< July 12 July 14 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep and merge the other two together. Aymatth2, can I please get you to execute the merge and redirects? Thanks in advance. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aceolus and Acius[edit]

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

This stub seems redundant with Acheolus and Acius. Not sure why this combo stub is necessary. Gjs238 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:40, 14 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Veidman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, as he has never played nor coached in a fully-pro league. Seems to fail WP:GNG: the only independent coverage I've found on him is this, everything else is just routine transfer coverage. Nehme1499 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme1499 23:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good sources: [1], [2]. Sure there's some more in the mountains of recent Google News hits that I haven't had time to trawl through. And as a new head coach, the number of good sources is likely to increase. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alvaldi You do know that posting exactly the same text at every sport AfD, instead of actually looking at the merit of the sources in the article, is not a valid criteria. Stop with your WP:WIKILAWYERING, and start actually explaining why you think people do or don't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joseph2302: As I stated in my comment, he fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. And if you want me to go deeper into that, then that is fine. The only significant coverage presented here that goes into the subject is this and then there is this in the article itself [3] which is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Out of curiosity, will you be asking other !voters to explain their !votes further? Alvaldi (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alvaldi: Not trying to stir the pot, I just want to explain my thinking. Leigh is as notable as any other head coach in the USL correct? He is listed as the manager on the official club website and on the USL site. Leigh is mentioned and discussed as the manager on ESPN broadcasts and even shown on the touchline of ESPN, a national sports media company. If we say he isn't notable because the google algorithm doesn't pull up every single place his name is mentioned on the internet or traditional television media, then we would have to purge Wikipedia of every USL manager. If that were to happen, then we have deleted articles of almost all head coaches of a fully professional league and the second division of football in one of the largest countries in the world. Many other users in this section have deemed the article and its subject notable enough to keep, even the user who first recommended for deletion noted that they overlooked his role as head coach that gave him notability. Again, these are just my thoughts, I'm not trying to step on any toes. 405footballfan (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @405footballfan:No pots being stirred and no toes being stepped on, I am more than happy to have a discussion on the matter. First and foremost, the Wikipedia community consensus is pretty clear on that being a coach or a player in a FPL does not make the individual automatically notable. What makes them notable is if they get significant coverage in multiple publications (two articles from one publications count as one towards GNG) that are independent of the subject (no team or league websites) over some period of time (short blurb of coverage over a month won't do). So even if we believe the individual should or might have the coverage we still have to prove he has it for the article to be kept. The three above keep !votes fail to do that by 1. claiming that the subject passes WP:GNG without pointing to any sources to back that up 2. state that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL but leaving out the fact he still has to pass GNG per WP:ATHLETE or 3. state that he might have sources in the future which clearly goes against Wikipedia's community consensus per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. (Note that User:Joseph2302 later did add two sources to his answer). For a modern day individual in an english speaking country, it is usually fairly easy to find that coverage if he has recieved it. If certain head coaches in the USL fail to generate the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then unfortunately yes, their articles should be deleted. But WP:GNG is not a ridiculously high bar, generally it is enough to show a subject has 3-4 good significant sources for them to survive AfD. I've only been able to find two, from The Des Moines Register[4] and from The Oklahoman[5]. User:Joseph2302 does link to an article on a website called oursportscentral.com which does not look like a major publication. If Veidman is truly notable, then there should not be a problem to find a couple of other significant sources about him somewhere. Alvaldi (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alvaldi: Clicking the news tab at the top of this page brings up various news publications that cover Leigh and his acts as a head coach such as Tulsa World. [6]. One that is also notable, I would believe, is from the USL Championship publication staff.[7] That is 4 notable sources now in favor of Leigh Veidman's noterity. 405footballfan (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @405footballfan: The one from the USL Championship publication staff unfortunately constitutes as a WP:PRIMARY source (primary sources are for instance team or league websites) and as such does not go towards GNG. It was also only a WP:TRIVIAL mention on top of that. The Tulsa World is a secondary source but Veidman only has a brief one-line mention that goes against WP:TRIVIAL. I did go through the rest of the Google hits and also looked for him on Newspapers.com but again only found trivial mentions of him. Alvaldi (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alvaldi: Is a podcast with OSG Sports, a podcast produced by award winning sports journalists [8] where he is the main topic notable? [9] Or is this other podcast called “Behind the touchline with George Zambrano,” who is a FA level 1 talent identification scout and a football agent, in the WP refs link notable? [10] 405footballfan (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @405footballfan: Honestly, both of those podcasts seem to be rather minor. I couldn't really find any independent info on them and judging by their social media accounts those are fringe publications. Alvaldi (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alvaldi: and this article from OKC Fox 25 [11] which is literally titled “Energy FC will have a new coach” referring to Veidman taking over as head coach while Energy start to look at new possibilities, which is written in the article isn’t enough? It was sourced in the wiki article itself. This is my last attempt to try to prove notability. He seems to have enough coverage. You can Google and find his name and pictures from multiple sources, even on transfermarkt (which I know isn’t a source used for Wiki notability but as a football fan would know, that’s massive). He’s on television broadcast every week when the team plays. This is a new age of media where newspapers are dying and television and especially social media are taking over. I always assume good faith, and I know that you’re trying to keep to Wikipedia guidelines. Obviously it’s “whataboutism” but there are various articles with less sources and less notability. I believe Wikipedia is meant to be a source of knowledge and that if an article is well sourced and true, it should remain. Especially when it passes it’s subject specific notability, and obviously WP:GNG supersedes Wikiproject Football, but it’s worth noting. Again, it’s not like you can’t readily find out who Leigh Veidman is from a simple Google search. 405footballfan (talk) 13:17,17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The OKC Fox 25 article is the type of article that gets classified as a routine signing article. They are fine for sourcing a certain transfer in an Wikipedia article but generally does not constitude as a significant coverage when it comes to AfD's. I completely understand that this is frustrating as I have been at your end in a similar conversation early in my Wikipedia days. Veidman's article might very well be kept, depends on the closing admin, but note that if no more significant sources are added to it then there is a good chance that it will be nominated again for AfD. I highly recommend having always at least WP:THREE good sources when creating an article, it is more often than not enough for it to stay out of AfD. Best of luck. Alvaldi (talk) 18:14, 17 July 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) 00:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zionex[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Basically promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forum on Media Diversity[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. No real indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 13 July 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 consensus to merge either...potential merge discussion should take place at article talk page(s). Daniel (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Nelson[edit]

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

(1st XfD) The article has never been more than a stub (over a decade), Notability seems to be a bad breakup and two books. Part of Wikipedia:Shortpages? (3 sentences?) Only references are her own books. Creating author seems to have had most articles deleted. Mjquinn_id (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+ I do not know the page creator at all...BUT, I often find when a number of articles are created by someone, then deleted...some WP:POV might be involved. Probably at least a WP:NOR issue, using her own books as reference?
= If this XFD, causes the article to become useful; then my job here is done. Mjquinn_id (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those are valid deletion rationales. We don't delete stubs: we expand them. BPL1E isn't applicable: she's notable for three things (a relationship and two books). The creator is irrelevant unless you can show a COI or some sort of bad faith, and our standards for referencing were quite different in 2007. Finally, deletion is not cleanup. pburka (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLP1E states, We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Sources cover Nelson in the context of multiple events, i.e. her relationship with Navratilova, her palimony lawsuit, her life after the relationship, including her later relationship with Rita Mae Brown, and her two books. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Writing two books indicates she did not remain low-profile. 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The events are significant, are mentioned in the Navratilova article, and Nelson's role in the relationship and the palimony suit are substantial and well-documented. So it appears WP:BLP1E does not support a delete/merger. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC) There is also coverage of the palimony lawsuit that includes biographical information and detail, e.g. Orlando Sentinel, 1992, New York Times, 1992, Associated Press, 1992, and a little more on Nelson's post-relationship, post-lawsuit life: News & Record, 1992. Beccaynr (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Navratilova is also notable only for "an extended single event", i.e. her 31 year tennis career. pburka (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 02:28, 16 July 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) 00:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad (2007 film)[edit]

Bad (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 13 July 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 21:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in Business (2007 film)[edit]

Back in Business (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nylon cover models[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST: "Nylon cover models" are not, as far as I can see, discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Completely unsourced. Lennart97 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:56, 16 July 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 draftify (with existing draft article deleted to make way). Due to the time of the revisions, a histmerge is going to be chaos. Daniel (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Mensah[edit]

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

Attempted to draftify but failed as Draft:Jacob Mensah already exists. Subject does not currently pass WP:NFOOTBALL as has never played in a game between two clubs playing in a league listed at WP:FPL. Coverage to date seems to be mostly brief transfer announcements and passing mentions in Dorset Echo match reports so WP:GNG does not appear to be met as of typing this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Govvy; this is the best solution as the current draft is incomplete. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:33, 14 July 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 Scientology beliefs and practices which will allow a merge if desired. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assist (Scientology)[edit]

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

I don't think that assists are notable enough for a stand-alone article. I couldn't find any in-depth secondary and independant sources. I have read several books about Scientology, and assists are only ever briefly mentioned as a form of spirtual healing/grounding technique and that Scientology advocated its usage after 9/11. I think that information regarding assists could be included as part of an article about Scientology beliefs/practices like other religions (ex. Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses), although an article like that for Scientology does not yet exist. Clovermoss (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Clovermoss (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clovermoss, a couple of points, it might be worth nominating the similar article at Touch assist as well. There is a potential merger target at Scientology beliefs and practices. TSventon (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon Thank you for your input. I really appreciate it, especially the wikilink. I must have had a typo or something when I tried to search for it. I'm not sure if merging would really be useful in this case because the article as it is is really promotional. I do think that a sentence or two about assists could eventually be included in the Scientology beliefs and practices article. Clovermoss (talk) 13:35, 14 July 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) 00:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta, Gone[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Card Payment Network[edit]

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

I suspect this fails WP:GNG, partly from reading the article and partly based on the author, who has a history of creating terrible articles, and (full disclosure) I just indefinitely blocked. Unfortunately, because of the language issue I am unable to do WP:BEFORE. I'm hoping that we can get some participation in this AfD from Farsi speakers. In any event, it should be the community that should decide whether to retain the article. Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fouche, Georgia[edit]

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

The only substantial evidence of this place is the passage from the placenames book, which really isn't enough. Fouche is a ridiculously common name in those parts, and searching is dominated by both the name and by a "Fouche Gap Road". I did find a history of the county which has two name drops of the place, neither of which describes it at all. The topos show a single house up until they show a lake which drowned the area late in the last century. Best guess is that this was a 4th class post office at the mills, but I can't prove that either. I just don't think this is notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 13 July 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 Jo O'Meara#Discography. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With Love (Jo O'Meara album)[edit]

With Love (Jo O'Meara album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page fails to meet the WP:GNG for music-related releases. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)|[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 13 July 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rakhwala (1971 film)[edit]

Rakhwala (1971 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can only find 1 Critical Review (The Hindu), but WP:NFILM requires 2 reviews. I couldn't find any others in a WP:BEFORE Donaldd23 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as well it has two reviews then. :-) † Encyclopædius 06:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the "review" you added is a passing mention about a song in the film, not really a review that would establish notability per WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, but I can see it being applied to WP:GNG and making it pass that way. Let's see if other editor's agree. Thanks! Donaldd23 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 July 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 21:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine Guerriero[edit]

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

It's pretty clear that WP:BIO is not met and I don't believe that WP:PROF is met either. PROF 8 is the only possible criteria which could be relevant, but since the journal was only founded last year, it seems unlikely that it is "a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." SmartSE (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 13 July 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) 00:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Betontod[edit]

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

Non notable band. No independent coverage. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Moon (2005 film)[edit]

Bad Moon (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE, appears to fail WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great source analysis by Cunard, more than enough to warrant an article. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 05:17, 19 July 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. A borderline case where the citation metrics are laid bare for everyone to see. At the end of the day, reasonable people examined the data and came to different subjective conclusions, so there is no policy-based reason for any result other than that supported by the majority. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Shan Lin (chemist)[edit]

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

Associate prof, seems a bit run of the mill, has an early career award, plus "Machine Learning in the Chemical Sciences & Engineering Award" doesn't seem notable as it's the inaugural award of it. I don't see how this article passes WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. I don't have a feel for if the citations are suitably high to pass on that basis, but I'm doubting it. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck as per below. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are good points. I agree. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no CoI issue with article creation because it came through AfC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Sources here do not actually imply media coverage (where did you get that idea?) but also citations counters like Google Scholar/Scopus. This is literally clarified in Notes 1.a "(a) The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." So using citation counters is the most typical way to satisfy criterion 1. I agree that her citations and h-index are not extraordinary, but they pass the bar for someone who has had a "significant impact" on their field. --hroest 17:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the rest of the guideline. "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." This does not satisfy criterion 1. There really needs to be more substantive independent coverage with some depth beyond merely counting citations, including indicating what the "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" actually is. Reywas92Talk 17:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, citation metrics need to be interpreted within their context of the database and discipline of the subject.That is exactly what I (and others) here are doing. You are setting standards that are way higher than what WP:NPROF requires and what is required in other AfD discussion. You are making very strong leaps from what is written in NPROF, "Approaching with caution" does not equal "does not satisfy criterion 1". Nowhere in WP:NPROF does it require "substantive independent coverage with some depth", on the contrary it is quite clear that citations metrics or one (of multiple) ways to satisfy criterion 1 and show substantial impact in the field. --hroest 20:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reywas92, Hannes Röst is correct that independent coverage is not necessary for NPROF; unlike practically every other SNG (like NSPORT), where meeting the criteria presumes notability but GNG ultimately must be demonstrated, NPROF operates completely outside of GNG requirements. I do think identifying what her "significant impact" is would be beneficial for sussing out what is DUE in the article, but isn't necessary for notability discussions unless other criteria aren't applicable. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't think it's applicable to say "Her articles have a number of citations, screw substantive sources." I understand NPROF works a bit differently, but it's not adequate to say there is "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" merely on low-quality metrics without evidence of independent assertion that not only are these publications impactful, but that this junior faculty author in particular has had significant impact. It's absurd that this SNG would go from multiple sources of substance to zero sources of anything. Reywas92Talk 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Reywas92: if you are unhappy with the way WP:NPROF operates, please take it to the talk page there and dont disrail the AfD discussion of one person by applying different standards to this AfD than all others. To be fair and consistent, we should apply the same standards to all articles and the applicable ones in this case are WP:NPROF. There are very good reasons why WP:NPROF is the way it is. --hroest 18:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And you're applying NPROF poorly by doing nothing but looking at the h-index. Reywas92Talk 19:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your helpful assessment of my abilities, while I wait for a detailed academic assessment of her work from you that goes beyond your contribution "she has many co-authors". --hroest 14:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Total citations: avg: 6109, med: 2001, Lin: 2449.
Total papers: avg: 110, med: 53, L: 53.
h-index: avg: 30, med: 20, L: 23.
Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 605, med: 275, L: 285. 2nd: avg: 348, med: 181, L: 253. 3rd: avg: 252, med: 136, L: 147. 4th: avg: 210, med: 118, L: 126. 5th: avg: 181, med: 106, L: 124.
Top first-author: avg: 339, med: 147, L: 124. JoelleJay (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that she's a chemist and papers in chemistry have a little over half the impact factor of other biomed sciences; in particular she is working in computational chemistry, which generally has fewer authors per papers: most of her papers have one to three coauthors. I tend to think the baseline you are using for comparison is somewhat too high for her field. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chalst, thanks for the input! Are you saying she has a couple biomed papers with many coauthors who mainly publish in biomed rather than chemistry, and they are therefore inflating the coauthor metrics? I did try to exclude people who were in very different fields from the analysis (for example, there were a ton of collaborators of her coauthor Martin Zanni that published in "youth education" rather than chem, and several who focused on SWNTs which are a different-enough topic from vibrational spectra of water and spectroscopic examination of protein folding that I also filtered them out), but I potentially missed some. On the other hand, her having biomed papers and coauthors would certainly elevate her own citation metrics above those of her pure-computational chem peers, so it might not be appropriate to remove her direct coauthors in those disciplines either. JoelleJay (talk) 16:12, 16 July 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) 00:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asudem[edit]

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

Non-notable film, article has been deleted multiple time for lacking coverage, nothing has changed since previous deletion, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 13 July 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) 00:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back by Midnight[edit]

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

Non-notable film, despite the caliber of the cast, this film did not receive the significant coverage needed to qualify for a stand-alone article per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 13 July 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 salt, per the request of several comments below. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Al Suleiman (journalist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ali Al Suleiman (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's correct title, Ali Al Suleiman, is currently SALTed, meaning this article was silently created under a different title in order to bypass the protection (it's also SALTed in several other language projects). The subject seems to lack notability, and the numbers of social media followers it boasts aren't mirrored by the engagement rates (the posts can barely scrap two-digit likes). The subject's Wikipedia attempts are thoroughly explained at fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Ali Suleiman. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 14:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you claiming that all entertainment news coverage counts as promotional? What determines if something is promotional or not? The articles are months apart and have separate interviews with the subject in question. SilverserenC 16:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that’s not quite what I mean. I’m not very familiar with Turkish media, but many of the English Wikipedia articles for the news sources cited in this article note that they have been accused of functioning as propaganda for the Turkish government. And since most of the citations here are about how great it is that Al Suleiman is helping export Turkish culture, then these might not be independent sources for this subject. I can see the case for notability given the number of sources over time, but looking at the sources again, I see some other issues that altogether don’t seem to be truly independent or reliable:
  1. Shehab News Agency: There’s no author listed for the article
  2. TRTWorld: No author listed. Concerns about independence noted at TRT World. Other sources note that Suleiman does translations for TRT, so this isn’t independent.
  3. Isktiklal: No author listed.
  4. The English Wikipedia article for Yeni Şafak doesn’t lend credibility to this source.
  5. I’m not familiar with Draft:Diriliş Postası, so I’m not certain if it’s considered reliable. If it is, then this source seems to contribute to NBIO
  6. Aksam seems okay for NBIO, but as an interview with very little author commentary, it’s mostly a primary source.
  7. Anadolu Agency is state run, so it’s not independent on the topic of exporting Turkish culture.
  8. Syria.tv doesn’t list an author
  9. Daily Sabah is criticized as a propaganda outlet for the Turkish government, so it isn’t independent. The article has no listed author.
  10. Orient News is repeating reporting from other sources, but I’m not familiar with them.
If Diriliş Postası and Akşam are considered reliable, independent and secondary, then I would change my vote to Week Keep. Even those two sources are written like press releases. POLITANVM talk 17:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most non-English news sources don't include authors (as international news sources like the Associated Press often do not). That's not really an example of reliability or not of a source. And being state run is only an issue of concern if the information it was being used for was political and governmental in nature. I don't think the entertainment news section counts in that regard? SilverserenC 18:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense for the non-author sources. For the state-run/affiliated sources, I might consider the them as a notability indicator if it’s a topic they’d have no interest in, but these articles are explicitly to promote this journalist and how he’s helping bring Turkish culture to the world. I’d be similarly skeptical about Voice of America writing effusive articles about an otherwise unknown American figure.
I’ll change my vote to Week Keep, since there are an abundance of sources that aren’t explicitly labeled as third-party contributions, but I am still skeptical that they are completely independent of Suleiman, given the promotional tone of every article about him and his long-term attempts to get a Wikipedia article.
And so it’s clear, it’s obvious you made this article in good faith and with no conflict of interest. This AfD is a great example of how bad faith editors, edit warring and sockpuppets get in the way of creating an encyclopedia. POLITANVM talk 18:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never replied to anyone's emails, including the sock puppetteers'. I made the article properly because I consider the subject notable with independent interviews and coverage months apart. SilverserenC 16:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conflict of interests here is extremely concerning, I must say... ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 18:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what exactly is the conflict of interest here? I don't have one and I made the article from scratch, so it has nothing to do with the sockpuppet accounts. SilverserenC 18:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to throw accusations, but the way you created this article by changing the title in order to bypass an active protection from creation without any prior discussions is shady. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think it’s helpful to question Silverseren’s intent at this AfD, when it’s perfectly believable that a long-term contributor to Wikipedia would take it upon themselves to create an encyclopedic version of an article that had previously been deleted repeatedly because of sockpuppetry. If the main issue before was CoI, sockpuppetry, and lack of demonstrated notability, these issues are solved a non-CoI editor creating a more NPOV article with sources believed in good-faith. A previous AfD where the reason was “created by blocked user” isn’t very relevant here.
I’m similarly skeptical about the independence of most of the sources given the long history with this article and the subject, but let’s discuss the sources, not the editors. POLITANVM talk 19:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This coverage is entirely about the subject and includes separate quotes and other subject matter, showing they are independent interviews. I'm not sure how this couldn't meet WP:GNG requirements. People above are claiming promotion, when they are separate pieces of coverage months apart and I am certainly not promoting anything. SilverserenC 16:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Silver seren, please see the sources analysis on trwiki. You'll found that all of sources you mentioned above (1+2+7+8), confirmed as "unreliable" by trwiki users. Best --Alaa :)..! 16:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. It's a pretty bad analysis, as it gives no evidence for its claims. It just says "isn't clear". Also, interviews are allowed for notability of a subject, especially if the article that includes the interview has biographical information on the subject. Kinda weird those aren't allowed on TrWiki. SilverserenC 16:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Silver seren: Regardless of your personal views on the notability of the subject, bypassing the salting was not the best move. For example, you could have created the article first as a draft and explained about the salting on the Talk page of the draft. Then, you could have asked other editors to address the notability issue. If other experienced editors agreed with you, you could then have asked permission from the salting administrator to move the draft to article space. By doing it your way, you have actually made the article less likely to be kept because of its history.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator I was dealing with had no interest in draftifying it at all and refused to work with me whatsoever. My interactions with them were less than helpful. So I remade it from scratch (as a draft) on my own. And then moved it once I was done. SilverserenC 16:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't refuse to work with you; they just refused to do what you wanted. You were also told the same thing there about your sources that you were told here by Alaa--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the claim made about the sources in both instances don't stand up to scrutiny, as I noted above. The actual news articles were all dismissed on TrWiki as interviews, which is not an unreliable source indicator here (and it is perplexing that it is there). And, yes, the administrator refused to move a draft to userspace, making claims about banned users, despite the fact that it is directly in guideline that one is allowed to take over edits of banned users and support their inclusion oneself. SilverserenC 17:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mccapra: What criterion would be used to be speedy delete the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: the one mentioned by the nominator in their original nomination post. I’m pretty sure the article was created under a second name variant too and has been deleted at AfD twice. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
here’s one Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: I don't see any AfD mentioned by the nominator in their nominating message. The one you mentioned is the only I'm aware of; it's been noted by others. It cannot be used for G4 as there was no community consensus. Before that could happen, the article was speedy deleted per G5 as it had been created by a sock. Although it wouldn't change the rule, I did take a look at the article at that time and compared it to the current article. There are many similarities, but there has been some updating by Silver seren. As for other AfDs, someone would have to dig them up; we can't assume they exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok I thought the red text article title in the nomination was a previous AfD but apparently it wasn’t. An article was created with the exact same title as the current article on 12 June 2021 and then deleted. However it seems that wasn’t deleted at AfD as I’d mistakenly thought but under one of the speedy criteria. So the present article is the third version in one year but there isn’t a previous AfD consensus. Mccapra (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So nothing about notability or anything that AfD is actually meant to be about. I hope the closer completely disregards your vote here. SilverserenC 18:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As @Mccapra: pointed out in the AfD he mentioned, those articles smell like mere PR. The subject religiously keeps track of all the articles mentioning him, which leads me to believe that the coverage is just as inorganic as the social media followers numbers. It's impossible for me to assume good faith in this situation, sorry - it's gone on for too long. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the previous discussions were about a sockpuppetter repeatedly recreating an article and using things like google links and other non-reliable sources to make a puffery filled article. I looked at the actual news sources available, considered it notable, and made a draft from scratch using only those news sources and only on direct biographical information. The only "puffery" I allowed to be included was the one line about social media numbers, since several of the sources mentioned that. SilverserenC 18:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize those social media numbers are most likely not organic, considering the abysmal engagement? Plus, those sources you used, have widely been exposed as unreliable by Turkish Wikipedia users. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really our business on whether they're organic or not? And the sources were most definitely not. The list linked to before just had a bunch of statements that interviews weren't reliable and that they couldn't confirm on others. That didn't expose anything at all. SilverserenC 19:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, I was canvassed to this discussion by Football lover 2020. I recuse myself of any further comment. Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeffed Football lover 2020 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, multiple entire articles on the subject, written months apart, and with separate interview questions and answers aren't independent or significant? Can you elaborate on that? SilverserenC 16:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than happy.
  • First of all, several months apart? All of them are from Summer 2020. This regular translator suddenly became the biggest talking point out of nowhere?
  • Interviews are just an echo of what a person says and therefore are considered primary sources/non-independent material.
  • Other Turkish sources (some not in the article) include the keyword "... kimdir" in their title, which means "Who is ..." General consensus is that these sources, regardless of the publisher, are unreliable and/or not independent. These are not written by the publisher themselves but are rather copied from somewhere else. A major website like Hürriyet takes its "Who is [random football refree]" text from the Turkish Wikipedia. This is just an example, texts may be taken from anywhere, including the person itself (In return for some $$$). Heaven knows where these come from. You can ask on the Turkish village pump if "Kimdir" sources contribute to notability, and everyone with slight AfD experience will say no. This is just how the lazy and greedy Turkish media works. Editors have to have this in their mind when using them.
I do not blame you for not knowing the things above, but I want this article deleted because the subject is not notable, not because of this stupid socking history. ~StyyxieTalk? ^-^ 18:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except these sources aren't from July and don't use "Kimdir":
So where do these fit into all that? Thank you for informing me, by the way. I am basically done with this AfD, but I do want to know about this sort of thing for the future, if I encounter Turkish sources again. SilverserenC 19:49, 14 July 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) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark V. Bacino[edit]

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

Possible conflict of interest editing on a non notable singer who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. A before search leads me to self published sources, user generated sources and directories. Needless to say this is also a GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.allmusic.com/artist/mark-bacino-mn0000280762/discography — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModLang1128 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Striking sock-puppet vote. --JBL (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Parasol and DreamCrush are notable record labels that confer notability is a bit of a stretch... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parasol Records (& their associated imprints) was/is an important proponent of ‘90s - ‘00s power pop and indie pop, having released two album efforts by the article subject as well as many seminal bands of that genre - Velvet Crush, Soundtrack of Our Lives, Jack Logan, Bettie Serveert, etc. See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasol_Records?wprov=sfti1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModLang1128 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional research-info and detailed references to improve article and further reinforce subject’s notability. In addition to article subject’s musical work (having multiple album releases issued in subject’s name by notable independent labels, Parasol - US & Nippon Crown - Japan), subject is also a journalist. With numerous educational articles and columns written by subject having been published by several notable, commercial publications (Guitar World, Songwriter’s Market, etc.) allowing subject to meet Wiki standards/consensus re: journalistic notability. Additionally, as a producer, subject has worked in the television field, having compositions used by major television networks (see CW Network, “Vampire Diaries” reference for example) further meeting Wiki musician notability standards under “Criteria for musicians and ensembles” citation #10. Lastly, subject’s television audio engineering work earned him a 2021 Emmy nomination (see article citation #19) which further supports subject’s notability as cited in “Wikipedia: Notability (awards and medals)” as well as in “Criteria for musicians and ensembles” citation #8. For these reasons above, I would respectfully ask that the “marked for deletion” notice be removed from this article. Note - I have no affiliation with subject as inferred above (just a fan, author & historian of the power pop genre). — ModLang1128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:20, 13 July 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crosskeys Inn[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has been tagged since March. I could not find any media coverage. The books I can find about it are about a murder that took place there, and not the pub itself. The only source I can find is a book from 2019 that is just ordinary information on pubs. I doubt it counts any because it likely isn't reliable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your point well. My WP:BEFORE found none of this. Withdrawn. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 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 14:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Beber[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced for a decade. His academic profile falls far short of what is required for WP:NPROF: he was never a full professor and his publications have single-digit citation numbers on Google Scholar. I also have not found third-party coverage of him that would help towards WP:GNG. Overall, I think the article ought to be deleted. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:15, 13 July 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 2024 United States Senate elections. ✗plicit 14:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2024 United States Senate election in Maine[edit]

2024 United States Senate election in Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is WP:TOOSOON to write a meaningful article about this election, which is why there is almost nothing but empty headings. When there is something to say, then we can create this article. User:Namiba 13:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to redirect to 2024 United States Senate elections it's a suitable redirect target. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:26, 13 July 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) 00:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Tchaikovsky Competition 2011 – Piano[edit]

International Tchaikovsky Competition 2011 – Piano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is nothing but a long list of minutae about one category of one music competition. There are no similar pages (for the other 15 competitions held) or, for example, the other categories of the 2011 event (violin, cello, and voice). Further, the minute and expansive specificity of the detail (the contents lists over 185 items for example) means it is only of interest to a very narrow audience. Finally, once the header links (which are deprecated) and the in-line external links (also deprecated) are removed, the remainder is just an unreferenced and unverified mass of dot point details (with no prose whatsoever after the lead). Also surprised that this article has been here for 10+ years without being questioned (i.e. deleted/redirected) earlier. JabberJaw (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JabberJaw (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 13 July 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) 00:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul International Yacht Club[edit]

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

I somehow managed to miss the old PROD from 2009 on this, but regardless: Complete WP:NORG fail, not to mention WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE search exclusively leads to mirror sites that copied this article over, this includes the unlinked references. No other news items to be seen, not even passing mentions. AngryHarpy‍talk 11:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tail Swallower and Dove[edit]

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

Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Could be a redirect, but an editor insists on recreating without providing referencing. Onel5969 TT me 12:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 12:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria 1 of WP:NALBUMS.RF23 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TIGSource[edit]

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

no indication of notability for a blog website fails WP:GNG. A draft is already there Draft:TIGSource GermanKity (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:22, 13 July 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 12:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of The Fader[edit]

List of people on the cover of The Fader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST: no independent reliable sources discuss "people on the cover of The Fader" as a group or set. Lennart97 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mamita Debbarma[edit]

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

It would appear to me that this article about a living person fails any number of tests of notability (WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO) and so on. To be concise: it would appear that Ms Debbarma won the won the specific Tipura state contest in 2018, was not a contestant in Femina Miss India 2018 and then disappeared from view. As always, happy to be proven wrong. Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berg Party[edit]

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

This political party is only municipal in outreach, has no historical importance and no political consequence. It fails WP:GNG and every other Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 13 July 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 12:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Public Administration[edit]

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

Does not warrant its own page outside of description as a type of Bachelor's Degree. Not able to find reliable sources that detail waht (if any) standards exist for such a degree that could provide content for an entire page Paragon Deku (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning for this page specifically is that almost everything on it currently is worthless (either incomprehensible unsourced gibberish or self promotional unsourced gibberish), it’s not in a major discipline where reliable sources discuss average standards and applications for it, and frankly even if we could build a page on this topic we really are better just starting over. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:11, 13 July 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 12:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Dhar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The sources cover him in context of his company and are not sufficient to establish notability. M4DU7 (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable independently of iYogi. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Bonifacio Avenue, Marikina[edit]

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

Article of an unremarkable road (not a highway as it is not one of the components of Philippine highway network) that lacks sources since September 2017, yet no one made an attempt to rectify this. Probably this is just among the dozens of roads that many locals claim as highways even if these are not. Fails WP:GEOROAD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:09, 13 July 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 Jordan, Guimaras#Barangays. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Miguel, Jordan[edit]

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

A barangay article that resembles more of a directory or listing of establishments and landmarks than a real encyclopedic article. Such type of Philippines-related articles have been point of contention for the past decade, with latest discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. Consensus remains that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles.

For this barangay, it contains basic info like statistics, barangay captain, and natural description like geographical location. But most of it is essentially a directory, and this violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY rule. It does contain some sources, but these do not mainly talk about the barangay itself and are mainly about the landmarks that are listed here, thus all are not reliable. This article, therefore, should not benefit from WP:GEOLAND and must be nuked. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:09, 13 July 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) 00:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avian WE[edit]

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

A case of WP:DELETEMERGE, WP:COI. Searches for in-depth coverage in independent references have yielded nothing promising. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. If not delete, then WP:MERGE with WE (firm). RPSkokie (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:09, 13 July 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) 23:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carol number[edit]

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

Not notable. Briefly mentioned in a MathWorld article and included in OEIS, which in my view do not amount to significant coverage. Also mentioned on the website PrimePages. See also the arguments made in the 2009 AFD (no consensus). Adumbrativus (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is similar both in subject matter and in the sources found:

Kynea number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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) 23:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Sabah FA season[edit]

2017 Sabah FA season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stats page that was a contested PROD last year but no rationale was provided. I still don't see how this meets WP:GNG. It is cited entirely to blogs and a now-dead stats website. For reference, the coverage cited was like this for each match, so no significant analysis or even a basic match report, just stats. I chose two matches at random to see if I could find a match report but was unsuccessful. For Kuantan v Sabah, I found Sofascore and Besoccer. For Perlis v Sabah, I found the same sources as above again and also Live Result and Soccerway.

This is basic, bare minimum stats coverage that any football game receives and is not at all indicative of significant coverage which is required to address the topic directly and in significant detail. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable news websites covered this season in detail? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:10, 19 July 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) 23:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaySmart Software[edit]

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

No notability. A quick WP:BEFORE search didn't return anything worthwhile. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The MCSB award is somewhat questionable. First of all, its scope is limited to Michigan only and small businesses only. Second, the video about the winners 2012 doesn't mention the subject: https://vimeo.com/41492975 Third, the description of this specific category doesn't mention any significant accomplishments. The Inc5000 award has a wider scope, but the subject ranking is 4534, almost at the end of the list. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 17:39, 13 July 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 08:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nwngbai 2[edit]

Nwngbai 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; unable to find any reviews, significant analysis or awards. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:27, 13 July 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 12:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Krate Recordingz[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable American record label. Fails WP:GNG theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I don't think the lone supposedly notable act signed to the label, Wax Murdaraz, are notable either, but I haven't done a deep search. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:58, 13 July 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. czar 09:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Charles Fripp[edit]

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

Subject doesn't seem to be notable per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Current sources are social media or the publications he has written for. I can't find any reliable sources with significant discussion of him. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:53, 13 July 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. Looks like the WP:SIGCOV is just on the fence for this one. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ardita Sinani[edit]

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

BLP of a mayor of a small town (pop. 34,000). Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This piece in Danas is significant because it’s in a national daily, but it’s an interview.
This records the fact that she was elected. I’m not sure what the status of the site is but it appears to me to be a piece of local press.
This does look like a piece of extended coverage of her views.
This I can’t get to translate for some reason but it looks like an announcement of her election win, not in-depth coverage. That’s all I found. Mccapra (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:53, 13 July 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 close. This is now a completely different text than the one being nominated and discussed (early in this discussion). If anyone has objections to the current state of the article, it would have to be renominated again. Geschichte (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earth in science fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Earth in science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is an indiscriminate collection of various forms of media presenting the extremely broad subject of "Earth" as it appears in the extremely broad category of science fiction. Furthermore, most of the text is largely copied straight from plot descriptions and summaries. This article is an example of what Wikipedia is not. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Without secondary sources providing an analytical framework, it faces a problem: Where it is not wp:indiscriminate it is wp:synth, and where not wp:synth, it is wp:indiscriminate. It's a really interesting topic, though. It's just that it's not Wikipedia's role to invent a subfield of literary research.OsFish (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Idle comment Others !voting have also remarked this looks like a notable topic except for the lack of secondary sources offered. I had a look on google scholar for various permutations of the subject such as "depiction/representation/portrayal of (the)(planet) Earth in science fiction" and found nothing. I'm very surprised. If anyone knows anyone looking for a career-establishing literature PhD topic... OsFish (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I was hoping for something in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, for example, which often swerves into literary criticism, but nothing. /Julle (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede say "An overwhelming majority of fiction is set on or features the Earth. However, authors of speculative fiction..." (emphasis mine). While clearly unsourced, I don't think it's false nor contradicted by Asimov or Herbert. pburka (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. I don't like the overwhelmingly without properly collated stats. It's all about sourcing (lack of).TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLongTone: And now this statement is sourced. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That entry in the Greenwood encyclopedia (judging by 227-228) is pretty much the sort of thing I expected/hoped to find to support notability. The thing is, WP:GNG specifies secondary sources as key for notability. Encyclopedias are tertiary. There's no explanation in WP:GNG as to why tertiary would not count towards notability and it doesn't make immediate sense to me. Of course, it's only one source, and that isn't really enough. But would two or more encyclopedia entries be OK? Also, is it worth looking for sources that cite that entry in Greenwood? OsFish (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @OsFish In my experience, in practice, tertiary sources are often sufficient for establishing notability - and this is something worth discussing at WT:GNG. In particular, coverage in specialized encyclopedias like the ones I mentioned above is never, in my experience, disputed as insufficient, even if it is all we have. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I ask all Delete voters (and the closer) to take these newly-come-to-light sources into account for their decision. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone is willing to immediately totally rewrite the article, I still support deletion per WP:TNT and WP:REDLINK. That will give people more impetus to write a new article that is better.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm I think this has been just done (TNT and rewrite without deletion). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As promised, I will change my !vote to keep if the content in the page rises above something that is better off redirected, per WP:HEY, so I will keep watch on the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the revised version further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sungodtemple (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just another Perl hacker[edit]

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

Half of the article is listing out examples of Just another Perl hacker, which we don't need. There isn't much info found online about this either, leading me to believe there aren't sufficient sources to establish notability. Based on the comments below there are enough reliable sources and I withdraw the nomination. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looks like the link might have died (or I borked it); I can no longer see the pages. It was two pages of coverage in a textbook, which seemed compelling to me. I thought it was different than the 2nd, but of course I can no longer verify that. I won't fight to save this article; I'll leave that for more interested parties. Just cause the sources exist to support an independent article doesn't mean it shouldn't be Redirected. Suriname0 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the page loaded after a few retries. It was [www.oreilly.com/catalog/advperl2/ this book], page 262-263 in Chapter 10, which as you point out means that (1) and (3) are the same. Apologies for the confusion. Suriname0 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. That makes this a marginal case for me and in the spirit of consensus, I would support "keep" as an alternative to redirection. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 22:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 08:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajith Kumar[edit]

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

A non-notable professor and actor. The subject fails both WP:PROF and WP:NACTOR. The article fails WP:GNG too. Nakshathra Nair (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nakshathra Nair (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nakshathra Nair (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Nakshathra Nair (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The google search you complain about gives articles in The Times of India, The Indian Express and The Hindu. These are mainstream newspapers, not paid websites.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G5 as created by sockpuppet of Weareme234. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Alam[edit]

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

No significant coverage, Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS and non notable. If I search about him on Google it doesn't show anything about him. I have found only a few articles related to his death. Nitesh003 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nitesh003 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'll be adding the anecdote to William Lambie. Sandstein 07:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Lambie (footballer)[edit]

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

The article doesn't seem notable as there is barely any sources, and information that doesn't seem notable or truly correct, and the main information of the article resembles much of William Lambie, the article is also an orphan

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That lists appears to be for players with 100+ appearances. There's also one for 50-99 appearances, but not one for players with fewer than 50 appearances. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
bizarre there isn't one for 0-49, most other clubs have them! GiantSnowman 21:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to William Lambie and delete per Piecesofuk findings. Pinging, @GiantSnowman:, @Geschichte:, @Joseph2302: for reconsideration of new findings. Govvy (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser - right, delete (and that's my final answer) GiantSnowman 10:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slees Mills, Missouri[edit]

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

This one is an instance of blatant misrepresentation of the non-GNIS source, which says that Slee's Mill is A steam mill on Lick Creek (q.v.), southwest of Palmyra by three or four miles, on the Warren road. So named for the owner. Searching under this name brings up basically nothing. The 1884 History of Marion County, Missouri has some passing mentions to Sallee's Mill which is similar in type and location, but searching under that name doesn't bring up much more. This looks like an old rural mill that has been largely lost to history and was somehow mutated into a community. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macks Camp, Missouri[edit]

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

This one is a lakeside resort/fishing camp, not a community. The area appears to be Macks Camp Avenue, with a Warsaw address, and this newspaper article calls it a resort. Most other results are to passing mentions of "Macks Camp, Warsaw" which indicates that this is viewed as an outlying part of Warsaw, not a separate place. There's a Macks Camp Boat Ramp mentioned in some fishing guides, but that's about it that I can find. This doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND, and probably isn't worth mentioning in the Warsaw article. Hog Farm Talk 02:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 02:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 02:41, 13 July 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 De La Salle University – Dasmariñas#Heraldo Filipino. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldo Filipino[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:STUDENTMEDIA. Article is unsourced. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 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 02:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anamika Chawhan[edit]

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

fails GNG , No Significant coverage Iamfarzan (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Iamfarzan (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 04:44, 13 July 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 Ahir. Sandstein 07:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gwalvanshi[edit]

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

The article is about an Ahir clan and is not suitable for existence as a seperate article on Wikipedia. Few content which can be seen here can be included somewhere in Yadav or Ahir. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Komarova[edit]

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

Along with their twin, Sasha Komarova, there is not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. The only decent piece is the Russian Vogue piece, which is about both of them, which I guess counts for 1/2 an in-depth article each. I will be nominating the other twin as well, but do not feel bundling them together is warranted. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Komarova[edit]

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

Along with their twin, Sonia Komarova, there is not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. The only decent piece is the Russian Vogue piece, which is about both of them, which I guess counts for 1/2 an in-depth article each. I will be nominating the other twin as well, but do not feel bundling them together is warranted. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More