, WP:NFOOTBALL is not met here.

Although the "Senior career" section in Robert's Infobox does state that he's played for teams notable enough for a Wikipedia article, it is unsourced and probably won't ever be - refer to the above findings.

Additionally, the sources presented in the article do not support notability:

Source one is a supposed link to his page at the English National Football Archive, which doesn't establish notability, as their homepage states that "The database of the National Football Archive...ensures that every player is uniquely identified."

Additionally, the archive's critertion for inclusion is, to put it lightly, extremely lenient: "The criterion for entry in the database is that the club concerned is a member of the Football League or Premier League in the season concerned. If that criterion is met, the database then contains the results of all that club's games in League and Cups. The first season of the database is 1888-89. " This is a violation of WP:SPORTCRIT, which specifically states that "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases."

Source two isn't even a source. It's a reference reading: "Whiteford/ McEwan Family History, researched by Alastair Robert McEwan".

Source three: the book in question[13] is simply a book covering player records from 1888-1939. As it is only available in print and not online (the reference doesn't cite where in the book his name is mentioned, either) I do not know the extent as to which he is covered, if at all, in the book, but this would be a fail of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT regardless. The book does not focus on McEwan. WikiJoeB (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WikiJoeB (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax no sources here, no sources there, no sources anywhere. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I own the Michael Joyce book and can state that it confirms that McEwan played a total of 109 games in the Football League, the highest level of professional football in England at the time, and other sources have now been added to confirm that he played 50 times in the Scottish League. I would therefore at the very least propose that the comment from Philosophy2 stating that the article is a hoax be struck, as it demonstrably isn't, as well the claim in the nom that "WP:NFOOTBALL is not met", because it is not only met but absolutely smashed with a total of over 150 games played in top-level leagues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He certainly exists, his name is mentioned in Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 with a short biography there. His name pops up in a libraries catalog search in in Chelsea's, Bury's and Dundee's complete player guide books. Hardly a hoax. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have now added more online references. There are many footballer biographies with questionable notability and scant sourcing so I'm not sure why the focus on this one when a bit more digging would have found quite enough evidence of a notable career. As for 'hoax', I'd probably be a bit more hesitant before chucking that claim around in future. Crowsus (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by a long way and, considering how hard it is to find sources on any player of this era, quite a few decent ones do exist as demonstrated Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, nominator has not done BEFORE. Giant Snowman 17:06, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji–Turkey relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No embassies, agreements, level of trade is described as "negligible". One leaders meeting at the side of a summit. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - it seems odd to have an article on a diplomatic relationship which is so casual as to not really exist. --IdiotSavant (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthea Sutherland[edit]

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

I don't believe she meets WP:NCYCLING. She hasn't been a member of a UCI Women's Team. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources except for the Amandala article and whilst she did win the 2005 Belize Cross Country race I don't think that meets WP:NCYCLING (but happy to be proven wrong on that). Mujinga (talk) 09:56, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. Quinn[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Only sourced to IMDb since the article was created in 2007. Other than IMDb and a short Turner Classic Movies biography, I have found literally no coverage of him, not even an obituary. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure that any of his roles rise to the level of significant roles in notable productions. Some of them are uncredited, and others are things like person on a certain street #4. Other times his role does not even make a cast list we have of 10 people, and in Primary Colors he is the 17th person listed on the cast list, making it a hard sell to say his was a significant role. Beyond this we have no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 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 and redirect to Dimension. ✗plicit 03:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nine-dimensional space[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage about nine-dimensional space, just "n-dimensional space". Other articles like 9-cube are probably also unnecessary, but those have clear redirect targets (such as Hypercube); I'm not sure where (other than Dimension) this could redirect to. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore redirect for all the same reasons given in the first AfD. This could be a G4 speedy deletion; much of the text and images are identical to the deleted version, which also had some additional non-notable material on 8-spheres and superstrings. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last time this article was AfD'd, it got redirected to "n-dimensional space", but that's now just a redirect to "Dimension." Redirects are cheap, so I guess we could do that, but I don't see a particular reason to bother. Agree it's a G4 speedy candidate. PianoDan (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one of the dimensions that's distinguished by having a cross product, a normed division algebra, etc. Yes, you can define ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{9))$ ; what of it? It's conceivable that somebody might talk about "nine-dimensional space" as part of ten-dimensional spacetime, but the nature of relativity makes that an awkward and artificial split. Someone looking for superstring theory would look for "superstring theory", not "nine-dimensional space". XOR'easter (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Did those people who suggested CSD mean to refer to G4? This creator doesn't seem to be a sockpuppet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, fixed, thanks for the catch. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too. PianoDan (talk) 02:17, 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.