< July 14	July 16 >

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

The result was delete. This has significant underlying UNDUE problems in addition to the concerns expressed below. Daniel (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hand[edit]

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

I don't know much about Australian radiojournalism, but I couldn't find a great deal about him and the one provided source for this BLP says that he was fired for uttering a racial slur on the air. This doesn't seem like enough to establish notability and a BLP requires much better references than what's provided. ♟♙ (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weak References, article has ben tagged for years because of a lack of sources. Tec Tom (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I agree with the OP's criticisms so I've made significant changes to the page in an attempt to meet WP:GNG, although it's still a weak page. I could only find a couple of sources online, both relating to the successful unfair dismissal claim; and a handful via a ProQuest database search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers (deeper and broader than Google) although most are from a regional newspaper, the Illawarra Mercury. The page now arguably passes WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the article and for adding some references, Cabrils! Still, I am not quite sure, if the page now passes WP:GNG, but would also agree on a weak keep.Tec Tom (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. This article is only two sentences long and says nothing about who the subject has worked for nor when. Hardly anything is stated about his career except for a time when he was suspended and a time when he was fired. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:48, 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. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netrikann[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM and WP:NFF.

PROD removed with "multiple secondary independent sources discuss this film", but the sources cited are a link to a trailer, an article announcing the film and saying it "might" be a remake (but its more of a promotional article), and the third one just talks about it going to streaming platform.

Nothing else was found, no reviews, etc.

Since it's not released yet, it might be best to move it to DRAFT until release and see if any reviews appear at that point. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The film is greatly looked forward as the Lady superstar of Tamil Industry Nayanthara comes in a lead role. She has a huge fan following and so her films. The film is the remake of the super hit Korean film, Blind. Kross Pictures, an international film production company, which take initiative in bringing Korean films to India is the co-producer of the film. The film is going to be released through the OTT Platform, Disney+Hotstar very recently. So I give a strong keep for this film. But I do agree to the point that the article didn't have enough citations. Hence I am making many changes - adding references and more content to the article and hence voting a Strong Keep for the film.
- Reference which is a link to the trailer has been removed and the References which talks about producer and co-producer of the movie have been kept.
- The Reference which says that the film might be a remake is replaced by the Reference which ensures that its a remake of the Korean movie Blind.
- Added reference about the cast of the film.
- Added reference about the music which was released and which attained great attention from the people.
- Added more references about the shooting and production.
- Added references about the teaser and poster release of the film.
- Just a Google search itself says about how notable the film is... Sonal Mathew (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:HEY. Significantly different article now than when it was taken to AfD, including a number of new references from Times of India and other reliable sources. /Julle (talk) 10:13, 22 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 11:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hansa - Ek Sanyog[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM.

PROD removed with "see Times of India and Zee news sources when I search. they are independent from the people making the film so not promotional articles." While the Times article may qualify as a step toward notability, the Zee article is simply a casting announcement, which does not count toward notability requirements.

I found nothing else in my search. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23:I've removed the article about casting announcement. I've added a source for the content I recently added. I've also linked a few Wikipedia articles to this article. .Eevee01 (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not qualifying WP:NFILM. It is WP:TOOSOON. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the creator of this article. After reading the comments, I agree that the movie is not notable enough. Eevee01 (talk) 10:20, 18 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 12:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Soldiers[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment review found at [[1]]CineMagazine, which I have seen used as a RS in many AfDs. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the above review I also found reviews at DVD Talk (archived link) and Eye for Film (which I have seen used as a RS). Should satisfy NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now has 2 reviews which passes WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews demonstrating the bare minimum of notability. The film is also known as Combat Zone, so there might be additional sources using that title. TompaDompa (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has full reviews in reliable film sources such as DVD Talk and Cinemagazine so WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 18 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) 23:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha and Rahul[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a film, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for films. The strongest notability claim here is that it won awards at minor film festivals which aren't notability clinchers, whereas NFILM is looking for major film festivals on the Cannes-Berlin-Toronto-Sundance tier of prominence rather than just any small-fry film festival that exists — and the article is referenced entirely to directory entries on IMDb, IMDb clones, Amazon and public libraries, and is not showing any evidence whatsoever of reliable source coverage about the film in real media. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have considerably better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So many sources, yet non make the film notable.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 15 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 12:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baurzhan Baimukhanov[edit]

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

There's nothing to indicate notability. There's no RS coverage on which to build an encyclopedic entry. This WP page is just a glorified LinkedIn profile. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – I can find no significant coverage that would enable the subject of this article to pass the GNG/WP:BASIC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tagged since 2015 and sourced from virtually nothing. The article's creator's only edits have been to this page, which hints at a COI.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:30, 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 procedural close with no action. No consensus here has established a merge with 7 days elapsed, and User:Dr. Universe is correct that this should have been proposed at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers rather than AfD. Daniel (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian doubles[edit]

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

Merge into Types of tennis match due to WP:Short and WP:DUP; Stub for over a decade; not much room for increased content. Mjquinn_id (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Mjquinn id: next time please propose this at WP:PAM rather than at articles for deletion. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:03, 22 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 A7/G11 Speedy deleted by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 00:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richie knows[edit]

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

Non notable software application that fails to meet relevant SNG, the article is predominantly a promotional one promoting a non notable software application and a non notable individual. No in-depth significant coverage in RS could be observed. Borderline G11 eligible. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as speedy delete. Pre-alpha social network with no sources or indication of importance.Citing (talk) 22:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh Integrated College[edit]

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

No sources exist, except for one which mentions that this school used to exist, but nothing else. No notability. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect: is the quick solution. I have left an anchor point at Integrated College Dungannon#Armagh Integrated College that could receive it. ClemRutter (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Sources(which apparently don't exist): [2] [3] [4] The Irish Examiner source counts as significant coverage. The Irish Times source is borderline significant coverage in my opinion. these sources were easily found with a quick google search (which the nominator could easily have done per WP:BEFORE) more may be found with a better search. 194.125.95.113 (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this which I think counts as significant coverage 194.125.95.113 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also this 194.125.95.113 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge To the target identified by ClemRutter. The Irish times is a long article, but mostly about other stuff. Same goes for the Irish examiner article. It's on a former cabinet members views about integrated education in general. Not about Armagh Integrated College. Which it only name drops. The rest of the references don't seem to be in-depth coverage either. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which Examiner article you read (I linked two) this one is entirely about the closure of this school. this one has several hundred words about this school in particular. It's also worth pointing out that Mo Mowlam's comments were made at the opening of this school. 194.125.95.113 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it relevant when or where Mo Mowlam made the comments? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I changed my vote to redirect or merge since I missed the second Examiner article. I still think one of those is the best option. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG, as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It'll never be a huge article, but there are enough sources to establish notability per WP:ORGDEPTH: these are more than mere trivial listings. I don't see a redirect as suggested as an improvement.OsFish (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per OsFish, having glanced at the sources. Enough for us to be able to build an article. /Julle (talk) 10:54, 22 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 per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alimero[edit]

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

Not a notable website; fails WP:GNG GloriaJFM (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SL2College[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; advertisement GloriaJFM (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I am not seeing anything that suggests any notability at all. What I do see is an article written just like what their website could be written like, or any other promotional material. I am surprised it was created over a decade ago. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find any RIS at all. Mccapra (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this probably could have been dealt with as a PROD. It clearly is clearly promoting/advertising the organization - there is no supporting/meaningful coverage in any independent secondary sources and it is questionable as whether the organization exists anymore. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. ✗plicit 13:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to the lack of notability. I'm tempted to go with procedural keep, but there's already enough "votes" in one direction to warrant seeing the AfD through. Otherwise, it would likely just be kept to needlessly be sent through the process again with the same outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I strongly believe it should be deleted because reliable sources are week and this article written just for advertisement purpose. Fails GNG.TheDreamBoat (talk) 17:56, 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 redirect to Shane Dawson#Filmography. (ATD) Daniel (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shane and Friends[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB, mostly trivial mentions, insignificant coverage by tabloid media. I could not find one reliable source covering the subject in-depth. I do not believe it warrants its own article, though some of its contents could be incorporated into the Shane Dawson article. Throast (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shane Dawson#Filmography: Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return only passing mentions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 18 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) 23:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flashline Games[edit]

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

Not notable; fails WP:GNG GloriaJFM (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 19:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources for this. Fails GNG. Fails NCORP. None of the games produced are notable, so I imagine this fails any novel interpretation of a creative endeavor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. ✗plicit 13:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom's misbehavior notwithstanding, the subject does fail WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 18 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) 23:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moch. As'ari[edit]

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

Despite playing in 3 fixtures, his total game time was 59 minutes, less than one game of football in terms of playing time. This, in my view, is a fairly weak passing of WP:NFOOTBALL and there is clear consensus among the Wikipedia community that all sportspeople are required to satisfy WP:GNG.

I attempted many searches, including an Indonesian source search, and including variations in the spelling of his name, but was unable to find any in-depth coverage addressing him directly and in detail. Nothing that we can build a meaningful and substantial biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he passes WP:NFOOTBALL, the article should be kept. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. No sources that go towards GNG are found in the article and I could not locate any during an online search (including in Indonesian sources). As Spiderone notes, all sportspeople have to pass WP:GNG regardless of whether they pass WP:NFOOTBALL or other sports-specific notability guidelines per WP:ATHLETE. - Alvaldi (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GS, doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments, players meeting WP:NFOOTBALL can still be obscure. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep still passes NFOOTY, and appears to still have an active career.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Delete per below.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last record of him anywhere was sitting on the bench in June 2012, 9 years ago Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:06, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may renominate the article for deletion. ✗plicit 13:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trance.nu[edit]

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

Not a notable website; fails WP:GNG, the article is mostly just text copied from the former webpage GloriaJFM (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hashem Farajzadeh[edit]

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

Coverage is weak and does not meet WP:GNG requirements. Google News and DDG searches in his native language failed to yield anything better than a transfer announcement and a small bunch of squad list mentions. Barely anything better than Isna was located. Several articles where he is mentioned only once do not add up to a passing of GNG. Futsal players are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL either, even if they claim to be professionals. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:11, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Ayazipour[edit]

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

None of the references establish anything towards WP:GNG and I found nothing better in his native language on DDG or Google News. The best sources appear to be Tasnim News and Irna, both of which mention him only once. Also worth noting that futsal players are not given any presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:37, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Al Haraki[edit]

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

BLP of a refugee activist of uncertain notability. A search for sources in English and Arabic didn’t turn up anything not already in the article, and I’m not sure there’s enough here to warrant a stand alone bio. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete the best source I could find here was this short 1-page description and quote of her, which is not enough for WP:GNG. --hroest 15:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient coverage for notability.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:10, 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 delete per WP:SNOW. Hog Farm _Talk 17:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turning points during World War II[edit]

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

An orphan article that is essentially OR. There are any number of events that could be called a turning point in WW2, and the selection is completely subjective even if referred to in sources. It seems like an answer in search of a question, and category made longwinded Pipsally (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at it properly, I concur that it could be considered subjective in relation to the events listed as being referred to as "turning points". The article's references support the prose within the sections and the events themselves, but do not necessarily validate their inclusion in the article or why they are considered "turning points" and by who. I am interested in what the original author Loafiewa has to say before considering whether to !vote on this. I am leaning delete as it's essentially just a list under the guise of something else. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you've mentioned, the #1 issue is that the references don't actually support the claims that the battles mentioned were considered turning points. Would it be worth trying to find references to support these claims, or is the article's nature inherently OR? Loafiewa (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Loafiewa: The fact you need to ask whether it's appropriate to reference the underlying purpose of the article gives me pause for thought and confirmation that it really is nothing more than opinion, or textbook original research. Pipsally pretty much hit the nail on the head in the nomination, "It seems like an answer in search of a question". If you think you can find sufficient reliable sources to support the foundation of the article before the AfD concludes then sure, go for it. Doing so successfully may alter the course of the AfD, if perhaps very unorthodox, but doesn't change that it was seemingly founded wholly on personal opinion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of my view above and the admission by Loafiewa that this is opinion driven. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would think that to qualify as a turning point would at a minimum require a reference or two supporting the inclusion of a particular battle, and the rationale for it. Clearly it is completely subjective. The "academic answers" down the bottom are a concession of OR; such an article should be based upon them in the first instance, not the author's opinions. I'm inclining towards delete on the unusual basis that the article could never be brought up to an acceptable standard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear case of WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too subjective, too much OR. Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Too subjective. The outcome of the war might have been very different if Hitler had maintained peace with Stalin. Objectively his decision to invade USSR (Operation Barbarosa) is thus a key event but not listed. Equally this applies to the Attack on Pearl Harbor which brought USA into war. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too subjective. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not specific enough to meet WP criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is original research. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being subjective is not necessarily a problem as long as there is some kind of WP:Academic consensus about what qualifies. This is however not the case here, as the article itself notes. The source cited for the views of historians—https://www.historynet.com/what-was-the-turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm—makes this abundantly clear. If anything, the prevailing view seems to be that the concept of a turning point does not apply to WWII (or as the nominator put it, It seems like an answer in search of a question). It might theoretically be possible to write an article about the lack of a distinctive turning point in WWII as compared to other wars, but that would require way better sourcing and would at any rate constitute a rather significant scope change—it wouldn't be a different version of this article but rather an altogether different article. As it stands, this is essentially a list with no proper WP:LISTCRITERIA. TompaDompa (talk) 14:29, 21 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 Devel Motors. No sourced content to merge. czar 04:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devel Sixteen[edit]

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

Devel Sixteen

This stub does not contain enough information to establish product notability.

There is also a draft, which is more detailed, and reads like an advertisement, so this article cannot be moved to draft space.

Both of the references are advertisements.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant
1	Driving.ca	In the nature of a press release	No	N/A
2	Throttlebias.com	Reads like an advertisement	No	N/A

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article is not required to "contain enough information to establish product notability". The topic is required to be notable. Notability is determined without regard to whether it's already been made clear from the text or sources in the article. See WP:ARTN. Largoplazo (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I'll leave it to others to judge the reliability and sufficiency of the following coverage, but I'm pretty sure the suitability of Road and Track and Robb Report, if not that of Motor Authority or Jalopnik, is clear.

https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121646_devel-sixteen-will-reportedly-arrive-in-production-spec-in-2019

Largoplazo (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Devel Motors - Sources demonstrate notability, but do not demonstrate independent notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not believe that the car or the company meet the threshold for significant coverage, but if they must be kept they should be merged.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:18, 20 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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McLeod Country Golf Club[edit]

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

Run of the mill golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although I have not been much of a contributor to this article (just a few small edits), I am familiar with the topic as it is in my local area. The significance of this golf club is that it was the first golf club in Australia to give women equal rights and was specifically established by women for that reason. At that time, women could not have full membership of other golf clubs, merely "ladies membership" which generally restrict their rights (could not play on weekends, could not vote, etc). See [5], [6], [7], [8]. However, it would appear that mention of this was removed from the lede paragraph in 2020 by an IP (see this version prior to that edit. I have previously seen IP edits on articles related to Australian women in which bit by bit their achievements are removed or deprecated so this may be the same individual at work. I think the topic is notable (although I would agree that the article wasn't tremendously well-written, but this is not the point at issue in an AfD). Kerry (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG per the sources Kerry Raymond has provided and shows it is not a run-of-the-mill golf course. The complaints department being on the roof is also not a reason for deletion and is non-sensical. Deus et lex (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is part of WilliamJE's signature, and is not part of the nomination statement, FWIW. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Kerry's reasons. I've made some copy edits to clean it up a little. There's sufficient sources to pass WP: GNG]. Cabrils (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisted in error, sorry. I meant to close as "keep" because the "keep" arguments have remained unrefuted. But now my closing script borks out because of a supposed edit conflicht, so I'll leave this for another closer. Sandstein 17:07, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kilbrogan House[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILDING, WP:GNG and related criteria.

In terms of NBUILDING, this early 19th century building is like many others in Bandon and County Cork. And while several other buildings in this part of Bandon are listed on the Record of Protected Structures for County Cork (and are therefore may meet NBUILDING as 'officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level'), this building is not listed on the Record of Protected Structures. And therefore has no regional or national heritage/protection status. It is no more notable than any other (of hundreds or thousands or 10s of thousands) Georgian buildings in Ireland. And no more notability that the 40-50,000 other structures with an entry in the NIAH buildingsofireland.ie database. (While, in the dePROD and other similar AfD discussions, I have seen an argument that the NIAH is a record of protected or heritage structures. It isn't. The NIAH is a "long list" of structures that may be considered for protected status. As such it includes pretty much anything and everything that might qualify. And therefore contains structures that have been assessed for inclusion in the RPS, but were not afforded protected status. Or which have yet to be reviewed/protected. And as such is part waiting room, part reject list.)

In terms of GNG, I cannot find sources to establish notability. And can barely find sources, in fact, to support much of the text. A search in news sources (like an Irish Times search or a Google News search) returns nothing. At all. Book sources (like a Google Books search) only seem to include directory-style entries and the like for the B&B business. Academic sources (like JSTOR) and architectural sources (like the otherwise extensive Irish Architectural Archive/DIA) also return nothing.

In general terms, the stuff about the "present owner [having] opened the formerly private residence for guest accommodation including bed and breakfast and self-catering" (with multiple web links to accommodation websites) hasn't helped with PROMO/ADVERT/COI concerns. I'm really just not seeing how this B&B/building is any more notable than any other. Even in Bandon frankly. Not to mind the rest of the county. Or country. Or beyond. Guliolopez (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBUILDING as demo'ed by very thorough nomination. Spleodrach (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no more notable than hundreds of other building in Ireland. There is nothing special here. The only source seem to be mentions in travel guides; online and printed. ww2censor (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While inclusion on the NIAH may not actually meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT, I think it's a highly contributory factor, since anything included on the NIAH at Regional level or above is recommended by the minister for listing on the RPS. Despite the nominator's statement, I would say that most Georgian houses (large ones, at least) are in fact notable. The fact there are thousands of them is utterly irrelevant. In fact, if it was in the UK, where there are even more, this would almost certainly be a listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hiya. Thanks for the considered contributions. While I am always conscious of WP:BLUDGEON in these discussions, I thought it useful to note that:

While a listing in the NIAH may be contributory, it cannot stand as a notability consideration on its own. Otherwise this 1970s phone box or 1990s post box would meet GEOFEAT. And I'm sure we'd all agree they wouldn't. Not unless either were the primary topic of other SIGCOV.
While it might be your opinion/contention that "most [big] Georgian houses" are automatically notable, I'm not sure which notability criteria would provide for every [big] building (built over a span of ~120 years) being automatically notable.
While it is an interesting hypothetical ("if this house was in the UK it'd be protected"), and a possibly valid critique of Ireland's planning/protection regime, I'm not sure how that hypothetical applies here. Bandon is not in the UK :)
Otherwise, while the difference between "included on a list of buildings considered for heritage protection" and "included on a list of buildings conferred with heritage protection" is an interesting discussion to have, I don't see how it can be balanced against a simple WP:SIGCOV review. (In that, absent the NIAH entry and this Wikipedia article, I can find nothing which discusses the subject in any depth at all. To the extent that even the basic facts of the article ["greenhouse and conservatory may have been built c.1900", "auction took place there c.1900", etc] seem to be unsupported/unsupportable.)

Anyway, always happy to participate in a considered AfD discussion, but I can't personally agree with arguments like "considered for protection status is (effectively) equivalent to having protection status" or "all (big-ish) buildings built in the latter 18th and early 19th centuries have a form of inherent notability". Guliolopez (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that my opinion that most large Georgian houses were notable merely followed on the heels of your opinion that they were not! As to my contention that such houses probably would be listed in the UK, I think it is important to point out the fact that an identical house would probably meet WP:GEOFEAT if it was in a neighbouring country with a very similar architectural tradition. It makes little sense in real world terms (as opposed to the rarefied and apparently increasingly "rules-bound" world of Wikipedia) that one passes notability requirements and another does not simply because their respective countries have different standards for heritage protection. Incidentally, according to the NIAH website, they're recommended for heritage protection (presumably by experts) rather than simply considered for; rather different things, I think. I would incidentally agree with you that individual postboxes and telephone boxes are not worthy of inclusion, any more than the hundreds of 1920s and 1930s telephone boxes which have actually been accorded listed building status in the UK are, although technically they do pass GEOFEAT. They're notable as types of structure rather than as individual structures. Sometimes we have to use common sense! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll just confirm one thing here. And then we can move to User Talk as needed. In short, it would not be true to say that "[all NIAH listings are] recommended for heritage protection". Per the NIAH website, "NIAH surveys provide the basis for the recommendations of the Minister". Just because something was surveyed and recorded doesn't mean that it leads to a recommendation. Only once a building is included on the NIAH's recommendation for the conservation list, is that list passed on to the relevant county council. And the council then vote on what makes it onto the RPS. For example, this 1970s crane was surveyed. But the survey did not result in a recommendation. (The NIAH is not a record of protected structures and is not a record of recommended protected structures. It is record of surveyed structures. That might then be put forward for recommendation. Which in turn may then be selected for protection.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's one sentence on that webpage. Another is: "Sites/structures/groups of structures given a Regional, National or International Rating by the NIAH are included in the Minister’s recommendations" (italics mine). And per your edit summary, not everyone who applies for a driving licence is given one. But everyone who is recommended for one by the appropriate authorities is. But whatever, my keep !vote stands. This building is, in my opinion, notable enough for inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cavendish's article. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NIAH source is excellent for our purpose. The place is also documented in other good sources such as Fodor. The place therefore passes WP:GNG and we're good. The nomination's complaint that we might have lots of similar articles is not a problem or reason to delete per policy WP:NOTPAPER, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi. RE: "documented in Fodors and NIAH means GNG is met". Two pieces of coverage (one Fodors review/entry and one NIAH entry) wouldn't seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV expectation of WP:GNG. RE: "No practical limit". Apologies if my nom note wasn't clear. But it wasn't intended to a "slippery slope" argument ("if we mirror this NIAH entry we have to mirror all"). It was intended to be NN/WP:GEOFEAT argument (that not every building is notable). RE: "NIAH is an excellent resource". Yes. It is. I rely on it myself all the time. To support content. It doesn't, however, automatically support notability. Guliolopez (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources tick all the boxes for WP:SIGCOV and there's plenty more which highlight other aspects such as the ownership by the Brennans, when it was attacked by British soldiery. The place is notable architecturally and historically. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE "plenty sources that highlight ownership by Brennans and attack by British soldiers". Can you share those sources? The main reason for the nom was that I find no sources to support/expand the content. Not to mind establish notability. I also note that the text states that the Brennans were tenants. Rather than owners. If there are sources which confirm otherwise, they'd be good to have. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Andrew's comment above. NemesisAT (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearian. The information included is actually interesting (at least, the cited stuff that can be supported by sourcing), but I just don’t think it’s notable enough for its own page. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:57, 23 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) 23:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Campos Panadeiros[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Small town mayor, getting routine local coverage, fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BD2412 T 01:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meeting WP:GNG per multiple reliabble independent sources. It's not routine local coverage as the nominator indicates. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources cited in the article, such as La Voz de Galicia and Faro de Vigo, are region-wide publications with high circulation, and therefore clearly represent more than routine coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple sources already cited that allow this to pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with sufficient sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:23, 22 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) 23:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dum Dum Dumroo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, with a lack of significant coverage in most of the sources. Also fails WP:GNG. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NFILM. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:50, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salud Beverages[edit]

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

Promo piece about a non-notable ROTM business. Single source cited only once, and a search finds nothing beyond social media accounts, business/directory listings, and some press release regurgitations. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. Previously speedied and subsequently quickly recreated, hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it should be noted that the article has has sources added since being nominated, none of these are reliable or independent of the subject: This even states that it was written by the company's founder, this does not seem to be independent of the subject either or neutral (I mean, what do you make of this: "Salud promises us a new beginning, a fresh life, with a 2.0 update! And given the year we’ve had, maybe a little G&T is exactly what we need!"), and this is almost from a reliable source, but just an "interview" with the founder Ajay Shetty. I myself found a very short text that mentions the company here, speaking about an investment. But it's not a full length article and not enough to establish notability by a long shot. Thus, delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 16:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a PR exercise, with sources that, while they have improved, all also look like PR activity Dexxtrall (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written like a PR release.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:37, 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Denman[edit]

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

I do not think I have ever seen so much written and yet so little said about the subject of an article. A cursory search on Google Books indicates to me that Anne Denman is not remembered as anything but a great-grandmother of an English queen. Yet, WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy states that Wikipedia is not a genealogy directory. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being an ancestor to royalty is not in and of itself a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; on grounds that "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic", and in this case, the article is a well-written and referenced account of something related to the family history of the British royal family, which probably qualifies as a notable topic. I admit she's a bit of a backwater in British royal genealogy (and I personally couldn't care less who's married to whom in royal families) but this sort of stuff seems to be of interest to a lot of people. I.e. this isn't routine genealogy. Also, sadly, it was difficult for a woman in the 16th and 17th C to do anything much notable apart from be married. Elemimele (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elemimele, please see WP:INVALIDBIO. Simply being related to someone, even if it is the British royal family, is not grounds for inclusion. (For what it is worth, her royal descendants consisted of only one generation, which ended in 1714.) Lots of people care about Britney Spears too but it does not mean we should have an article about Britney's grandmother. Anne Denman simply does not get significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV). Surtsicna (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely my point. Firstly, the coverage that Anne Denman gets is proportional to her place in history: people write about figures less and less as they fade into the past, and she lived 500 years ago. The sources referenced in the article aren't bad; there's no suspicion that they're biased; they're just the only places anyone is likely to write about a person who died so long ago. Those sources do suggest she would have been significant in her day, and if someone was once notable, they remain notable. Secondly, I think you're being a bit narrowly-legalistic about the rule that being related is not adequate grounds for being notable. The family tree of the Kings and Queens of the UK is a subject in which encyclopaedia readers take a legitimate interest (this isn't just a piece of nationalism; the same would be true of any of the major ruling families in world history). It's logically impossible to give information about a family tree without ending up writing about who is related to whom (that's what a family tree is). So the information about her family connections is valid encyclopaedia material somewhere. I'd agree it doesn't have to be in an article personally about her: if you can find a general page on kings and queens of the time, into which the information can be merged in such a way that little is lost, and where the information sits naturally, by all means merge. But straight deletion would weaken the encyclopaedia. Elemimele (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of pages are continuously written about people who actually are notable regardless of whether they lived 500 or 1000 or 2000 years ago. The sources cited in the article are nothing but genealogical publications, which merely confirm her existence. Nobody has written about, say, the influence she had on Stuart monarchs. (Likely because she did not have any.) She is just an extremely obscure relation about whom historians have nothing to say. The appropriate place to mention her would be the articles about her children who actually are notable. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being great-grandmother to two English monarchs would seem to make her notable. These aren't just run-of-the-mill people and that's close enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That argument blatantly contravenes WP:INVALIDBIO guideline, which says: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A." For Denman to be notable there has to be significant coverage of her, not of her great-granddaughters. There is no significant coverage of Denman, so she is not notable. In fact, since published biographies of Anne and Mary II do not mention this woman, she is not even notable enough to be mentioned in the articles about them, let alone have a standalone article, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with taking things like this as gospel is that anyone who lives in the internet era will undoubtedly appear to be more notable than anyone who did not. We need to be careful about assuming people from history are not notable just because we can't find so much about them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to Wikipedia editors' to research historical people. It is the job of historians. If historians do not write about them, encyclopedias should not either. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The above arguments for keeping seem to fly in direct contrast to our guidelines, namely WP:INVALIDBIO, and an argument in speculation about who should've been notable. Notability is chiefly demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources. "Those sources do suggest she would have been significant in her day, and if someone was once notable, they remain notable" is a comment which misses the mark. Construed significance/importance != significant coverage in reliable sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 16:46, 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. czar 04:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid the Magnificent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of citations in references for information given, as most are primary sources; the article fails to include secondary sources, which increases the question of it conforming to WP:RS and WP:GNG GUtt01 (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject has made multiple talent show appearances and I see a small amount of coverage for performances elsewhere. Nevertheless I don’t see that they have anything resembling significant roles, 2,190 Instagram followers doesn’t amount to a cult following, and I don’t see that they have made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, so does not pass WP:ENT. Mccapra (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the appearance on a nationally-known megashow like America's Got Talent, the two main features about him currently bulletlisted (although not currently cited) in the References section, and the brief pieces of events covered by sources such as NJ.com and Time Out New York mentioning him as involved. However, there's a lot more needed to make me !vote Strong Keep; the Las Vegas Review Journal source is local, and TheTrades ref is just a direct Q&A interview with him. Plus, like Mccapra states, the amount of coverage of his performances are small and very insignificant. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those sources do appear don't add up to establishing notability, with a lack of reliable sources that focus specifically on him Dexxtrall (talk) 21:40, 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. Daniel (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Store and Forward[edit]

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

Not notable. Wikipedia is not a software manual. PepperBeast (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was clearly created to popularize the terminology used by one company (SAP). Also, when I discovered that there is a bunch of articles about SAP products and most of them do not meet notability requirements either. For example, SAP NetWeaver and List of SAP products (have links to other articles, some are red because were deleted per PROD, AfD and promotion, etc.) Anton.bersh (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As above, this is a software catalogue entry. All the sources available are not independent. Reyk _YO! 07:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Second sentence of article is "SSF is intended to make documents secure no matter how they are stored or transferred." which looks like an advertisement. I agree with nom that this looks a bit like a software manual. Not much information here, so maybe WP:TNT or keep and substantially improve the article. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:30, 22 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) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erminethrudis[edit]

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

There appears to be nothing notable about this woman. Her name only survives because her will survives. PepperBeast (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Her name only survives because her will survives" isn't nothing! She may not have been a particularly remarkable person but scholars appear to consider her will a valuable historical document. This could justify re-titling/re-framing the article around her will, or maaaaybe merging somewhere if we have a suitable longer target article on documents or inheritance or Merovingian women or I don't know, but the scholarship is there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. She and the will have been written about by multiple authors, another one of whom I just added at the article. No objection to moving to Testament of Erminethrudis if others think that reframing the will as notable is best. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment good point. PepperBeast (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have just added more information. Can't help seeing the gender aspect of this. Huge amounts of research on women's history is being published all of the time, and when I posted this initially I hoped that it would be added to in time. She would have been a hugely significant character in the Paris of her time, a major landowner, and a significant player in church politics. (sorry if this isn't how you contribute to this page but couldn't find another way.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalieben (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You state above that you "have just added more information", but there is no corresponding edit to the article. I am pointing this out in the hope that your additional information was not saved for some technical reason and that you can add it again. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and expand, without changing the title of the article, because she created the will, and a source that discusses the significance of her action, with biographical information and context, includes: Caring for Body and Soul: burial and the afterlife in the Merovingian world (Effros, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002), and there is additional biographical information available in Framing the Early Middle Ages (Wickham, OUP Oxford, 2006). There also appears to be a variety of non-English sources available from Google Scholar. Beccaynr (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability doesn't require great deeds or accomplishments: it requires significant coverage in independent sources, a requirement which Erminethrudis clearly meets given the extensive scholarly interest. pburka (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An easy pass of WP:BASIC. See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep and support renaming/rewrite. My glance at the sources suggest that while she may not be notable, the testament of Erminethrudis is a notable historical document. I'd suggest therefore that this article should be tagged for a rewrite (since there is no applicable merge target). PS. Not sure what is the applicable copyediting template for 'this needs to be rewritten/refocused', it may be easier (for the nom) to withdraw this, and then rewrite the article and move it. That said, User:Beccaynr seems to oppose such a solution. But unless the additional biographical information is significant, I think any notability she has is derived from the document, not the other way around. She is not important, what her document tells us about the ancient way of life is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To clarify my perspective, it appears to me that the document derives notability from who she was, and the sources highlighted in my comment above seem to help show that, and specifically, in Effros, the link includes, starting at p. 27, a discussion of her and her biographical information, and also states, "Erminethrudis's will demonstrates the far-reaching influence a widow might exercise in conjunction with her possession if no restrictions were placed upon her." Additional details of actions she took with her will are included at p. 196. The other source is Wickham, which at pp. 66, 68, 84, 123, and 233 discusses her vineyards and land, and apparently only notes her will as a footnote at p. 3802. Who she was appears to be covered in multiple independent and reliable sources, which to varying degrees also provide WP:SECONDARY analysis, synthesis and commentary on her life, the context, and her creation of the will. From my view, sources exist to support her notability as a person independent of the will that is relevant today because of what she accomplished during her life. Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Thank you for elaborating on this. You make a solid claim, although I remain concerned that there is not enough to be written about her to de-stub the article, without discussing the significance of the document. Ditto for the testament itself. In other words, we may have two highly overlapping articles (about her and about the testament). Wouldn't one article be better? And if so, what's more significant: her or her testament? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Piotrus, and I think the will is part of her biography, because it is something she did. There is another source (Bouchard, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014) with more biographical information, that also states she "was clearly an important landowner." Also, it is currently unclear to me how much there is to say about the will that is independent from her, and sufficient to justify its own article - the significance seems linked with her biography, i.e. it is notable that a woman created a will during this time period. I have not yet found sources (at least in part because I have not attempted to translate non-English sources) suggesting the will is related to an independent legal principle, but I would consider that a stronger justification for an article focused on the will, if those sources emerge. In the meantime, her BLP will not be the most lengthy of articles, but I think there is enough to create a biography that includes her will and its significance based on the currently available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Fair enough. For now I just redirected the testament article to her bio; one article is justified, the other may warrant a 'categorized redirect'. We can revisit this one day if we end up with two nearly identical articles... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Beccaynr makes a good argument for why the testament is best contextualised in her biography, i.e. it wouldn't necessarily be notable if she hadn't been who she was. /Julle (talk) 11:03, 22 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 12:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anar Alizade[edit]

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

There is no RS coverage of this person in English language sources. Looking at his German and Azeri Wikpiedia pages, there doesn't appear to be any RS coverage in other languages either. As best I can tell, this Wikipedia page is just a glorified LinkedIn profile. It has no encyclopedic value and serves as an advertisement for the person. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also noticed that about 40% of the article is from self-published primary sources. One day I'm gonna make a website and make a wikipedia article for myself out of it. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + GNG.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Nitesh003 (talk) 12:59, 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 already draftified. Daniel (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comikey[edit]

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

Lacks notability, all sources are press releases. Fram (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While the sources cited are actually not press releases, they both only cover one event. According to the company's website, they were founded in 2020, so other sources (for now) are unlikely to exist. Link20XX (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep

I do understand that Anime news network I cited as a reference is a press release as it is under there press release category https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/recent and I will remove that as a reference, but the crunchyroll link is indeed a secdondary source since it is not underneath there press release category https://www.crunchyroll.com/newsfeed/archive/press-release they also state when an article is a press release underneath the title of each article. as shown bellow

but for the article I listed from chrunchyroll

(https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2021/07/12/comikey-media-licenses-eight-shogakukan-manga-series) Instead the article shows the name of the journalist who wrote the article

Links to the website the screenshots came from: Screenshot 1: https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-press-release/2018/07/21-1/an-inside-look-at-mari-okadas-directorial-debut-maquia-when-the-promised-flower-blooms screenshot 2: https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-press-release/2018/09/25-1/manga-translation-battle-of-professionals-begins Could an editor please review my article again please Side note: There are other reliable sources talking about different events regarding Comikey other than the licensing of the 8 manga I was actually planning on adding the other events after I created the article but I decided to deal with the deletion request first Nuope (talk)

The Crunchyroll article states at the bottom; "Source: Press release". The writer just seems to have summarized the press release, that's all. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The author is using the afore mentioned anime news network article as his source. Crunchyroll will not use any press releases sent to them as sources unless stated so then it will be under the press release category as it is against there policy as another user stated my sources are not press releases however they are using a Press release as their source and according to my knowledge there is nothing against Wikipedia's notability rules that states that you can't use articles that use a press release as source as they are still secondary sources.

Nuope (talk)

- While they aren't press releases, I would say they don't meet the WP:CORPDEPTH needed to count to GNG. Link20XX (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only used those articles as sources for the partnership category in which case I feel like they do meet the requirements to cite as a reliable source for "partnerships", but if your talking about whether or not the comikey article has received enough coverage to be a wikipedia article that's something different. I could give links to articles that I think(not entirely sure) give it notable coverage as a company as a whole.Nuope

(talk)

- Please do. If you can find enough sources to make it pass WP:NCORP, per WP:NEXIST the current state of the article is irrelevant. Link20XX (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://media-innovation.jp/2021/06/04/link-u-and-comikey-media-formed-a-partnership/ https://www.sankei.com/economy/news/210715/prl2107150072-n1.html

here are some other articles but looking at them now I doubt they pass WP:CORPDEPTH since there both only talking about one event I do have some other articles that don't cover a specific event of comikey event but there all lists like "best of" or "Top ___" Nuope (talk)

The second (from sankei.com) definitely is a press release(rather than using it as a source), the first one (media-innovation) reads like one but it's not clear whether it truly is a press release or just some paraphrasing of it. Fram (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above links are not press releases the link to the press release is here https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000023.000038982.html https://imgur.com/2JjKdGU(proof that pr times is a press release) I will however remove the sankei link since it is just a direct copy n paste from the orginal pr and is unreliable

Uh, a "direct copy n paste" of a press release, with an indication in the url that it is a press release, and with a box stating that it is a press release and that Sankei is not responsible for the contents, is "not a press release"? Okay... Fram (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's not sankei(there is no indication in the url it is a pr to begin with) like I said just copy and pasted the orginal pr(PR TIMES) hence https://imgur.com/ljNyZzr https://imgur.com/qzxZpdR Saying that the press release does not belong to them(it makes more sense in the orginal japenses google translate butchred a few things) they added links to the original source. it is technically NOT a press release as the definiton: an official statement issued to newspapers giving information on a particular matter. It is like I said a copy and paste with no revision

the topic was not submitted to submitted to them directly. Nuope (talk)

Delete None of the sources provided or that I could find are independent enough (not derived from a press release) to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I also couldn't find a suitable merge or redirect target. However a category listing the series that they have licenses for may be a partial WP:ATD (ex. Category:Viz Media manga or Category:Yen Press titles). Jumpytoo Talk 19:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I would like the article moved to draftspace instead of deletion for the time being also thank you User:Jumpytoo for the suggestion I will try to make a list of all of there licensed series instead. After thinking this through I agree with User:Link20XX that maybe it is to earlier for this particular company to have an article so I'll try to move it to draftspace for now Nuope (talk)

Draft Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Comikey (for those that might want to add stuff later)

Well since it was draftified by the page creator, can we get this closed? Link20XX (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable company failing WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH with no reliable independent in-depth sources (at least what English search returns and what is listed above). The given sources are not GNG-compatible and are only briefly paraphrasing press releases and official and routine material. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but these sort of companies rarely receive in-depth coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:41, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarmo Viteli[edit]

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

PROD declined in 2010 (courtesy @Abductive and Cnilep: when notability guidelines were rather different. A BEFORE shows no evidence since that he passes WP:ACADEMIC. He has published, but doesn't appear well-cited enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC and appears to be co-author on some of the more highly cited ones. I can find no evidence in English, Finnish or the Finnish article about him that would indicate he meets GNG or other criteria. Star Mississippi 15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know this scholar's work and can't argue confidently for their notability, but I do see many (50+) papers on Google Scholar by an author "J Viteli". Many of them are written in Finnish and none seem to be in my field of specialty, so I don't know and can't ascertain the reliability of the publications. Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Having many publications is not enough for notability, whether we are going by WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:PROF. For all of these, in different ways, it is the impact of those publications that we must assess. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete 45 publications with 29 citations as per MA is not impressive and does not pass the bar for WP:NPROF#1, no other information in the article indicates any notability. Also clear COI with the article talking about him as a reviewer for EU projects, this is clearly written by someone close to the subject. --hroest 18:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations too low for WP:PROF#C1, no other notability criterion evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 18 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. Moving past the SNG v GNG debate, the primary point of difference in the views around whether the coverage in the sources provided is routine or not (for GNG). I assess the consensus on this issue as being to delete the article. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASEBALL, has not played beyond college level WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A short search turned up multiple articles that go towards WP:GNG. [9][10][11] Alvaldi (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are all about college baseball, which fails WP:NBASEBALL. If someone had three articles about playing Little League, that would not entitle them to an article. WWGB (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBASEBALL does not supersede WP:GNG, that is made crystal clear in the FAQ on the top of WP:NSPORT which WP:NBASEBALL is a part of.

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.)

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?
A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.)

To pass WP:GNG, the subject has to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So if a number of national or major state news publications write a number (GNG only says multiple) of indepth articles on a baseball player, young or old, amateur or professional, then there is a good chance that he passes the notable criteria for a stand-alone article. Alvaldi (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles provided by Alvaldi are nowhere near enough to pass GNG.-- Yankees10 22:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We could find this many articles on many high school players. It is a misapplication of GNG to think it is passed here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Alvaldi is of course completely correct, as he has demonstrated, that meeting GNG is sufficient. Also, it matters not a whit what the articles are about - they could be about t-ball. GNG doesn't care. So we don't care. If they are GNG worthy, so is the subject. I just, same as yankees, don't see these articles as meeting GNG. But those who hang their hat on this other, faulty, argument are incorrect in their assertions. 2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the basketball project has been alerted, but that I think should be the baseball project.2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would note that one of the "delete" arguments is actually presents arguments for "keep."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather non-stellar career in college baseball, not in the Majors yet. Any putz can bat .289. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Even Tony Gwynn managed that, in his rookie season. 2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except Gwynn did it as 22 year old major league rookie while Williams was 23 and playing college baseball. It was the only season Gwynn's BA was below .300 in his 20 years in MLB. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet WP:NBASE or WP:NCOLLATH. The coverage also fails to meet WP:GNG. The SI article is routine sports reporting, while burntorangenation.com and Longhorns Wire are definitely not independent since he was playing for the U. of Texas. The San Antonio Express article is not really out of the ordinary coverage for a player on the Texas baseball team. There's certainly nothing to show he's WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG on the basis of the SI and SA Express articles, and once GNG is met NBASE does not matter. The argument that those two sources are too routine (regardless of whether that is true or not, which is highly subjective) is a misapplication of policy; nowhere does GNG discount routine coverage. Rather, WP:ROUTINE is part of WP:NEVENTS and says that an event might not merit an article even if it meets GNG. An event notability guideline should not be applied to a biography. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "SI article" is coverage of one game and is part of its "Fan Nation-Longhorns Country" section. That's not significant coverage. Pretty much every athlete who ever played a high school sport has been mentioned in an article on a game and there's no way they're all WP notable. It's highly debatable that even two good sources are enough to meet WP:GNG and these are not that good. Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple of profiles and a game recap are not significant coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:25, 22 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 12:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sal LaBarbera[edit]

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

Not notable and therefore nothing more than WP:BIO violation bait.Central and Adams (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The only reliable sourcing is mostly about his 2011 Twitter controversy, which is WP:ONEEVENT at best. Furthermore the only RS piece that addressed more than that was an op-ed by Steve Lopez, which is hardly news reporting, although, as I said, it is at least RS. Central and Adams (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BASIC. Disregarding the many mentions in the context of his job, (murders get a lot of press, and a homicide detective is often interviewed about the investigation), there are two long profiles on his retirement[12][13] (the LA Weekly one has some decent bio details not in the article yet) and one shorter one.[14] Then a long profile on him two years after his retirement.[15] On the one hand, these are local coverage; on the other hand, the greater Los Angeles area is larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined, so I don't think "local" is necessarily disqualifying in this instance. adding Per a source posted at Talk:Sal LaBarbera, the LA Weekly profile is written by a friend of LaBarbera's, so is not independent for consideration of notability. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As far as I can tell this is WP:BLP1E for the dead body tweet which created a little local notoriety, but not true notability. Just a WP:ROTM cop with a second career after retirement. Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The revision history of the article contains content that was removed for now, per WP:ONUS, but which has also been addressed in the deletion discussion above. As the discussion seems to focus on notability, the current state of the article itself, and whether this material is currently part of it, should not have an influence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and per above, coverage is not enough to qualify GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Source is sketchy at best, but even if it were immaculate, still fails the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" test (WP:GNG). And even if subject were to be seen as notable, it's only for WP:ONEEVENT. Two grounds for deletion clearly established. Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:18, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hind Rattan[edit]

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

Non-notable vanity award. The first two sources are press releases from recipients/marks, the other two are unrelated to the award. A web search only turns up churnalism. Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Wonderful Perfect[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews or significant coverage was found in a WP:BEFORE.

PROD removed in 2017 with the rationale, "It's a nationally released feature film. Please take this to AfD". Donaldd23 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review: https://donunghub.com/?p=497

Review/coverage: https://intrend.trueid.net/bangkok/i-am-sam-vs-%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%AD%E0%B9%8B%E0%B8%AD%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%AD-%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A1%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B7%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%B5%E0%B9%88%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%95%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87-trueidintrend_75465

Review: https://www.sanook.com/movie/20752/

Coverage, a “where are they now” piece about the child actor from the film, published in 2017: https://entertain.teenee.com/thaistarphoto/167180.html

Review: http://www.reviewnangthai.com/%e0%b9%80%e0%b8%ad%e0%b9%8b%e0%b8%ad%e0%b9%80%e0%b8%ab%e0%b8%a3%e0%b8%ad-%e0%b8%a0%e0%b8%b2%e0%b8%9e%e0%b8%a2%e0%b8%99%e0%b8%95%e0%b8%a3%e0%b9%8c%e0%b8%97%e0%b8%b5%e0%b9%88%e0%b9%80%e0%b8%a5%e0%b9%88/

Coverage, 2019 social media coverage from Sahamongkol Film International: https://m.facebook.com/Sahamongkolfilm/posts/10157440938724214

Etc etc. Nominator did not do a basic Google search. 71.85.19.7 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major 2005 film, winner of three Suphannahong Awards (the "Thai Oscars")[16]. Covered in a comparative film analysis academic paper[17] and a doctoral thesis[18]. Subject of contemporary news coverage, e.g. in Manager[19]. Most news coverage and critic reviews from 2005 will no longer available online, but can be expected to be accessible via a good research library. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources listed above. NemesisAT (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Paul_012. /Julle (talk) 10:19, 22 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. ✗plicit 14:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bajo el mismo Cielo (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 14:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 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. ✗plicit 14:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Nama 'Bansiwala'[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and is not independently notable outside of the election. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — but nothing else here establishes that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy, and nothing here suggests a reason to treat his candidacy as markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies either. Bearcat (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is non notable politician. On searching about him on Google, some article related to his election loss comes up. Nitesh003 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable polotician. Fails NPOL & GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 18:01, 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. ✗plicit 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biodynamic enzymology[edit]

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

Essay-type, uncritical eulogy of what appears to be a fringe concept championed by a tiny group, sourced almost entirely to predatory journals (AFAICS these are all Science Publishing Group). Apart from the bad sourcing, I don't quite know what to make of this; I feel I'm being out-waffled. The (euphemistically) "lede" and the first two sections could be removed with no loss at all, as could the first half of section three. Then we are finally getting into material not covered elsewhere, and - is it? Is this just the claims of one guy (Ferorelli)? Even if the concept were notable, this article comes with so many warning signs I'd like to see it taken round the shed directly. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's a real stinker. "Biodynamic" in this context basically means "magic". There don't seem to be any objective treatments of the subject, only FRINGE garbáge. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FRINGE nonsense Dexxtrall (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the love of Zeus, what is this? Kill it with fire. Note that the same bizarre content is duplicated in Enzymology, perhaps you should bundle it together in this AfD. Tercer (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Enzymology has been redirected to enzyme, so it shouldn't be a problem unless the bad content is restored. XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, enzymes are dynamic systems, and they play a role in biological dynamics. But there is no such thing as Biodynamic enzymology. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cinadon36 08:33, 22 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 12:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akiba (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing notable found. Kolma8 (talk) 05:01, 21 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) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda McDougall[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not adequately referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not deemed "inherently" notable just because they exist, so making a mayor notable enough for inclusion is not a question of just showing minimal verification that she exists -- mayoral notability is a question of demonstrating her political significance, by writing and sourcing substantive content about specific things she did as mayor, specific projects she spearheaded, significant effects she had on the development of the community, and on and so forth. But this just verifies her initial election as mayor and sources a small amount of trivia about her career background, which is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources help support notability per WP:NPOL footnote 8, A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists: CBRM councillor who clashed occasionally with mayor announces run for top job (CBC, 2020), Cape Breton mayor started first day in office with new baby boy (Global News, 2021), CBRM mayor speaks of son's condition on World Down Syndrome Day (CTV News, 2021) and WP:BASIC: McDougall defeats Clarke to become 1st female mayor of CBRM (CBC, 2020), Cape Breton elects first female mayor, Halifax council reaches gender parity (Toronto Star, 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign coverage and verification of election results doesn't cut it. We require coverage about the political impact of her mayoralty: specific things she did as mayor, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth — just sourcing that she ran and won, something which we can always do for every single mayor who ever mayored in every place that ever had mayors, is not in and of itself enough. We have to be able to write a substantive article about her political significance, not just a short blurb about her election results and a baby. Bearcat (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National news sources found it politically significant that she is the first woman elected mayor of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, that she began her term by bringing her child to work, and that she participated in World Down Syndrome Day, so these sources appear to support WP:BASIC, and the in-depth features focused on her appear to support WP:NPOL, and can allow a more in-depth article to be developed. There is also more biographical information available from local news 2 3 4. Beccaynr (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are "national" sources. The CBC's local news bureau in Nova Scotia does not reify into "national" coverage just because the URL happens to have the letters "CBC" in it — it's still coverage from a local affiliate, and not coverage from the national news division in Toronto. Same goes for Global Halifax and CTV Atlantic: that's local coverage, not "national" coverage, because it comes from the local affiliates and not the national news divisions. It's the same as in the United States: just because KXAS-TV happens to be an NBC affiliate does not mean that its local news stories about local topics in Fort Worth automatically transform into "nationalized" coverage from NBC News. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another feature article from a national source, Cape Breton elects Amanda McDougall as its first female mayor (Canadian Press, 2020) and if the 'local' news is published on national websites, it may be a distinction without a difference. My point ultimately is that she appears to meet the guidelines for WP:BASIC notability and WP:NPOL as written, and the article can be expanded with the variety of sources posted in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Also, from my view, there are multiple independent and reliable sources that offer WP:SECONDARY analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas, including but not limited to reporting about her being the first woman mayor, which requires a synthesis of facts related to the number of women previously elected to the post, and per policy, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, local vs. national coverage is not a "distinction without a difference" in Canada just because the local news bureaux post their reportage to local sections of the parent corporation's website instead of each having their own standalone websites — the distinction between local vs. national coverage still works exactly the same way as it does in the United States, you just have to look in different places to determine which of those things any given piece of coverage is. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly have more to learn about news distribution in Canada, and I appreciate the clarification - in the US, local affiliates are often not so smoothly integrated with their national parent websites, and instead have their own websites, which makes it easier to identify and consider as more limited in scope. But, as noted above, she still has coverage in The Canadian Press, and my comments have been intended to highlight how her coverage is more than the more obviously local (at least to me) Cape Breton Post. Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's significant coverage of specific things that make her notable beyond just being elected. For example: Global News on her being the first female mayor of Cape Breton, Global News on her work/life balance of being a mayor and a parent of a newborn, CTV News about Down's Syndrome advocacy. She's also been notable enough to appear in several different articles before being elected mayor - like the Cape Breton Spectator covering her 2016 run for city councillor, her questioning of the Port of Sydney Development Corporation, her call for a Nominee Program for immigrants, CBC News quoting her for Lifeline Syria, quoting her concerning the MV Miner wreck, covering a controversy involving her as a city councillor, about a committee appearance she was supposed to make in the federal House of Commons, Saltwire covering her Down's Syndrome advocacy, CTV News covering her and the port issue, etc... NHCLS (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Quoted as giver of soundbite in news article about some other subject besides herself" is not support for notability. "The local newspaper covered her campaign for a local municipal council seat, in exactly the same equal-time way that it always covers every candidate in every municipal election in its coverage area" is not support for notability. "Speaking to a House of Commons committee" is not a notability claim per se, and neither is "was scheduled to speak to a House of Commons committee but got cancelled because of a filibuster". And on and so forth: we're looking for content about her political impact and her effect on the political, social and economic development of the city, not just "any news article whatsoever that can be found with her name in it". Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article about her filibustered committee appearance, it's specifically about a pilot program for Cape Breton which she was pushing for, the articles about the port issue were specifically about what she was doing to address the issue, the Down's syndrome articles are specifically about her advocacy and relation to it, etc... - those aren't just articles with her name in it, they're specific content about her political impact and her effect on the political, social and economic development of the city. NHCLS (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing for a project that hasn't been implemented is not a notable "effect on the political, social and economic development of the city", and advocating for an issue that has no municipal component for the CBRM to do anything about is not a meaningful "political impact". Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those two things were notable enough to gain media coverage. NHCLS (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the very well reasoned presentation of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm convinced that there are enough sources, such as those presented above, to meet GNG. There is more than a typical soundbite or general election coverage, which generally is not counted for notability purposes. She is the mayor of a pretty significant place in Nova Scotia, and while this is not an automatic pass, it is an indication that it isn't like a town with 20,000 people. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While I don't believe that the local cape breton spectator references do much for notability as it is pretty local, I do think that the other references barely meet GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:36, 22 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. Per additional sources provided by voters and consensus. (non-admin closure) Peter303x (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Forte[edit]

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

Unsourced biography that fails WP:BIO. Fails WP:GNG as well as no significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is zero professional recognition as a painter, so I took out that mention. That leaves films. He did one major film that received numerous reviews, but cumulatively the reviews say little about him. Overall, a GNG fail. --- Possibly ☎ 22:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The major film, Firewall is sufficient for a place in Wikipedia. Those who may wish to do research in the back issues of Daily Variety or Hollywood Reporter will find more information that can be used for inline cites, but the current absence of such cites is a reason for finding and including them, not a reason for deletion of Forte's entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Roman Spinner can you share links to the reviews you mentioned? I am not able to find these. I am undecided on this and if we could see those I would likely vote weak keep. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 23:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Roman Spinner, one single screenplay guarantees notability? I don't believe that to be true, so I strongly encourage you not to say "ah well there's references somewhere", but to actually supply them. The absence of reliable sources is, in fact, a reason for deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tautomers and Drmies, examining subject's website and his IMDb page has convinced me that his notability is sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are some easy-to-find mentions of him in various reviews: [20][21][22][23][24][25] however, as is standard with all such matters, the ultimate decision rests with consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Roman Spinner, I don't know that all those count (the assholes?), but it sure was good to read something about the Ben Hur documentary, just to know what it's all about--thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for gathering the sources. While this does indicate he got some coverage, the sources themselves are flimsy and in themselves don't seem like they would count as very strong. They also feel sort of blog-like. While it does seem like he's got some recognition and had a successful screenplay, the lack of good sources validating its impact leads me to believe this doesn't hit notability criteria. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 02:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I believe one major film (Firewall) and a documentary shown at a notable film festival[26], as well as being kept in the USC library [27] are worthy enough for a Wikipedia page. The subject also speaks at a variety of events so this Wikipedia page is useful for those in attendance. I know I saw he did a Film Independent Documentary Lab [28] where he spoke and it was useful to have his page to reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.57.14 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Firewall (film) ~~Delete~~ - There is nothing to substantiate that this artist/filmmaker passes the notability criteria of WP:NARTIST/WP:FILMMAKER, or WP:GNG. It is WP:TOOSOON for this to be included; maybe in a few years after actual WP:SIGCOV is written about him. BTW, the IP who wrote the comment directly above mine needs to add their signature. Netherzone (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to merge, which makes a lot of sense. Thanks to Djflem for this alternative to deletion. Netherzone (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge > Firewall (film) Djflem (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per user guidelines WP:AVOIDCOI I am disclosing that I have a vested interest in this page as I am the subject. I believe this page was created by Warner Brothers in 2005-2006 upon the release of "Firewall (film)" and has been up for 15 plus years. As a novice, I attempted to update this page and failed to provide proper citation. For that I want to express my apologies, and also my appreciation for this community's rigor in keeping with Wiki's mission. I provide the following citation for the editor's reviews: Regarding "Firewall (film)" and my career as a screenwriter of note, I was included in the 2009 documentary Tales From the Script which is a compendium of notable screenwriters of the period:[29] Tales From the Script was also released as a book with the same title and is still available in print. [30] In both the film and book I discuss my career and my process. During this time I was also interviewed widely about my process in the following journals: WGA Magazine, February 2006 [31] Creative Screening Writing, January February 2006, article by David Konow (for which there is no online link) and Final Draft's Script Magazine, November/December 2011 in which my career as a writer, painter and director of The Man Who Saved Ben-Hur are of the focus of the article and puts me in the company of the most notable screenwriters of that period. [32] On Friday, February 10th, 2006, "Firewall (film)" was reviewed in the New York Times by Manola Dargis and I was specifically mentioned by name. [33] I have had numerous projects announced in Daily Variety, including Soviet Cowboy (1996) which I wrote for two-time academy award winner "Jodie Foster" and French Film director "Mathieu Kassovitz". On Wednesday, October 24, 2007 an article appeared in Daily Variety announcing that I was to adapt Natsuo Kirino's novel "Out (novel)" which won Japan's Grand Prix Award for crime fiction. There are currently no online links, but I can provide scans of hard copies if required by the editor. In 2013, I became a Film Independent Fellow of Film Independent's Documentary Director's Lab with my film The Man Who Saved Ben-Hur. [34] In 2015, The Man Who Saved Ben-Hur premiered at a host of notable film festivals including DocUtah [35] and Hot Springs Film Festival [36] The Man Who Saved Ben-Hur was release in 2016 and continues to stream on Amazon where is in wide circulation and well reviewed [37] As noted above, The Man Who Saved Ben-Hur is part of the USC film archive [38] Regarding my work as a painter, which is integrally intertwined with my career as a filmmaker and visual artist, I offer the following references. World on Fire, Center for the Arts, Eagle Rock (2021) [39] On Men, Castelli Art Space (2019) [40] The End of Paper, Center for the Arts Eagle Rock (2017) [41] Nothing is Waster, Center for the Arts, Eagle Rock (2015) [42] Seeing Double, Pomona, California [43] Wonder, James Grey Gallery, Bergamot Station (2008) and Opening Day, The Regency Gallery (2007) [44] All of these shows have taken place in the thriving, international arts hub of Los Angeles. The 2007 show, in particular, was part of Los Angeles Downtown arts and seen by thousands of visitors. [45] As a filmmaker, writer and artist I belong to a specific time and place in Los Angeles culture and the film community and have worked with several of the leading artists of my time. As my career is not complete and I am still working (I am adapting the comic book series Back Track at Sony's 3000 pictures with Ruben Fleischer (Zombieland) directing), I believe it is premature to assess the impact I have had, and that impact cannot be fairly assessed if my page is buried or not to be found. Finally, to subsume me in the "Firewall (film)" is unfair as I am the originator and author of that project, and therefore a separate entity from Warner Brothers whose contribution to the film was as financier and distributor, and not as one of the key and primary filmmakers. Again, thank you for your rigor and kind consideration in this matter. 76.169.57.14 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the time you spent assembling these links, but they are more like what one might list on a resume or cv, and not an encyclopedia. What is needed to establish notability is significant coverage WP:SIGCOV (more than a mention) in secondary (not primary, such as interviews) verifiable WP:V reliable sources WP:RS that are independent of the subject of the article. So blogs, amazons sales links or reviews or film rental links, user-submitted content like IMDb, calendar listings, announcements, press releases, PR material and the like do not count towards meeting notability criteria. If you can narrow the above down to 3 or 4 that you think might fit SIGCOV in RS, that will help the editors here to analyze the material. What is important is what others (art and film critics for example) have said about you. Merging content into the notable film Firewall is definitely not a bad option. Netherzone (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replu: Sorry Netherzone but the list of references given here are more than sufficient and your tiny paragraph here doesn't even put a dent in it. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Double !Voting is not permitted. IP 76.169.57.14 you have iVoted twice, one in an "unsigned" comment on July 3, and again on July 7. I have taken the liberty to strike your first K**p. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Roman Spinner and 76.169.57.14 have provided more than enough non-primary resources. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:17, 22 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) Dr. Universe (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Galaxy Railways characters[edit]

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

This is an immense wall of cruft detailing characters in an obscure TV show that ran for barely two seasons. Most of it is written in an in-universe style and the only sources are to the work of fiction itself. And I can't find anything better. Reyk _YO! 14:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it WP:SNOWing in July right now?. We literally have lists of characters for nearly ALL other notable TV series with a ton of characters. Issues of in-universe descriptions, crufty content and only primary sources to episodes being used are issues of clean-up, not notability which is a typical metric we use for Afd descriptions. Please think about Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup the next time you find a list article like this. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, the problem of primary sources only absolutely is a notability issue. And excessive character lists like this one get deleted all the time, eg: [46], [47], [48]. Unfortunately, WP:NOTCLEANUP doesn't apply when the problems in an article are insurmountable even with all the cleanup in the world. Reyk _YO! 17:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Character lists can certainly be a valid spinout article for a piece of media, but they still need to actually be supported by reliable, secondary sources. They don't automatically get a pass from the requirements for WP:LISTN or the WP:GNG, and this particular character list is unable to pass either one of them. I can find no reliable, secondary sources discussing the characters in the series in general, nor was I able to find any on any of the individual main characters. I also checked the equivalent page on the Japanese Wikipedia to see if that potentially included any non-English sources that could be used, but it turns out that its completely absent of any reliable sources there, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:TNT, almost all of the information provided is original research. @HumanxAnthro: if you would like to userfy the article for improvement then that can always be arranged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of the show and have never seen it. It's just that it's typical for the most notable TV series, such as The Office, Everybody Loves Raymond, and Seinfeld to have character lists, often with the only cited sources being primary. My judgement, looking retrospectively, wasn't good given that it's WP:OTHERSTUFF logic. I'll be happy to userfy, though. I'd say it depends on how many recurring and starring characters there are and how it would make the article about the show WP:TOOBIG, but other users may decided that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and knowledgekid. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moot/malformed request. If The Galaxy Railways is notable, then a list of characters for it is expected and relies on those same RS'es whether or not they are included in this list article per WP:NEXIST. If the series is not notable, however, then the series and all dependent articles like this should be deleted together. As such, the nomination articulates no policy-based rationale for deleting only this list of characters article. As has been pointed out above, 'cruft' (itself a non-policy based and pejorative word) is not solved by deletion, but by actually editing it out. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (and, to be clear, appropriately modifying the links above to focus on the show itself, e.g. [49], suggests that RS exist to demonstrate notability for the show.) Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not inherited, and the WP:BURDEN is on those to provide the sources. If deletion isn't cleanup then provide the sources and WP:FIXIT. You have to remember that lists can always be re-created with found sourcing by those who have time to work on them (this goes for those pushing for inclusion and deletion alike). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if the show has some sources that demonstrate notability, if they don't actually provide any information on the characters, which I can't find any that do, then all this article consists of is information that is almost entirely unsourced - the vast majority of the items here are not even sourced to primary sources, let alone reliable, secondary sources. And the notability of a given topic does not give a pass to any spinout articles from needing to actually have sourced information. As I mentioned above, even the Japanese Wikipedia article on the topic contains no reliable sources providing information on the characters, so unless sources can be found that do, we can't just keep a lot of information that we can't even demonstrate that WP:NEXIST for. Rorshacma (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, we've long held that "List of XYZ characters" and "XYZ" are not identically the same topic. Just because there may be sources to support an article on XYZ, this does not guarantee an article on "List of XYZ characters" because the list still requires sources discussing the characters as such, perferably *as* a list. One can easily imagine an article on a work of fiction for which the sources mostly talk about the setting and plot, with less focus on the characters. And, in fact, this is exactly the situation here; the parent article talks a lot about trains and such but talk of characters is limited to name drops in a plot summary. Rorshacma's delete !vote is completely correct here and, as pointed out elsewhere, this list is inherently OR owing to the lack of sources that discuss this actual topic. Reyk _YO! 16:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. Even if the article is very crufty, deletion is not cleanup. Link20XX (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its crufty because nobody has provided any WP:RS other than the WP:PRIMARY sources already present in the article. The closest I have seen to this was a google search which vaguely points to several sources without naming any. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Such lists are a major issue that should be discussed in a large RfC. We have tens of thousands of them. Do they meet criteria for stand-alone list (WP:NLIST)? Hmmm. There are certainly websites out there which among others provide such lists (and not just fan wikis, for example [50] (however, all such sites I can think of tend to rely on volunteer contribution and are part-wiki anidb.net/anime/1000 (for some reason this is on out spam blacklist), [51], [52], IMDb, [53]). This may be enough to warrant keeping them as navigational aids that may meet our criteria, perhaps? The other argument I can see is that lists of characters are justifiable parts of plot summary, and can be spin-off main articles about works to stand-alone articles simply due to their lengths (this is covered under WP:SIZESPLIT). Anyway, I believe that we should not delete lists of characters without a major RfC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are going into WP:OSE as the issue with THIS particular list is sourcing which I have yet to see offered. Nobody here is saying that we need to delete every character list out there just because this particular one is up for deletion. If you have sources to include the information then great... add them, if not then as an anime fan myself it does little good reading the storyline based off an opinion of someone who already watched the series (we have Wikia for that). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree such an RfC would be, if done well, instructive and productive. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationales provided by Jclemens and Piotrus. Haleth (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the rational others have made. Every notable series has a character list article if its too large to fit all valid information in its main article. Spinoff articles for this, list of episodes, and whatnot, are always perfectly valid. Dream Focus 10:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, it is acceptable to have no sourcing as it is assumed the work itself is the source for plot summaries (and by extension, character summaries). While merging this article back to its parent is the obvious WP:ATD, it would not be the best option as it would make the characters section half of the article, a clear example of WP:UNDUE. However, a cleaned up and denser version could be mergeable, and I wouldn't be opposed someone bold merging if such version is created. Jumpytoo Talk 08:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is purely fancruft, with the only sources on the article being primary ones. No solid sources have been raised in this discussion to add to the article, and even if the show's notable, I don't think that justifies a massive unsourced list of characters from the show. A brief list of the main characters on the main article would be more apt. Waxworker (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is both a response to delete !votes and an expansion of my own !vote. Waxworker said above that No solid sources have been raised in this discussion, however, that is false as Jclemens provided a link that suggests sources exist in books and other print publications. I would say in this case this is simply a WP:SIZESPLIT, so it is alright to be included per that, though like others stated above, a full RfC over this may not be a bad idea. Sources for plot are also not generally needed per WP:PLOTSOURCE. Link20XX (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to Jclemen's comment regarding source already to point out that none of the sources that appear in the link he provided actually discuss any of the characters at all. In fact, the sources that come up barely discuss the actual series at all, with most of them simply mentioning it as an example of one of Leiji Matsumoto works, with almost no actual coverage or discussion of it. Rorshacma (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Have you actually read the sources, or is that just going from the preview? Link20XX (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - In most cases, the actual sections of the books in which the show is mentioned are fully available to view. For example, the first listing that comes up with Jclemen's link is this book, where The Galaxy Railroad is only mentioned in a single sentence in a section about another of Leiji Matsumoto's works, Galaxy Express 999. The coverage of this particular series is literally limited to the sentence "The much later Maetel Legend OAV and the Galaxy Railways TV series are currently the most accessible glimpses of the Galaxy Express 999' universe available in English". And that's it. Similarly, the section that this book and this book mention the series are all fully viewable in Google books, and in both cases they are again, single sentence mentions. The only real source that comes up in the search that is only available as a snippet view is this one. I've done searches under the titles "The Galaxy Express", "Galaxy Express", "Ginga Tetsudō Monogatari", as well as doing my best to go through Japanese language sources, and I'm barely finding enough coverage in reliable sources to support the article on the actual series, let alone a spinout character article that can't even really be said to pass the basic tenants of WP:V. If anyone can point to a specific reliable source that actually supports any of the information currently in this article, please do, since I've spent quite a bit of time trying myself, and have not succeeded. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I admit I haven't looked much, but I did find this on Natalie to verify some of the voice actors. Will keep looking later. Link20XX (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To jump in here, in terms of SIGCOV of the show, that does exist (note that I only checked ANN):

"The Galaxy Railways DVD 1". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2021-07-16.
"Shelf Life - Grounded AlienS and Spaceborn Humans". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2021-07-16.

The two sources also lightly discuss the characters in their plot summaries. Jumpytoo Talk 19:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find - hope you don't mind I grabbed that first, long review to start building up a Reception section for the main The Galaxy Railways article - it was also sorely lacking in reliable sources, and definitely needed some coverage from reviews. Rorshacma (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While we are finding reviews, I found this one from THEM Anime Reviews and this one from The Fandom Post, both of which are considered reliable sources by WikiProject Anime and manga. Link20XX (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I deleted my delete opinion above in favor of a keep. Reliable sources have been found regarding character development and reception. I would trim down this list significantly to focus on the main characters, but this involves cleanup not deletion . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Potential Merge - I concur completely with Knowledgekid87 at this point, and have similarly struck my earlier vote. The reviews found definitely have coverage of the main characters of the series. Thus, as mentioned, I would also suggest vastly trimming this down to only include those main characters with sourced information. At that point, the list would be manageable enough that it would likely make sense to merge it back into the main article on the series rather than being kept as a separate list, however the discussion regarding that decision can be conducted later on, and does not have to be made here. Rorshacma (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: The keep !votes are overwhelming here versus the 3 delete !votes (1 from nom, 1 saying nothing except "delete per nom" and 1 from a user complaining mainly/only about lack of non-primary sources, which was addressed by Link20XX). Dr. Universe (talk) 21:12, 22 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. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Zu Beck[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Vloggers do not automatically meet the criteria of having a Wikipedia page based on their number of followers. Kinngjatt (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kinngjatt (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. Pahiy (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. I've improved the article by adding Independent, reliable and secondary sources [54] (I just added a few from the very first page page of search result). I would've added more (obviously would've shared here too), but due to exam, I'm really short of time. Thank you. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, and expand the article based on additional sources - my initial search turned up international coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, e.g. Influencer invasion as Pakistan launches tourism push (France24/AFP, 2019), Travel influencers are invading Pakistan – but are they painting an accurate picture of the country? (Telegraph, 2019), Isolating on a desert island: Polish YouTube star skips lockdown (CNN, 2020), "Parallel Universe," Says Blogger Isolating On One Of World's Most Remote Islands, (NDTV, 2020), A YouTube star decided to stay on a remote island off the coast of Yemen after borders closed, but says she doesn't regret a thing (Insider, 2020), How western travel influencers got tangled up in Pakistan's politics (The Guardian, 2020), COVID offers Pakistan chance to focus on ecotourism (DW, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keepas per WP:GNG - she has significant coverage from CNN, Dawn, Middle East Eye, The Guardian, Forbes, Gulf News, Dzień Dobry TVN, etc... and her activities have been notable enough for her to face criticism, such as in The Telegraph, etc... NHCLS (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Her 'notability' seems to largely be confined to a single event, see WP:1E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari T. Benchaim (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:1E does not appear to justify deletion, because there are multiple events for which she has received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources over several years, and per WP:1E, her significant individual role in these multiple events have been documented by multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I concur that the notability is pretty much due to one incident. WP:TOOSOON in my book. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC with reliable sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG. The person in question has received significant media coverage (from reliable sources) for a variety of different events/reasons. The claim that the subject in question has received media coverage from a single event only is bogus. I would suggest moving the article to draft and move it back to mainspace after it is expanded based on additional sources. RajHariya (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources already listed above establishing notability and the improvements made to the article since nomination by Beccaynr and Abdulhaseebatd. NemesisAT (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as she has received significant coverage in many different reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Beccaynr and NHCLS. /Julle (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENT, the youtuber has 68 million views. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:58, 22 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 merge to Glossary of sewing terms#H. Considering that keep/delete opinions are about evenly split, and the merger proposed at the end remained unopposed, this seems like the most consensual outcome of this discussion. Sandstein 06:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Header tape[edit]

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

Deprodded with the rationale, "WP:BEFORE reveals multiple sources", which indeed the BEFORE did reveal several sources. However, none of them were in-depth enough to show notability. There is not doubt this exists, but this simple DICDEF does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG per the sources in the article. This is a WP:STUB not a WP:DICTDEF as this article is about the haberdashery, not about the words, per the use–mention distinction. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the "GNG" described above consists of 2 sentences (ref #1), 3 brief mentions (ref #2), and a decent source from a design book, Upstyle Your Windows. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is introduced on page 51 in source #1 but there is further information on the application of this on pages 286-287. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by onel5969, it does not par with our notability threshold. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give me a break. The subject is covered in multiple reliable independent verifiable published sources. It's a kind of tape. It is real. It exists everywhere. Article is not promotional nor does it advocate. It's as notable as thread or elastic. A loose necktie (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:DICTDEF & WP:GNG. Sewing for Dummies is exactly the DICDEF source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I added some more info. Unlike most common dictionary definitions which rightly should be deleted, you don't have any idea what this is from the name, so having the article is helpful if bringing knowledge to people is our goal. Having some history to add would put this into regular keep territory, but this will do for now. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, for failing WP:DICTDEF. Ifnord (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by TimTempleton. Seems just notable enough to pass GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no argument that it does not exist, slim argument that it has insufficient sources. But, there is no argument to counter that this is a WP:DICTDEF. Ifnord (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the article is just a WP:DICDEF right now. The article contains multiple uses for header tape which go beyond defining the word. Additionally, even if the content is just a longer dictionary definition, the subject passes WP:GNG with its sources. Article content does not determine notability. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "stub" does not mean "must delete", and Ifnord points out that this can be kept due to policy of WP:HEY. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is still just a dictionary definition. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge permastub to Glossary of sewing terms#H. Problem solved. (Sources are good, but it's also true that we have very little to say about this topic.) czar 04:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. While I think there’s enough information to prevent it from just being a simple dictionary definition, there’s not going to be a way for the information to be expanded begone a stub, and the glossary seems like a perfect home for it. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:06, 23 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) 07:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jannette B. Frandsen[edit]

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

Article clearly written by subject herself. Seems to be clear self-promotion (fails WP:NOT). Also the subject is not notable (fails WP:N). DuckRabbitDuckRabbit (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with DuckRabbit that this seems to be self promotion. In my opinion WP:PROF is very (too even) liberal, but this certainly does not meet any of the notability criteria. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page refers to her a couple of times as "Prof. Frandsen". Is there any evidence that she is entitled to use this title? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF#1 with a low citation count even in a medium citation field and an h-index of 9. Two frequently cited papers from 2001 and 2004 do not demonstrate the kine of impact that #1 requires. Then there are all the other issues with the article, lack of sourcing, POV etc. --hroest 14:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already said, doesn't meet WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The only apparent claim to notability is WP:PROF#C1 and the case for that is borderline. I agree that this appears promotional, and I think that the citation record alone cannot justify the content. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is case of Self promotion. TheDreamBoat (talk) 18:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Software[edit]

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

There is a company by this name which is notable, Safari (software), but a BEFORE only turned up coverage of the more notable entity. There were a few snippets in Books, but that's about this. This article was redirected to the more notable company, but that redirect was taken to RfD, where the result was to restore the article, and it looks like a bare consensus to take to AfD. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 7#Safari Software. Most of the info in this brief article is not supported by the current refs, one of which is non-reliable, and is just barely mentioned in that, the blog post being mostly about Epic Games. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search on Newspapers.com returned info on a "Safari Software", but turns out it was another company, based in Wisconsin, unrelated to this one but happens to also have been founded in 1989. Digging deeper found nothing relating to this company. I am however happy to change my vote if others can find sources on this company. NemesisAT (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources either. In the RfD I was accused of not following the process, but I followed WP:BEFORE before changing the article WP:BOLDLY into a redirect. It feels WP:BURO to go through the AfD anyway... PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:20, 18 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 12:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Teeth (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Very poorly sourced article about a band that appears to have achieved nothing of note - the one source is an archive of a page on the band's website. There is a short AllMusic bio[55] but I can’t find the multiple, in-depth, reliable, independent sources needed to meet GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article badly needs to be cleaned up, but the band has been covered at least twice in the reliable Paste magazine: [56], [57]; plus respected city newspapers: [58], [59]; and several lesser-known but robust local publications: [60], [61]. That is enough for an introductory stub article, and the current state of the article does not reflect the band's coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in addition to the sources regarding the band above, there's at least one review of their second album [62] and several reviews of their third [63], [64], [65], [66]. They may not have been around long, but they certainly didn't go unnoticed by the music press. Richard3120 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Update page with sources presented here by doomsdayer520 and Richard3120 - 41.6.39.92 (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources mentioned above. /Julle (talk) 10:36, 22 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) 07:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Indian Army helicopter crash[edit]

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

Tragic but not notable accident. Military crashes are a very common occurence. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not noteworthy for a stand-alone article, military aircraft accidents are rarely of note and nothing about this one that passes the notability requirements for a stand-alone article. An entry in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–2019) would be sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete military aircraft regularly crash, nothing here to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event of national coverage also an army colonel was killed. The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LASTING. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again, while tragic, not lasting coverage, so does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 20 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) Dr. Universe (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volue[edit]

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

Advertisement of a non notable company recently deleted. Suspected WP:COI, Fails WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanKity: Can you clarify which parts of the article are not written from the neutral point of view? I've tried to include only cold facts based on independent sources, which were provided as references. In my opinion subject of the article is notable. Green energy transition is on the spotlight now in Europe and Volue company has been recognized by European Commission and Norwegian Government. Volue is listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange and I've seen many articles based only on this reason. Bartex9 (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking about beeing non notable. References to Volue can be found on many media platforms: Finansavisen (the Norwegian Financial Times), Montel or Adressa. Some of them are linked in the article. Bartex9 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article might have COI, but it doesn't read as a blatant advertisement imo. And sourcing is not great, but okay: Adresseavisen for example seems to have a longer news on them which sadly is behind a paywall. Others are reliable too, even though coverage isn't extensive in all. I'll assume good faith on the inaccessible sources and say that this should be kept, even though the maintenance tag should stick around. --LordPeterII (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's also this article, for example, (reasonably long, in the newspaper on 17 October 2020, page 21). Agree with LordPeterII above. /Julle (talk) 10:49, 22 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanine Brandt[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage that is independent of the title. fails WP:GNG Previously moved into draft by Lopifalko. DJRSD (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD tag removed by an IP editor less than 24 hours after after being posted, resulting in no deletion notice for six days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 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 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ECCO International Communications Network[edit]

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

This is possibly a hoax article. I cannot find any reliable source material that demonstrates that this organization exists.

This article was created by Klaus Bells, who has created articles that have been shown to be likely hoaxes Thriley (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems to get a few mentions in Google Books but not sure there is anything satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH there Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Vijayan[edit]

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

BLP of this businessman does not meet WP:NBIO- lots of coverage but it is mostly either in the context of the company Tekion, not independent or routine puff-pieces. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While I strongly agree that the page needs some improvement, the page easily passes notability for entrepreneurs and business executives. One can find the articles about the subject in reputable and reliable publications including The New Indian Express, The Economic Times, eGov.com, Business Standard, and even Forbes India. The subject is also notable for holding executive positions (like at tesla, VMWare, etc.) prior to founding Tekion company. Furthermore, the page is live on Wikipedia since 2016 and is continuously improved/worked upon by fellow editors. Adamsamuelwilson (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Former CIO of Tesla, founder of a billion-dollar company, and I think the sources are good enough, as Adamsamuelwilson mentions above. /Julle (talk) 10:40, 22 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 merge to Iraqi–Kurdish conflict. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two-state solution (Iraqi–Kurdish negotiations)[edit]

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

The article consists of mostly two paragraphs and there is nor ever was any independence negotiation going on. The term 'two-state solution' isn't even used by most sources. Even one of the sources which is The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End by Peter W. Galbraith doesn't mention any term like 80% solution.

The first para in the article is about the definition. The second is about Iraq's refusal to recognize any independence referendum by Iraqi Kurdistan in 2017 and invading areas under it's control. And fact is nearly all governments and Iraq doesn't want an independent Kurdistan. This article's content is irrelevant and can be just easily included in Kurdish nationalism instead. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sorry, but the deletion proposal is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because the topic clearly exists. The Two-State solution option for Iraq-Kurdistani issue is something openly promoted by Kurdistan regional government (most notably in 2000s and in 2017 via the referendum), and of course opposed by Iraqi Federal government, but that doesn't make this irrelevant or non-existent topic.GreyShark (dibra) 08:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. There is no negotiation, despite some people wanting Iraqi Kurdish independence. Most of all, nearly nobody uses the term "two-state solution" (which you used as a formal name) and Kurdish nationalism or Kurdish indepdence is far more used. The Kurdish nationalism and Iraqi-Kurdish conflict articles also cover the issue better than this article ever could despite the first one being about Kurdish nationalism in general. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if the article is significantly improved, merge into Kurdish nationalism or Iraqi–Kurdish conflict articles. Other than the Galbraith book, only a handful of other RS make brief reference to a two-state solution in Iraqi-Kurdistan and none that I can find refer to the ‘80% solution’. It isn’t clear why the article isn’t just call Iraqi-Kurdistan independence which would probably be an easier article to flesh out with many RS to call upon. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Iraqi-Kurdish conflict. Clearly something important enough to mention on wikipedia, but not to the point of requiring its own page, especially since I presume sourcing on this is scant. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Iraqi-Kurdish conflict, this doesn't need a separate article. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:52, 18 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) 05:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centers of power[edit]

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

A pointless list without any references and vague criteria for inclusion. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incredible that such a vague and useless list has existed since 2004. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worst geopolitics article I’ve seen since the now-deleted List of Regimes. Extremely broad and random, zero citations, bad title (should be “list of etc.”), only non-list content is a dictionary definition. Would need a mountain of WP:TNT at the absolute minimum. Dronebogus (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly unsourced, no proper WP:LISTCRITERIA, very possibly an improper WP:CONTENTFORK of something or other but so poorly described that it's difficult to tell. Frankly, it's embarrassing that we have this on Wikipedia and have had it for years. The concept itself may or may not be notable; WP:TNT applies regardless. TompaDompa (talk) 14:26, 18 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 as clear hoax. Giant Snowman 11:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1982–83 Athletic Gorna Oryahovitsa season[edit]

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

Non-existing season of the non-existing team in reality. Jolicnikola (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this would have been notable... if it were true. The fact that this hoax has lasted almost 10 years is extremely concerning. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filling Station In Ghana[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR, we are not a directory of all filling stations, or anything similar, in any country. Fram (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much at all to this article except WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I find it unlikely that this list even passes WP:NLIST (reliable sources don't seem to have discussed the list of filling stations in Ghana as a single entity), but WP:NOTDIR allows me to pretermit the question: such a list is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, full stop. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides WP:NOTDIR, just Gah! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else because really what is there to say about this, other than that the obvious typo in the article name implies this was made with zero effort whatsoever. Trying to expand Wikipedia’s coverage of developing nations is a noble cause, but creating poor-quality articles isn’t the way to do it. Dronebogus (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NOTDIR. Shankargb (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a directory.--Chuka Chief_talk 14:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list of companies that run gas stations in Ghana. Not really very useful. If it was what it purported to be, a listing of each gas station that exists in Ghana, I would argue individual gas stations are not notable. There is not a topic here that we need a list article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. And that title is just...bad. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:46, 21 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. If there are concerns about the title, a requested move is an option. RL0919 (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mashup (web application hybrid)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. This article is about a "computer industry jargon" or slang term and but does not provide sufficient evidence that it is actually used beyound a few blog posts (which are not relaible sources) and unreachable PDFs. If anything, the only supported statements demonstrates non-notability of this term ("the term 'mashup' is not formally defined by any standard-setting body") and attempts to promote this term ("over time, increasing maturity and standardization of mashup technology will likely make it more popular than portal technology"). Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep:

This term is well-known and exists in the dictionaries
If you don't like the jargon "mashup", you can call it "composite application" like French people fr:Application composite. The name doesn't really matter, what matters is this concept the article describes. Of course you live today where everything on the web is a mashup/composite application so you don't really care, but back then it was like a very new, very revolutionary thing, people might be like "Wow, how can you mix this and that together on a webpage?" So the concept has a pretty important role in Web 2.0 and in Internet history
Most references are reachable and look reliable
There are many ways to recover unreachable URLs. It's a technical issue. The URL is dead doesn't mean the source is unreliable or should be deleted. Please read WP:404
I don't think "Mashup" is a trademark that belongs to anyone, I don't see anyone could promote the term for their own benefit
Also please note that unreliable sources and potential promotional tone don't affect the general notability of the subject in question. Please use templates, or just go ahead to clean up the paragraphs, add more sources, fix dead links by adding Internet Archive links, instead of deleting the long article altogether
Mashup (digital), Mashup enabler was merged into this article (if you delete this article, you'd delete everything that was merged into the article too)
24 other language versions
618 pages link to this article (you'd break a lot of things if you delete this article)

--Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I think the current English article is a little confusing, the german version de:Mashup (Internet) is concise and worth reading, it has many examples and published books as sources. The French version fr:Application composite is also not bad. Those non-English versions could be used to improve the English article. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Tomchen1989. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is a well known term and it is in Merriam-Webster.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't about jargon – it's not a dictionary article – it's about the concept behind the name. See Tomchen1989 above about sources and potential for improvement. /Julle (talk) 10:33, 22 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) 05:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radical innovation[edit]

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

Appears to be a content fork from Innovation. As far as I can see, there is no coherent concept called "radical innovation", distinct from innovation, that extends beyond any single scholar. It's just a common collocation meaning more profound innovation. Also concerns about self-promotion.

Comment left on talkpage back in April; no one has responded. So going ahead with AFD. OsFish (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The two sources cited in the first paragraph contradict each other (either the concept is pretty much interchangeable with disruptive innovation, per Mary Pratt, or it's something quite different, per Daniel Newman) and the paragraph does nothing to reconcile them. Like the nom, I find no coherent concept here: this does not rise to the level of original research. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEO, appears to be an effort to increase use of a neologism term, which is what Wikipedia is not._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:54, 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Hae-Jin Lee[edit]

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

Unreliable sources, awards fail notability. GanyuGoat (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable cookbook writer. Eating Korean was reviewed in The New York Times and The LA Times, Quick and Easy Korean was a Gourmet selected cookbook (Christian Science Monitor), and Quick and Easy Mexican was reviewed in LA Weekly. A selection from Eating Korean was also included in Food & Wine's Best of the Best Vol. 9: The Best Recipes from the 25 Best Cookbooks of the Year. pburka (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I could not find anything on her photography, no exhibition reviews, and no mentions of the shows listed in the article (just looked for the museum shows); however once I started searching in relation to her cooking and cookbooks, her notability as a writer became evident with multiple reviews in several verifiable reliable sources. I added a review in Gourmet Magazine[67], and removed the junk citations to book sales sites, and will add the citations Pburka found in his research. Clear WP:GNG pass. Netherzone (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she seems to be a successful author, reviewed multiple times in multiple independent and reliable publications. Easily meets GNG, and meets NARTIST for the work as an author, albeit weakly. --- Possibly ☎ 18:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is a bit suspect. The nominator figured out how to AfD an article a mere two hours after their first edit. --- Possibly ☎ 18:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, it is odd, and they knew how to add maintenance tags and speedy tag to this article before the AfD. Perhaps they used to edit as an IP? Whatever... It is clear a BEFORE was not conducted prior to the nom. Netherzone (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The speedy nom was clearly inappropriate, but the user's other edits look reasonable, and this page is/was a bit of a mess. I'm assuming good faith. pburka (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also per WP:BASIC. I started with her website for clues, and found: Two Korean American chefs turn into entrepreneurs (The Korea Times, 2016, biographical, education, career information in addition to an interview), Experimental Korean Fare By a James Beard Nominee at this Low Key Swap Meet (LAEater, 2017, career development, award nomination), The Tortilla Takes a Road Trip to Korea (New York Times, 2010, brief mention with biographical information), How Food Shaped One Family’s Pursuit of the American Dream (America's Test Kitchen, 2020, a podcast styled as a memoir, based on a 2015 essay she wrote for Eater), Korea’s food identity crisis (Kansas Star, 2011, including a focus on her). Beccaynr (talk) 01:13, 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 keep. Consensus to keep, with acknowledgment that cleanup of the article is required. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geocast[edit]

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

"Geocast" is not a thing. It's a proposed idea, which has not been (and arguably could not be) implemented. The article, and the links to it from other pages, all appear to have been created by one person, and only reference a single very academic paper, which proposes it as a hypothetical neat idea. But it's a neat idea which was never fleshed out enough to be realizable. So I guess I'd place this at the intersection set of "not notable," "not verifiable," "patent nonsense," "neologism" and "original research." But it's definitely not a thing and the article (and all the links to it that were scattered around in other articles) are very misleading and use a lot of obfuscatory jargon, implying that it is a thing. This is very misleading, would lead the average reader to the misconclusion that there's a thing called "geocast" which exists in the world, and thus should not appear in an encyclopedia. Bill Woodcock (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they follow the same pattern... Same creator, interlinking internal references, only the one external reference which is a paper by the author of the pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An unimplemented idea can be notable, and if the references have gone through peer review, they probably establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I absolutely agree in principle, this was a single paper, twenty four years ago with one person's idea, which never sparked any follow-on, or discussion, or implementation, or commentary, until one person recently began plastering cookie-cutter reference to that one paper all over unrelated Wikipedia articles. So, if it was an idea that had been the genesis of work or discussion by others, absolutely, but it dropped without a ripple in 1997. And the bar for publishing academic papers is notoriously low. I'd probably be more sympathetic if the idea were implementable, but it's not. If it were, it would be valuable, but the same is true of perpetual motion, alchemy, cold fusion, etc., which is why I include WP:PN. Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject of quite a few academic papers, see Google scholar, and is discussed in multiple published books, some as recent as 2018. Seems to be a relatively established term/concept. The current state of the article is not to be taken into account when discussing deletion. It does pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Throast (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I pulled the trigger too quickly. You're right, that it appears to be a well-established term within the context of experimental vehicle-to-vehicle wireless networking, which I don't know anything about. All of the references to it were being jammed into Internet routing articles, where it's not applicable. So, maybe the only problem to be fixed is a clean-up of the article that clearly scopes it to vehicle-to-vehicle wireless networking, rather than "networking" writ large, and updates the citations? Bill Woodcock (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's the best solution. Throast (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Throast. The idea has seen some coverage in the books and papers. Article needs a little clean-up. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 18 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) 05:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sule Samuel[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG. No evidence of him passing NFOOTY found due lack of sources for his caps/goals. --BlameRuiner (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Living love ^talk 04:08, 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 redirect all to the respective municipality articles. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelio, San Jose[edit]

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

This article on a barangay in Dinagat Islands does not pass WP:GNG. There is no inheritance of notability for most of 40 K+ barangays in the Philippines. This had been a contested area of WikiProject Philippines (seen here), but recent consensus reinforces the de facto perspective in which barangays shall be notable only by case to case basis, especially through reliable sources.

All sources given here are unreliable (Google Maps, website that lists a school in the barangay, and same website that lists another school of the barangay. If link is desired, it is recommended to just redirect this to San Jose, Dinagat Islands#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages under Category:Barangays of Dinagat Islands for the same reasons as above:

1) Barangays of Basilisa

Edera, Basilisa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - sole purpose of the article is to talk about its school, using this listing site as the only reference*

2) of Cagdianao

Boa, Cagdianao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - sole purpose is to talk about its school, again using the listing site as the source*
Cabunga-an, Cagdianao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Del Pilar, Cagdianao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Laguna, Cagdianao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Legaspi, Cagdianao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto* (plus a "place of interest" section which is directory-like, best sent to Wikivoyage instead
Ma-atas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Mabini, Cagdianao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Nueva Estrella, Cagdianao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto* (plus a section that is also on the verge of WP:NOTDIRECTORY)
R. Ecleo, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*, with matching notices on top regarding notability
Santa Rita, Cagdianao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tigbao, Cagdianao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Valencia, Cagdianao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*

3) of Libjo

Magsaysay, Libjo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*, plus a section that violates WP:NOTGALLERY. Sole purpose, I suspect, is to promote their locality. Thus must be at Wikivoyage and not on Wikipedia!

4) of San Jose, Dinagat Islands

Cuarinta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - has history section but unsourced
Don Ruben Ecleo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jacquez, San Jose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Justiniana Edera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Luna, San Jose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Mahayahay, San Jose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Matingbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
San Jose, San Jose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
San Juan, San Jose, Dinagat Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*, plus a mention on the heading section on its landmarks (leaning to Wikivoyage standards)
Santa Cruz, San Jose, Dinagat Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wilson, San Jose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*

5) of Tubajon

Diaz, Tubajon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Imelda, Tubajon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Mabini, Tubajon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Malinao, Tubajon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Navarro, Tubajon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Roxas, Tubajon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
San Roque, Tubajon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
San Vicente, Tubajon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto*
Santa Cruz, Tubajon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments added by me JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poll and discussion[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to their respective municipalities which have lists of barangays. Such articles to list a school in the neighborhood are not necessary, though no prejudice against recreation if there is substantive coverage about the barangays themselves. Reywas92^Talk 14:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is the best conclusion. All of these pages are extremely unnecessary. RPC7778 (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as per nom and comments above. Notability must be demonstrated, not inherited. WP:GEOLAND does not guarantee a settlement's notability. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to their respective municipalities which at least have references. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:04, 20 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 03:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

State network[edit]

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

I rarely bring articles to AfD with as much scorn as the one presented here. It is a definitionally imprecise, source-bare piece of mush that has no place on the encyclopedia. In 1,085 words, it struggles to say what could be said more concisely in one sentence—without an article—and provides poor-quality examples, conflating educational and commercial statewide television services and sometimes considering a "state network" to cover a part of a state, which is an untenable definition. The topic term itself is something of a neologism, being mostly used in the names of entities in television and radio and not as a topic of study itself. Sure, there are statewide public television networks in a variety of US states, but this article is among our worst in broadcasting. It has no place here. It should be deleted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incoherent WP:OR; WP:SYNTH of different TV stations' histories without a sensible unification except "it serves a sizable chunk of the US"; and I suspect, but can't confirm, that it fails WP:NEO. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this is WP:NEO, and not actually a thing. Bill Woodcock (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You could condense the article to one word—network. It's a article that has no direction, no place for being, and little relevance in the industry at large. — Nathan Obral | he/him • t • c | 06:06, 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 redirect to Los Payasos de la Tele. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Aragón[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. My WP:BEFORE search could only find content on a Peruvian singer of the same name. Additionally, the sources themselves give different names, one Gabriel Aragón Bermúdez and the other Gabriel Aragón Gómez, making me question if there is some sort of confusion between two different men in the sourcing of the article. The lead mentions the saxophone but then the infobox mentions singer (perhaps confusion with the singer from Peru?). It's a bit of a mess, and it's difficult to verify its authenticity as a subject. Admittedly foreign language references may exist outside my expertise in locating. 4meter4 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Los Payasos de la Tele, of which he was a member. This article may have been created by someone with fond childhood memories of a classic TV show, but they were unable to find useful sources. Since most of the article is about his clown career (with possible confusion with another singer, as noted by the nominator), we can assume the clown team is the point of reference. Unless Señor Aragón received coverage in old books or magazines for individual activities, I see little reason for him to have his own WP article outside of the group. Memories of their team TV show are easier to find in Spanish language sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input from additional users.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep - Interesting article. If more sources can be provided, then this page should be kept as he does seems like a notable person. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject can shed some light? Kevin19781 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid vote when using if as a rationale. There are either sources or there are not. Interesting is also not a criterion for keeping an article. See Sections 1.5 and 2.4 at WP:ATA. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Los Payasos de la Tele. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:45, 18 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) 06:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solano NewsNet[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ article on a Non notable “digital news startup” that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated in my prod, Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Not seeing GNG passing sources in my WP:BEFORE search. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their status as a new digital news startup does not mean they are unreliable or non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMediaHistorian (talk • contribs)

It doesn't mean they are notable either, so could you perhaps enlighten the discussion by stating why they are, in your view? Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Challex D Boss[edit]

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

Non notable musician who fails to satisfy and criterion from WP:SINGER and in general, lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources used in the article are unreliable as they are predominantly blog sources. A before search shows nothing concrete. The award they claim to have won is an unreliable pay-for-award and worse, is substantiated by a blog source. Celestina007 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another inept attempt by an unknown Nigerian newcomer's agent to plaster blogs and gossip sites with promo announcements and then use those as "sources" for a Wikipedia article. But I must admit that this one gets a little creative with "attained the spotlight" and "another level". He has not achieved the reliable and significant coverage that is necessary here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SINGER --Kevin19781 (talk) 00:46, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pelagia Kwashirai[edit]

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

Non notable “music promoter” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing concrete. Celestina007 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject hasn’t gained in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources, might just be WP:TOOSOON. -Xclusivzik (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. --Kevin19781 (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and promotional.--Chuka Chief_talk 14:40, 21 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. Withdrawn after puffery/promotion removed (non-admin closure) dudhhr_Contribs 19:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IraQueer[edit]

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

Fails NORG and does not cite any reliable sources. Probably COI dudhhr_Contribs 20:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 20:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 20:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 20:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of the article is HelloIraQueer. Definitely COI editing dudhhr_Contribs 21:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but COI (conflict of interest) editing is no WP:DEL-REASON. Deletion is no substitute for cleanup. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 02:13, 12 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, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with in depth discussion in Washington Post Columbia U News, The Independent ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 09:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just had a closer look at the article and removed the WP:PUFFERY. I also heavily copyedited (grammar, wordiness, title case -> lower case), and added two reliable sources (The Independent and Washington Post), and also Gay Times (not sure if they qualify as RS). ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 02:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sigcov in both WaPo and The Independent. Easily passes WP:GNG. Mlb96 (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources on page show notability. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:19, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Benson[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, nor is it bestowed by marriage to a notable subject. Ezra Taft Benson is notable for several reasons, but his wife Flora is not. Most of the sources on the page are publications of the LDS Church. The subject was married to an apostle and ultimately the president of the church, so the sources are not independent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ezra Taft Benson (a "personal life" section can be added), noteworthy as the spouse of a notable subject, but not independently notable. BD2412 T 01:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Not independently notable and the main source is written in relation to the president, not in its own context. scope_creep^Talk 07:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The death of Flora Benson lead to this [68] staff written obituary in a major metropolitan newspaper. This [69] entry in a newspaper in a different area. Her death was clear deemed notable, she was clearly seen as notable. The reasons why she was notable are immaterial, her own life and its ending was deemed notable so we should have the article. The Moramona source was publihed more than a decade after her death, and to imply that a scholarly center is not a reliable source just because of who the owner of the university it is published out of is very insulting, especially since this center is the leading academic publisher related to the history of the Pacific Islands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Desert source identified by JPL above looks good, although the Orlando Sentinel piece is rather brief. Two page obit in Salt Lake Tribune, decent coverage in a 1955 Kansas City Star piece. Yes, a lot of the coverage is from the church her husband served as president of or is primarily about her husband, but I think there's enough her for notability. Hog Farm _Talk 22:25, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breeze Song Gao[edit]

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

asssuming the Chinese references document what they are being used for, they don't show anything that amounts to notability. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is the relevant rule here.

There's been considerable discussion whether the cutoff for shopping malls should be 50,000 sq m , or 100,000--but this is 13,000. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could possibly be merged to Breeze Center. Over at zh.wikipedia, there's a single article covering all the branches of this chain. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are the sources Heeheemalu (talk · contribs) included in the article:
1. "(Chinese)微風松高開幕估首日1500萬元". Taiwan News.
2. "(Chinese)微風松高開幕　出動86名模特兒". Apple Daily News.
3. "(Chinese)微風松高進駐信義區　吸客漩渦打造共榮圈". www.cardu.com.tw.
4. "(Chinese)藏壽司微風松高店11月26號開幕". www.tw-tw.com.tw.
These sources provide significant coverage of the shopping mail's origins and its tenants and amenities. In addition, this article from the Vogue and this article from Hong Kong Economic Times Holdings's U Lifestyle discuss the mall. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Breeze Song Gao to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breeze Center is about a shopping center in Songshan District, Taipei, Taiwan, while Breeze Song Gao is about a shopping mall in Xinyi District, Taipei, Taiwan. They likely are part of the same chain. I don't think Breeze Song Gao can be merged to Breeze Center without there being undue weight issues. I would be fine with a merge to a single article covering all branches of the chain but as a chain article does not currently exist, I support retention over deletion since the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into single article. Does not warrant new article for every branch of the chain. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merging on that basis seems a good idea, We cab rename the chain article appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 11:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, already appears to be a good level of sourcing. I disagree with the merge proposal as I believe this article is notable on its own. NemesisAT (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this article was nominated for deletion only a few hours after creation. Per WP:BEFORE, I think there should have been more time given to allow the article to grow without the fear of people's work being deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should not publish articles before they are ready for the mainspace. No editor has an obligation to 'wait and see', and when articles are not flagged initially they are often never flagged at all, and we end up with countless unsuitable articles. As for appearing to have a "good level of sourcing" - four of the five sources are routine stories re the opening of a new mall, the fifth is apparently about a department store going bankrupt. The coverage is just routine news about a new mall opening, and as noted in the nom, there is a consensus that malls of this size are generally not notable. Performing a headcount of sources is not always enough to determine notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Breeze Center and make a chain article per everyone else. Cunard's note about keeping the article until a chain article is made can be fulfilled with a merge AfD result, because that only creates a tag asking someone to do the merge. Perhaps add a note that the merger should only merge if they are willing to make the chain article. Jumpytoo Talk 20:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a third time to encourage more input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 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 no consensus. Clearly enough WP:SIGCOV, but people are split on whether they focus primarily on the organization or there is enough content on her alone. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Pender[edit]

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

I am concerned that this is a biography of a low profile individual, who has not sought out publicity. We must take care and ensure sensitivity and privacy concerns are thought about when writing BLPs. Sure, if my kids got the best A-level marks and qualified to go to Oxbridge, and got a note in the local paper, I'd feel pretty chuffed - but it doesn't mean I'd want an encyclopedia article about them.

The article would sit better as part of 93% Club, which could do with some expansion (less than 2K prose), but it would be useful to gauge consensus on whether Pender should be a search term too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pender is not low profile, she's already been reported in four different national news media (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, BBC) as well as local newspapers. The initial redirect which effectively deleted page (without discussion) suggested that Pender was notable for only one event WP:BLP1E . This is not the case, the organisation she founded now has 45 clubs nationally and is tackling an important issue. This is not about whether her parents (or even Sophie herself) want a wikipedia biography but about whether she is notable, which she clearly is. @Ritchie333: @Jesswade88:

Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 93% Club. She is the founder of a marginally notable charity. Apart from some local coverage of her at school, she is a WP:BLP1E case. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, and one day she will be more widely notable. Anything significant about her can be added to 93% Club. Edwardx (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the organisation she founded now has 45 clubs nationally and is tackling an important issue" Yes, I know, I rescued that article, 93% Club from deletion myself. That doesn't answer the question "do we need two articles basically saying the same thing?" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An organisation and its founder are clearly not the same thing, taking that argument to its logical conclusion would mean we'd merge Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia. Founders are as notable as the organisations they found. I can't help thinking that if she was a man we might not be having this discussion Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find that accusation offensive. I have not mentioned the subject's gender anywhere in this debate, and I have rescued a lot of articles about women from deletion over the years. To expand on the Jimbo / Wikipedia analogy, if Pender starts appearing on Question Time arguing about the rights of state-educated children for equal opportunities in employment (against, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg), then that would be a good time to have a standalone article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont)

Sorry @Ritchie333:, I didn't mean to offend. I've had many similar discussions when creating articles about women, for example Gayle Laakmann McDowell. I've created hundreds of new biographies over the years and it's always the women (never the men) who get deleted or have their articles shrunk significantly. If there's a strong case for deletion of Sophie Pender, I'll endeavour to listen to all the arguments without prejudice or unconcious bias Duncan.Hull (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is not a low profile figure; she actually seems to be a prominent public speaker. There's a clear claim to fame, continuing coverage and plenty of sources, passing WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Duncan Hull; profiles in BBC News and The Guardian meet WP:GNG. That's not "a note in the local paper". --GRuban (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GRuban, I don't think you understand the reason I started this debate. Principally, it's because the sources you mention are used to write content in an existing article, and the remaining information that cannot be kept in the existing article, 93% Club, there is very little left. So I am concerned about having two "eh" articles against one decent one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 93% Club. While Guardian and BBC are, indeed, not local papers, the coverage in them is mostly about the organization, not her. The BBC article is also mostly WP:INTERVIEW. Overall I don't think there is enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant keeping an article about her, but she may become notable in the future (WP:TOOSOON?). I recommend SOFTDELETE by redirecting it without deletion to the 93% Club. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 93% Club, her background can be expanded on in that article. This article feels a bit premature, as most sources focus on the club instead of the person. While this is a borderline case, I think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to biographies and redirect. 15 (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Clearly not a low profile individual and the rationale that we'd be "protecting" an adult by deleting her biography feels paternalistic. If the subject requested deletion herself I might consider it, but this ain't that. Using Google News, I could find only one news items about the 93% Club that doesn't mention Pender. pburka (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 93% Club as the sources focus on the club rather than her as an individual, so there is no need for a separate article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the organization per above. The WP:SIGCOV is of the org not the person. As a general rule, WP should never be the first place to write a biography of a person. The sigcov for a WP bio needs to be other bios, not just some coverage of a person in an article about something else. Levivich 14:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SIGCOV from the BBC and The Guardian. There is ample coverage of Sophie as well as the organisation. Being quoted and covered in such major publications means she is not low profile, IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as she has received significant coverage in two major publications.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently fairly split between Keep/Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article has significant coverage from the major media and reliable source to justify keeping. It also probably satisfies WP:THREE and more. VocalIndia (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Can attest from AfC that irrespective of gender, it’s common to tell org leaders that if they are only known for work with that org, it’s a fairly high bar to merit a content fork from it. Speaking of Dear Leader, Jimbo just acknowledged this issue the other day. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:53, 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 redirect to Beef (film)#Legacy. Daniel (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beef III[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, possibly a redirection or a merge to a series article would be appropriate, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beef (film)#Legacy, I could find no reliable reviews of this. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:12, 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.